Posted on 07/12/2009 2:40:59 PM PDT by Brother Cracker
Be interested to know how you made the modification as well.
The elevator tang is too short for the Aguila Mini-Shells. Since the Mini’s don’t have any sort of wadding, they are much shorter than regular 12 shells.
Since they’re shorter, the elevator tang doesn’t hold them in the receiver and they fall to the ground. The elevator tang has to be extended until it’s long enough to be about an eight of an inch from the bolt when the bolt is retracted.
There are two ways of doing this. You can cut the tang off completely or just extend it. Both need a competant welder.
The end of the tang still has to have a downward angle so the rim of the shell doesn’t catch and boths sides of the tang have to be smooth.
Also the the buckshot MiniShells are the only style that work. The regular shot seems to put too much pressure on the rims and they disappear and the extractor doesn’t work so you have a single shot that can’t be reloaded except with a rod down the muzzle.
After the shotgun is modified, it will still use regular shells.
Thanks
I guess if I fire 7 rounds and I haven't stopped them I better think about hitting them with the damn gun.
(my son who's in the Marines tells me that the standing joke when originally issued the 9MM pistols was it was more effective to throw them then shoot them. They now carry only .45’s)
I have a Mossberg 500 and recently upgraded to a Mossberg 930 SPX. The 930 SPX is state-of-the-art and performs flawlessly.
No debate for me. I have a Mossy 500 and a Rem 870. Love ‘em both!
Shoots like a 12, carries like a 20.
And the shells are twice the price of either!
A few years ago I bought a new Ithaca 37 in 16 gauge. Beautiful shotgun, but on the second box of shells the slide rail broke (and it has only one). By the time I contacted Ithaca, the company was bankrupt yet again.
hehe I solved that debate long ago.. I got both :)
very interesting bit of engineering - thanks!
I came up with the idea a couple of years ago and then found out that a website is devoted to that very modification. I can’t find it at the moment. It also lists the shotgun that doesn’t need the modification. Winchester, maybe?
Since the shells are so short, I was also wondering if I could shorten the pump stroke? I still have to look into that.
I believe that is outdated information by many years.
That’s nice to hear. However, every one that has crossed my bench has had one action arm, was rough as crud and was a mechanical mess.
I know of a police department who thought they were saving big money by purchasing Mavericks. A number of the guns did not make it through the first range trip. They had major issues for the year that they had them. Guess what they have now?
Agree with your son's choice. Way back in the day when I was employed by the Big Green Machine, I packed a 1911 as well. When the military converted over to the Beretta 92F I bought one mainly out of curiosity. When it comes to functionality and reliability it can't be beat. Being left handed, I especially like the ambidextrous safety. But, as your son implied, the 9mm parabellum lacks knock down and first shot killing ability. The 92F magazine does hold 15 rounds though will the old 1911 only holds 7. The 1911 is what I pack in my vehicle. If I want to carry on me I usually pack a Walther PPK. I know, the 380 sucks even worse than the 9mm Parabellum. But, maybe the noise will scare the perp :)
I carry a Glock .40 cal, a little big for carry but I'm getting used to it.
A buddy of mine in Penn. decided to get his CCW and then turned around and bought a .380. Needless to say he will never hear the end of my ribbing.
Why bother comparing?
I love a good utilitarian shotgun, but I truly admire a top flight sporting gun. I cannot compare them as they are completely different.
Why bother comparing?
It sounds like all of your information is outdated, the Maverick seems to get high marks every where and they switched to the dual action arm almost 20 years ago.
Yeah, I see that they did finally go to a double action arm forend. They are still cheaply made.
However, the Mossberg 500, 590, etc. are serviceable guns. Not as good as the 870, but good enough.
Every one seems to think the Mossberg Maverick is a very dependable shotgun and didn’t the military choose the Mossberg over the 870 because the 870 couldn’t pass the tests?
The 500 is great for general purpose, with lots of swappable parts available.
I prefer the 590 version, optimizing the HD application. Ghost rings are faster & more accurate, 8+1 magazine maximizes practical capacity, 20” barrel best for performance vs. size, “marinecote” improves resistance to harsh conditions, and overall optimized for the ultimate application.
A nice companion to it is the 590 AOW version, a pistol-grip-only 14” barrel 5+1 capacity form. Great fun! Just needs an integral laser, given that normal aiming could be dentally problemmatic.
Please read what I said.
The Mossbergs, 500, 590, and others are fine. The Navy uses the 590. It is fine, and is a robust gun because it has modifications to make it more dependable (they corrected the problems that the 500 has).
The following is a list of very common problems with the 500:
1) The little teats on the front of the PLASTIC trigger housing break off with a regularity bordering on intentional
2)The plastic tang safety is even worse for breaking (I buy them ten at a time for my shop)
3) The negative (left) extractor is weak and often breaks
However, as far as pump shotguns go, the 500 is one of the more dependable. The Maverick is still a cheap and undependable piece of junk. It is very cheaply made and that is how they achieve such a low price point.
I am not a gun snob. Just a gunsmith who calls it like I see it.
P.S. Every gunsmith that I know, who actually makes a living at it has these same opinions, based on experience.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.