im in need of a rifled slug gun and ive narrowed it down to these two choices. the mossberg is drilled and tapped for a scope while the remington needs one of those cantilever scope mounts. if i intend to mount a scope, does the mossberg offer an advantage over the remington because the scope is actually mounted directly to the gun, as opposed to the cantilever platform on the remington? im leaning towards the mossberg, especially b/c i can get it for about $75 cheaper than the remington.
Because the connection between the barrel and receiver of any take-down shotgun is not rigid, you are always going to get better accuracy with a cantilever mount. On a cantilever, the scope is perminantly oriented to the barrel. Otherwise, every time you take it apart, and put it back together, or even pump the gun, the barrel is likely to shift position slightly, in relation to the receiver.
I don't know anything about mounting a scope on shotguns.LuckilyI can use rifles where I hunt.About Mossberg vs Remington no comparison as far as I'm concerned.Remington 870 all the way.It's a much better shotgun.Some like the Mossbergs.I've had a 870 for many years and never has the slightest problem with it.Actually I have a couple 870's. 1 12gs. and 1-20ga.If it were me I'd spend the extra money and go with the Remington.I'm sure you would be allot happier in the long run with a 870.
Ruger Redhawk
__________________
**** NRA Patron Life Member ****
yeah... I would say go with the mossberg... The cantilever mount is going to run you around 45 bucks, so that is another additional cost you will incur. I have both a Mossberg 500 and a Rem 870... Bothe are very comparable. Mossberg might not have the name recognition but compares well with the Remington. I don't particularly like a pump slug gun though (mine is used for turkey). My Mossberg patterns a little better than the 870 plus it is full Camo, not just the stock, so I use that when I go out for my turkey.
My slug gun is an H&R single shot slug gun... It is a 12 gauge barrel that has been bored to a 20-gauge, it is like having a bull barrel slug gun... I would take that over any of my other slug guns I have seen... Forget the cheap price tag, it is one helluva gun... It would smoke both my 870 and 500 in terms of accuracy. You might want to check one out... I think most people whom have one have similar experiences to mine.
Not saying either one is better, because between my friends and I we have both and both have held up for years. Just to point out though, my 870 super mag has a scope on it but not a cantilever. I got a saddle type mount from Leupold that if you remove the screws in the reciever, it "saddles" over top (connecting on both sides, not just one) with screw supplied with the mount. It is very handy because I can switch barrels from my rifled slug barrel for deer, to my 26" Rem choke for Turkey and retain my scope on the gun for both animals. I think this is very handy. Just trying to show you another way of doing it.
You will be able to leave the scope on the 500 when you switch barrels as well, since the mount is on the receiver, not the barrel... Just like with the cantilever or what mossy33 was describing.
Both the 500 and the 870 is drilled and tapped for a scope mount on the receiver.
Both the 500 and the 870 are available with or with out the cantilever scope base.
They both use the same type of locking engagement. The Remingtons bolt locks into the receiver and the Mossbergs bolt locks into the barrel.
The Remington uses only one extractor where as the Mossberg uses two extractors.
The remington is available in black synthetic. The Mossberg is available in wood, synthetic, or Mossy Oak break up.
You can get 3.5" magnum versions from either company.
The Remington is generally a little bit smoother.
Either one will provide you with a life time of service provided you take care of it.
To be honest I'd just flip a coin and stick with it.
Just wanted to add that which ever one you choose I would definetly go with the cantilever mounting system. It is much better to have the scope mounted to the barrel than to the receiver on a shot gun or any "rifle" that has an interchangeable barrel.
__________________
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency........... Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."
Just wanted to add that which ever one you choose I would definetly go with the cantilever mounting system. It is much better to have the scope mounted to the barrel than to the receiver on a shot gun or any "rifle" that has an interchangeable barrel
Why is it better to have a cantilever mount on the barrel? I would argue the opposite, if the mount is on the barrel and you switch the barrel out you will lose the mount. My Mossy 500 is drilled and tapped and I have no problems. My 870 has a cantilever mount and every year takes a little tuning to get it back into form. My cantilever mount is off of the receiver though... Are shotguns that much different than ML or rifles? They of course are drilled and tapped?
Cantilever mounts, like the ones pictured in the above post, or any mounts on the barrel, are inherently more accurate than receiver mounted scopes. This is a fact, not an opinion. You may own a gun that shoots great with a receiver mounted scope, but most will not shoot as well as most cantilever set-ups.
Pump shotgun barrels are not rigidly mated to the receiver and they can wander a bit from shot to shot. With a cantilever mount, if the barrel wants to wander, the scope wanders right along with it and accuracy is preserved.
Why is it better to have a cantilever mount on the barrel?
Because the barrel is not rigidly attached to the receiver like it is in a bolt action.
The shell is chambered inside the barrel and the bullet travels down the barrel not the receiver.
It is, 99% of the time, benneficial, accuracy wise, to mount the scope to the barrel in guns with removeable barrels.
If you were to never remove the barrel from the receiver then either one would be just fine. But in order to take a shot gun apart and clean it well you must remove the barrel.
Another reason is that should this become a dual purpose gun (slug gun and bird gun) the scope does not have to be removed and resighted every time he switches from deer to birds. The scope stays firmly attached to the slug barrel thus holding its zero pretty well. At most he would have to take a couple of verifying shots and a click or two. Versus remounting the scope and resighting every single time he changed.
__________________
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency........... Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."
mossberg 500 vs. remington 870
