Ruger, I was being sarcastic with the police analogy. Cops went to semi auto's because the criminals were carrying them and 16 rounds are better than 6. I'd rather have 8 rounds and only need 1 then have 3 rounds and need 4. Since it's a long gun that doesn't get carried, I'll take all I can get. My carry gun is a 5 shot J frame, because it's so easy to carry. My high capacity semi auto's hardly get any belt time, because nothing is as easy as putting that J frame in my pocket. A 3 shot semi-auto is no smaller than a 8 shot pump, so I'll take the pump. Will I ever need 8 shots? I highly doubt I'll need 1.
Quest for NYC shotgun comes to an end ?
- Thread starter miscusi
- Start date
Glockamolie
New member
This may or may not be relevant, but here goes: I have a Maverick 88 I bought about 15 years ago. The newer ones are a bit better (I think), but I'd pony up the cash for the 870. I know that my well-used and a little abused Maverick is worth less than a box of shells, so it rides in my trunk. My preferred shotgun is in the house. Now 15 years later, I know I used that extra $100 or whatever on something I'm sure I needed at the time, but I don't know what that is - yet I still have the Maverick. Know what I mean?
To me it depends on how much you intend on shooting the weapon and how much you are willing to spend. If money is a problem, and you won't shoot more than 25 rounds a month...the 88 is decent. If you will be shooting a lot, and you plan on beating the crap out of it...the 870 is a better gun.
The Maverick is known to have the safety screw come loose, button falls off and detent ball is lost. The ejector screw is also known to back out of the alloy frame...LOCTITE! Maverick also uses a plastic trigger housing assy that is held in place with one pin. I have seen the entire assy wear out and need replaced...dosent happen often.
The 870 is rock solid with its trigger housing being metal along with a steel frame and safety button located behind the trigger. I'd go with Big Green.
BTW, I was in Benning from 1992-1994 and was also Airborne qualified. Anyone that has ever landed in a C-130 or C-141 more than once would know your almost better off jumping.
The Maverick is known to have the safety screw come loose, button falls off and detent ball is lost. The ejector screw is also known to back out of the alloy frame...LOCTITE! Maverick also uses a plastic trigger housing assy that is held in place with one pin. I have seen the entire assy wear out and need replaced...dosent happen often.
The 870 is rock solid with its trigger housing being metal along with a steel frame and safety button located behind the trigger. I'd go with Big Green.
BTW, I was in Benning from 1992-1994 and was also Airborne qualified. Anyone that has ever landed in a C-130 or C-141 more than once would know your almost better off jumping.
I shot one of those at a trap field a while back. It was a rental. It worked. Kinda felt loose though. Every thing jiggled a bit. Thats Mossbergs cheap gun isn't it?
Maybe a Mossberg 500 would be better. I like to stay away from the bottom line in guns.
Or you want tactical.... look at Mossberg 590. That should do ya.
Maybe a Mossberg 500 would be better. I like to stay away from the bottom line in guns.
Or you want tactical.... look at Mossberg 590. That should do ya.
Mossbergs
Mossbergs are fine beginners guns, they are cheap, and generally work. I see alot of kids getting Mossberg 500s. Later on, when they grow up, they buy Remingtons.
Then they sell beat up Mossbergs and get $100 if they are lucky. Or, mostly just stick 'em in a closet somewhere, as they don't move real well on the used market, at least, around here.
Mossbergs are fine beginners guns, they are cheap, and generally work. I see alot of kids getting Mossberg 500s. Later on, when they grow up, they buy Remingtons.
Then they sell beat up Mossbergs and get $100 if they are lucky. Or, mostly just stick 'em in a closet somewhere, as they don't move real well on the used market, at least, around here.
Sorry we're not as trained as you are, Ruger. For what it's worth, my 20 years carrying a Remington 870 makes me qualified to talk about shotguns. Why do you care what someone else wants to have in there home for home defense? As long as they train with it to become comfortable with it, it's fine by me.
