590a1 or 870p. Help me choose my next one

Ardent said:
Not so! Modern barrels are typically either 4130 or 4140, it's not really that expensive either. Mild steel isn't used in any barrels.
Click to expand...

absolutely. Especially on pumps where the bolt locks into the barrel.

I have parkerized some differential heat treated 4140 and you can see the hardness in the colour difference of the park. I parkerized my rem barrel and it came out pitch black, just like hardened 4140. The 870 receiver I did came out lighter grey which matches 4140 hardened in the mid 30's. This really means nothing, but it confirms to me that the barrels are hardened alloy. Also, 4140 is not expensive steel in this day and age. It's one of the most common alloys used for all kinds of things.

Anyways, a hardened 4140 tube is not easily dented which is why I think the super thick profile barrels are really just needlessly heavy to haul around.
 
Expendable Nate said:
How can people say the 870 is not milspec or tested???? I shot one in Afghanistan that answers both of those
Click to expand...

my understanding of the mil spec designation is that Remington chose not to submit any guns for the trial. Why not??? Because the US military was already purchasing them by the thousands and continued to do so after the Mossberg received the designation.
 
VLT79 said:
The question always winds up ending in an argument!

Both have seen use in conflicts around the world...and both have excelled at the tasks they were intended to perform. The 870 is used by the Canadian Forces. Despite the 590-A1 being Milspec...the 870 actually has more military and LE users than the 590-A1 so what does the Milspec actually do for it? A big factor in the US decision to accept the 590-A1 was a cheaper price tag.

Both guns have a multitude of accessories for them...all useless IMHO. A standard stock and forearm, an 18"-20" bead or rifle sight barrel, and a 2 or 3 shot extension is all that should be bolted to a shotgun...everything else adds weight, gets in the way and slows you down.

Try both and get the one that fits you best...then take the $$$ you want to spend on those useless accessories and buy extra ammo to practice with!

Personally, I find the 870 to be the faster handling, slimmer profiled, longer lasting gun. The safety positioning and carrier layout has never been an issue for me...but then again I only have a little over 85 000rds fired thru the platform so it may become an issue with time! ;)
Click to expand...

I agree... Accept with the useless accessories part. Plenty of useful ones out there.
 
870s just are not made with the same quality as in the past. Ive had 3 new ones, two police. And have had issues with jams. Mossbergs are cheaper and a much better design imo.
 
590A1 hands down. I sold my 870 tactical after buying the Mossy because it was pretty dang clear the mossberg was higher quality and better designed with the positive feed ramp.
 
I too had this debate and went with the Mossy 590A1. It's built like a tank and unfortunately weighs as much as one too... but that helps with the recoil.
 
knock-knock said:
The reach to the trigger is longer on the 590 receiver. Something to keep in mind if you have smaller hands. Definitely handle both before buying.

My preference is the 590, for all above mentioned reasons as well as having an aluminum receiver.
Click to expand...


The aluminum receiver is exactly what I don't like about Mossbergs. Had one years back, the USGI one that came with a bayonet. Nice gun, sure, until the stock mounting hole at the rear of the receiver stripped out...and I had to get a Helicoil repair done on it. Was not impressed.

Aluminum sucks.

The 870 has a steel receiver and is rock solid, reliable, good looking and a great quality firearm.
 
870 is finicky with ammo and I always had feed issues
Never had a single feed issue with my 590. Also isn't a prissy ##### with ammo like the 870 was.
Eats it all.
cantom said:
The aluminum receiver is exactly what I don't like about Mossbergs. Had one years back, the USGI one that came with a bayonet. Nice gun, sure, until the stock mounting hole at the rear of the receiver stripped out...and I had to get a Helicoil repair done on it. Was not impressed.

Aluminum sucks.

The 870 has a steel receiver and is rock solid, reliable, good looking and a great quality firearm.
Click to expand...
 
Lots of jams in my 870 with cheap shells, horridly rough chambers. Mossberg, Browning, and Keltec don't care and eat anything. Polish the 870's chamber with valve grinding paste on a dowel sanded down to a snug fit while turning in a lathe and generally they come around, older Wingmasters etc don't generally have this issue. You shouldn't have to be doing that as a standard improvement on a factory gun however, Remington today turns out a lot of garbage.
 
cantom said:
The aluminum receiver is exactly what I don't like about Mossbergs. Had one years back, the USGI one that came with a bayonet. Nice gun, sure, until the stock mounting hole at the rear of the receiver stripped out...and I had to get a Helicoil repair done on it. Was not impressed.

Aluminum sucks.

The 870 has a steel receiver and is rock solid, reliable, good looking and a great quality firearm.
Click to expand...

That is very, very peculiar and has to be owner (I'm guessing previous) ignorance in cross-threading. Engines are made of aluminum, including pistons, heads, and other parts in hard service, AR15 / M16 upper and lower receivers, and I fly an aircraft full of it and trust my life to it. You probably drive at 110ms/h on the highway riding on it, and have done 850+kms/h sitting on it at 37,000 feet. Aluminum is in most respects superior to steel. It doesn't rust, it is three times lighter than steel and in forms like 6061T6 can outperform many steels mechanically. Steel can be a fantastic material too, and I generally prefer guns made of it myself, but that sentiment is based on old-fashionedness not fact.
 
How heavy is the BPS compared to the Wingmaster? Only complaint I've heard about the BPS is that the reach to the pump is a little farther.. and taking one apart is more involved.
 
I don't understand why people complain about the pump release location on an 870. Or the safety position for that matter, which can easily be manipulated.
I have had an 870 Express and now an 870 Police. Any problems with the Express was due to operator error; these guns love to be run HARD.
I admit that the up-position of the Mossberg shell elevator is cool but after you learn to forcefully load the 870 it's no problem.

The Mossberg is a cool gun, but the 500 and certain 590s feel cheap to me. The 590A1 was beefed up with things made out of metal and a heavy barrel on some models, but it still doesn't feel as robust as an 870. Maybe it's the steel receiver on the 870, or maybe it's the foreend wobble on the Mossberg shotguns. I don't know.

I have heard people claim the Mossberg has more positive or reliable ejection. You have to run the 870s, and all pumps for that matter, hard. When I put an A-Zoom snap cap in my 870 Police, which is a heavy dummy round in 12 gauge, let me tell you that, and I slam the pump rearward forcefully (but not nearly full power), the heavy snap cap flies across the room.
With my 870 Express when I had it, I could get the spent shell hulls to really clear some distance, even when I wasn't cycling it hard.

Both guns are supposed to be supremely reliable, and durable. I bet if you were shooting a high volume of shells that the 870's receiver would hold up better, but that's several thousand loads down the road.

What really surprises me is that despite the fact that some military units use the Mossbergs, international units all tend to gravitate towards the 870, I don't quite know why.
 
Much prob has to do with the name alone. Ask an old woman if she has ever heard of Remington, and she will reply 'of course'. Then ask the same about Mossberg.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom