Take a wingmaster, reverse engineer it, use stamped parts instead of milled, put it together with slightly less stringent tolerances and you have, IMO a mossy maverick.
We have one, it's s solid gun, not as nice as an 870 in fit and finish or action. It's shot at least a couple thousand rounds of clay and a few dozen ducks just fine. As mentioned, the moss. 500's are also a good gun, I personally would put them very close to the newer remington's, in fact when I think of it I'd put them at par. Bought daughter a moss. in .410 for her first, it was a nice gun; only sold to a fellow cgn'er to upgrade daughter to a 20ga.
Keep in mind, the remington's aren't nearly as nice as they were 20 yrs ago either. If you're in a gunstore, feel the action on a bps, that's what the remingtons were like 20 yrs ago.
As to the op's question, is it worth the extra bucks for the remington? They look nicer (wood stock one's), are slightly smoother in action. Likely easier to sell used as the mav's are cheap to begin with; plus, remington's always had a good rep. for their shotguns, although I think moss. has always been pretty popular in the US. I really doubt you could go wrong with any of them, I'd suggest compare the 3 to decide.
What about the weatherby pa-08, have you looked at them? Same price as the moss. BIL bought one, I haven't shot it yet, but he's pretty impressed with it. Just checked the price on cabaleas, I see winchester also offers a plastic stocked 3" shotgun in that 350-400 range.
Lot's of choices for the OP. That's all I have to offer.