Homerboy: If you are a retired LEO, you have my gratitude also. I know what it is like being one. My point is simply, you must have had some Court time in SD situations at some time in your 20 year career. What is the Prosecuter going to do with a person in Court with a tricked out shotgun, black, pistol grips, sidesaddles etc.. He is going to make mince meat out of the guy defending himself and convince a Jury he is nothing but a guy hoping to have someone break in to his Castle just so he can shoot at him. A Jury will be a lot more sympathetic with the guy having just a standard model shotgun that they might even have, over the, and I hate to use the term again.. Rambo mentality and gun..Personally, I really don't care if you have a Big 50 for SD. I just think some of the people that think it is gonna fly in Court would open up their eyes and maybe actually look into some public records concerning SD events. Read some transcripts, see what is the law and not some TV show's idea of the lawand the Legal system. Hell on TV the bullets even spark hitting dirt. My rant is over, I wish all of you that think a Court is going to look at your guns with a forgiving eye,, hell who knows, they might,,, then again,, maybe not
Maybe, maybe not. If you have a reasonable explanation for every modification made, it shouldn't matter one bit. It could easily lead to the jury being educated about the issue of self-defense and why you put a light, side saddle etc. on the weapon.
If you can't reasonably articulate everything involved in a shooting, then you're screwed whether you're "Rambo" with a custom autoloading shotgun or Barney Fife with a .38 and a single bullet.
Your weapon choice won't keep you out of prsion; your ability to get and keep the trier of fact on your side will.
Mesa Tactical
New member
If you can find a single example where the configuration of the weapon was used against a defendent in a home defense case, you will have performed quite a useful public service. Folks on rec.guns and various gun forums have been searching for such a precedent-setting case for at least five years, probably longer.
The only differerence between a bargain barrel maverick and mossberg 500 is the way the internal configurations are and the quality of the parts.
A maverick good gun but wouldnt stand up to a whole lot of abuse.
A mossberg 500 excellent gun cheap but still wouldnt take alot of punishment due to the plastic trigger assembly and plastic peices in the gun.
A Mossberg 590 is a whole different story it has quality metal peices inside as well as outside it still uses an aluminum body but the only thing different from a metal one is that its lighter.
A mossberg 590-a1 what the military uses has a heavier barrel and tougher finish then the 590 and since the barrel is thicker you cant put a heat sheild on it.
Remington 870 Express quality gun in same league as the mossberg 500 only real difference is the 2 dimples at the end of the magazine tube which wont allow you to add a mag extension unless you push them out or grind them down.
Remington 870 police magnum used by 95% of LEA pretty much the same as the 590a-1 other than the receiver was cut out of a sold bar stock of steel has a heavy barrel and is parkerized so it stands up to abuse and doesn thave dimples in the mag tube so you just haft to screw on the mag extension. Also the 870p comes in 18" barrel and the a1 only comes with a 20"
The only real difference between the 590a-1 and the 870p is where the saftey's are located,Mossberg on the top and the remington in the back of the trigger- and what the recievers are made of Remington steel , Mossberg aluminum.
Along the line of accesories I dont know your local laws but here in the free states were allowed to put on mag extensions and folding stocks which are impossible to attach on a maverick but on the rest the accesories are limitless.
A maverick good gun but wouldnt stand up to a whole lot of abuse.
A mossberg 500 excellent gun cheap but still wouldnt take alot of punishment due to the plastic trigger assembly and plastic peices in the gun.
A Mossberg 590 is a whole different story it has quality metal peices inside as well as outside it still uses an aluminum body but the only thing different from a metal one is that its lighter.
A mossberg 590-a1 what the military uses has a heavier barrel and tougher finish then the 590 and since the barrel is thicker you cant put a heat sheild on it.
Remington 870 Express quality gun in same league as the mossberg 500 only real difference is the 2 dimples at the end of the magazine tube which wont allow you to add a mag extension unless you push them out or grind them down.
Remington 870 police magnum used by 95% of LEA pretty much the same as the 590a-1 other than the receiver was cut out of a sold bar stock of steel has a heavy barrel and is parkerized so it stands up to abuse and doesn thave dimples in the mag tube so you just haft to screw on the mag extension. Also the 870p comes in 18" barrel and the a1 only comes with a 20"
The only real difference between the 590a-1 and the 870p is where the saftey's are located,Mossberg on the top and the remington in the back of the trigger- and what the recievers are made of Remington steel , Mossberg aluminum.
Along the line of accesories I dont know your local laws but here in the free states were allowed to put on mag extensions and folding stocks which are impossible to attach on a maverick but on the rest the accesories are limitless.
Last edited:
No offense taken, Ruger. I can honestly say I have never seen a prosecutor use the weapon's configuration in their case, unless the weapon was modified illegally. Putting on a sidesaddle or pistol grip is quite legal, and even if a lawyer tried to use it, the judge would rule it not relevant and have it stricken from the record.
Of course, we all know that lawyers are scum and will try every trick in the book to win their case, and even when a judge says to disregard something, you can't go into a juror's mind and erase it.
Bottom line is that if I ever shoot someone (God forbid), as long as my weapon is legal and I act withing the confines of the law, I feel confident I'll beat the case, if the DA even bothers to bring one.
This whole thread reminds me of my liberal sister in law. She sees my AR-15 one day when she was over when I opened up the safe to get something else in there. She goes 'Oh my God, why do you have that assault weapon?" I ask her why she thinks it is, and she reply's "Just look at it".
Then I show her the wood Mini-14 I had borrowed from my friend because I was toying with the idea of buying one, and ask her what she thinks about this one. She says" Now that one is OK". I tell her it fires the same bullet and has 30 round mags just like the AR, and she says "yeah, but that one looks meaner".
Typical ignorant anti-gun response.
Of course, we all know that lawyers are scum and will try every trick in the book to win their case, and even when a judge says to disregard something, you can't go into a juror's mind and erase it.
Bottom line is that if I ever shoot someone (God forbid), as long as my weapon is legal and I act withing the confines of the law, I feel confident I'll beat the case, if the DA even bothers to bring one.
This whole thread reminds me of my liberal sister in law. She sees my AR-15 one day when she was over when I opened up the safe to get something else in there. She goes 'Oh my God, why do you have that assault weapon?" I ask her why she thinks it is, and she reply's "Just look at it".
Then I show her the wood Mini-14 I had borrowed from my friend because I was toying with the idea of buying one, and ask her what she thinks about this one. She says" Now that one is OK". I tell her it fires the same bullet and has 30 round mags just like the AR, and she says "yeah, but that one looks meaner".
Typical ignorant anti-gun response.
I've owned both Remingtons (870 Express, and 870 Police Magnum) and Mossbergs (500, 590 Mariner and Mav 88). There was a three year period when I was heavily into shotguns after I turned 18 and before I turned 21, because they were among the only guns I could buy myself and use at the indoor range. I've never had a problem with any of them except the 870 Police Magnum, which was a well worn police trade in when I picked it up. I suppose if you wanted your shotgun to double as a hammer and pry bar there might be a difference in durability, but I never had a shotgun break from normal use.
I admittedly don't shoot shotguns much anymore, and the only one I keep around is the Maverick. Mine is nothing but reliable, and I doubt that someone who breaks into my home will know the difference between being shot by it or shot by a Remington 870 that costs $140 more.
I admittedly don't shoot shotguns much anymore, and the only one I keep around is the Maverick. Mine is nothing but reliable, and I doubt that someone who breaks into my home will know the difference between being shot by it or shot by a Remington 870 that costs $140 more.
guntotin_fool
New member
I prefer the Remington. I do not care for the way Mossberg/mavericks have the action bars attached to the ring that the forearm rides on. I have seen too many fail. I have seen a few remington ejectors fail. not too often but they do come off the rivet or snap from time to time.
