Mossberg ATR100
- Thread starter corney
- Start date
Nice to win something, for sure, but junk is junk, either purchased or for free. The bolt has been known to blow appart while firing, causing damage to people's faces. Take the bolt out and look at the hole near the front of the bolt head, and ask if that is something you would trust at 55,000 or so PSI. I wouldn't, but there are lot that will, and do.
R.
R.
Sorry Dude! These are facts. It's not like every one they have made have blown up or anything. I seem to recall around four specific cases where this has happened. Like I said, have a look at that bolt and ask the question.
Some quotes:
"A total of 3 men have suffered extensive injury from the Mossberg 100 ATR (which is a bolt action rifle). The assembly pin (sometimes referred to as the bolt head pin or retaining pin) is breaking. The gun will then fire when the locking lugs are not locked causing the gun to blow a user's face off. This happened to two of the men --and both were airlifted to a local trauma center, and the third has injuries to his hand. I am set for trial in April in Tampa Florida. Any information/input would be welcomed. Over the last two years I have learned alot but am always trying to understand all this a little better."
"I have not spoken to anyone at Mossberg but I suspect the bolt handle sleeve is supposed to be soldered to the bolt body. I suspect those that failed were not or were poorly done. The design problem is that there is no back-up safety for a situation where the handle comes adrift and goes down without turning the bolt into battery. So, the problem is either due to poor QC, a poor design, or a combination of the two."
"One of the ATR guys who lost his face lives about 20 miles from me. I wouldn't shoot an ATR for any amount of money."
"Stupid maybe. Blind - not yet. I shot it yesterday and only had factory loads. Mounted a 2.5 x 8 Millett scope that I found on my shelves and shot Remington ammo. 100 yard range only with a good bench rest. 150 gr. CL 3/4" to 1" group for 3 shots. 130 gr. CL. 3 shots 3/4". Can't gripe about the accuracy. I see the small pin that hold the bolt together and I understand if it was broken or missing, it might be a big problem. It really does look like my Savage bolts. Shot it about 25 times. It shoots as good as some rifles that I own that cost ten times as much. You guys too good for a cheap rifle thread? I thought this was a place for discussion of things we like...rifles."
End of Quotes.
None of these comments are mine, and three to four accidents, considering the amount of rifles produced, is a very small amount indeed. I posted more to make you aware of the issues, and the potential of a failure. If it's your only rifle, and you have a crush on it, then shoot it. If not, I would try and return it for cash value, or sell it, and get something better. I'm not shy about my hatered for all things cheap, so please keep that in mind. There are better rifles, both new and used availible for little scratch. I'd would even go Salvage
before the Mossy, if those were my only two choices.R.
Check with Mossberg about recalls for the reported bolt defect RMan is talking about. If you aren't satisfied with their answer, get rid of it, if you are, try it to see if you like it.
If you try it and don't like it, sell it for whatever you can get it's free money
.
Basically they are reported to shoot well enough for the price, though at that price the Stevens 200, (which is essentially a long-established Savage design that works much better than Rman cares to admit) is better value, if only for the resale price you can get because it is a Savage, which means it's a good thing.
If you try it and don't like it, sell it for whatever you can get it's free money
.
Basically they are reported to shoot well enough for the price, though at that price the Stevens 200, (which is essentially a long-established Savage design that works much better than Rman cares to admit) is better value, if only for the resale price you can get because it is a Savage, which means it's a good thing.
Junk is still junk, even for free. The fact that it is cheap, does not make it better. I'll stop before I piss people off, but the fact that it is cheap, and that it shoots well for the price, does not make it better than most anything else availible. Lots of good used stuff availible for the same price as new junk, and that fact always puzzles me...
R.
corney: I have two. Maybe I am just too cheap to appreciate anything other than junk. That being said, I would put them up against any other rifle under $1000 under my hunting conditions. I think they are both accurate beyond me. I have had ZERO problems with either and I have fired over a hundred rounds through each. Mossberg DID have bolt problems when these rifles first came out. This is a new one you have. You should not have a problem with it. If I needed another .243 (have a savage) then I would buy it from you without a second thought. Cabela's list them at $329 without a scope (backordered). Milarm lists them at $426 with a scope, and WSS lists them at $339 without a scope (backordered). I would guess that a dealer would allow you $250 towards a new rifle. If it is a chambering you can use, I say keep it and shoot it. If you really think it is dangerous and want to get rid of it CHEAP (like what you paid for it) let me know. 
Cheap rifles may be cheap rifles but my savages and stevens both shoot sub moa with a variety of factory loads and they're bush guns I don't care If I scratch them or not. Ill put my savage and stevens against any gun maker any day. I shot a 1.25" 5 shot group at 200 yards with my stevens 200 in 25-06 stock factory. That is the best I can shoot. I know guys with custom built guns that can't do that and they're better shooters then me. But by all means keep buying the expensive guns they're pretty and it helps keep the economy going. Ill stay with my "cheap junk" and have fun smackin groundhogs and deer
"Better" is a subjective judgement that can vary according to the judge's criteria. Sometimes lower price, i.e. getting it done with less, is a perfectly valid criteria. Sometimes people feel they must have a new gun, even though, as you say, there is used stuff available for the same price which is obviously better by any other standard.
And I should clarify, I meant the Stevens 200 is better value than the similarly priced Mossberg ATR100, and the basic Savage action used in that Stevens is better than your earlier emoticon comment suggests. I don't mean to say that you should like the Savage. There is plenty of room for individual tastes.
Like I said, I am not shy with my hatred towards all things cheap, and these are my opinions. I understood what you meant, as I also understand the attraction price wise. I have mentioned this, here, many times before, and certainly don't want to start another pizzing contest. Each to their own, and as you say there is plenty of room for individual tastes, or lack there of. Buying good stuff, once, is always far less expensive than buying junk twice. These are facts, and are difficult to dispute. There are several, better options availible, new and used, for "the same price which is obviously better by any other standard". I like that phrase, as it pretty much sums it up.
R.
R.
Yes, the chief virtue of the Stevens 200, Mossberg ATR100, Marlin XS7/XL7 is that they offer an effective rifle at a very affordable price for someone who really cares more than anything else that it be brand new. They aren't going to become heirloom guns based on how they are built, though of course anything someone used for a long time might grow sentimental value to their kids, grandkids, etc.