About the shoots, Sheriff, you are in NY, you operate under a different set of rules than do a lot of us. My State is Minnesota. I live in one of the most liberally tilted social environments around. But here, If a home owner gets a clean shoot. It is a clean shoot. We had a Homeowner get a Felon a few years ago in his family room with a M1A, not exactly a hunters special, no billed as a Felon was in the wrong house. Local attitudes here are If a store owner or a homeowner can clean the gene pool, we are proud of them.
I was asking about this a while ago while playing golf with a asst CA. He said he could not remember the last time they tried a civilian who was clean with a wrongful shooting/homicide case. This is ruling out of course the four time convicted dope peddler who claims self defense when he pops a guy at his front door with a gun. But Joe Blow, waking up and finding a BG in his house or breaking in, or Habib the convience store clerk popping a armed robber, not one case he could remember.
Remember there is way more to the country than what is between the Erie canal and Atlantic.
About the shoots, Sheriff, you are in NY, you operate under a different set of rules than do a lot of us. My State is Minnesota. I live in one of the most liberally tilted social environments around. But here, If a home owner gets a clean shoot. It is a clean shoot. We had a Homeowner get a Felon a few years ago in his family room with a M1A, not exactly a hunters special, no billed as a Felon was in the wrong house. Local attitudes here are If a store owner or a homeowner can clean the gene pool, we are proud of them.
I was asking about this a while ago while playing golf with a asst CA. He said he could not remember the last time they tried a civilian who was clean with a wrongful shooting/homicide case. This is ruling out of course the four time convicted dope peddler who claims self defense when he pops a guy at his front door with a gun. But Joe Blow, waking up and finding a BG in his house or breaking in, or Habib the convience store clerk popping a armed robber, not one case he could remember.
Remember there is way more to the country than what is between the Erie canal and Atlantic.
I know the "rules" in NY are different than a lot of the country. I just have learned that you can't second guess what a Jury will do. A lot of it has to do with "their" perceived opinions and thinking. A judge can give his instructions to a jury, but the bottom line is, what is in their mind, what do they perceive, are they pro gun or anti gun. Remember it is made up of just us ordinary citizens. You might just get a very "anti gun" Jury or a "pro gun" Jury. It is pretty much the luck of the draw. The Lawyers have just so many challenges and can dismiss just so many Jurors. After that, well it all rests on the ones left.
Personally, I don't care what anybody uses for HD. And being prepared makes sense. My admonission is to simply weigh the possible consequenses of a tricked out gun , no matter how legal the accessories are, as opposed to an everyday hunting gun. There are those that will argue this forever, and I suspect none that argue have ever been in the situation. So,, pick the road you want to go down and hope you are right. It makes no difference to me, I just have seen first hand what Juries do on occasion. It is enough to scare me.
Personally, I don't care what anybody uses for HD. And being prepared makes sense. My admonission is to simply weigh the possible consequenses of a tricked out gun , no matter how legal the accessories are, as opposed to an everyday hunting gun. There are those that will argue this forever, and I suspect none that argue have ever been in the situation. So,, pick the road you want to go down and hope you are right. It makes no difference to me, I just have seen first hand what Juries do on occasion. It is enough to scare me.
This argument again?
If the gun is used legally then it does not matter what the gun looks like because there will be no jury.
If its not used legally then it may matter some what, but what matters more is some one was stupid and shot some one illegally and thus they are not being railroaded by a jury because of what the gun looks like. They are there because they broke the law.
If the gun is used legally then it does not matter what the gun looks like because there will be no jury. If its not used legally then it may matter some what, but what matters more is some one was stupid and shot some one illegally and thus they are not being railroaded by a jury because of what the gun looks like. They are there because they broke the law.