From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked

Well, I report what was said on some wikipages ([1] and [fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discuter:Mossberg_500])

According to french wiki', the magazine capacities of Mossbergs are : Mossberg 500 : 7 shots Mossberg 590 : 9 shots (12-gauge / 18,5x70mm) or 8 shots (12-gauge Magnum / 18,5x76mm), 7 shots or less for shortened variants. Is it always 5 shots for shortened variants of 500 and 590 ? And has the Mossberg 500 ATP6 a 5-shot magazine + one in chamber, and the ATP8 a 7-shot + one in chamber ?

For french use of Mossbergs : Mossberg 500 is in limited numbers in service in french army (Special Forces, units in French Guiana). The GSPR (Groupe de Sécurité de la Présidence de la République) uses Mossberg 500 Cruiser. The Maverick M88 was sold at low prices in France in 1980s and 1990s, so french Armée de l'Air (Air Force) uses M88 for guardianship of his air bases. Lot of french money conveyance and guardianship companies also use M88.

Well, it is what french wiki says. But I'm not sure of all this. About GSPR, see 1, there are photographs of GSPR weapons, including two shotguns. I suppose these are a Benelli M3T and a short Mossberg 590 (and not a "Mossberg 870" as written in the page, probably a mistake with Remington 870.) because of the heat shield and the design of the trigger guard. About the GSPR, there is also a website with an english version ([gspr.free.fr/anglais/index2.htm]) but it is very little. And a photograph (on the forum [forum.gign.org]) shows that the GIGN tested a Model 500 ATP6 "Bullpup 12".

Some french wikipedists are surprised by "Mossberg claims that the Model 500 is the only shotgun to pass the US Army's Mil-Spec 3443E test, "a brutal and unforgiving torture test with 3,000 rounds of full power 12 gauge buckshot". ". According to them, lot of shotguns are better than the Mossberg. Is it possible that the Mil-Spec 3443E also precise a maximum price, who forbid better shotguns to pass the tests ? Rob1bureau 20:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Rob1bureau 18:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

"Better" in what way? Is a Purdy double better than a Mossberg 500? Many people think so, to the tune of paying tens of thousands of dollars for one. Will it pass the 3443 spec? Nope, it fails the first requirement, that it be a pump shotgun. The 3443 specs do not specify a price, they do specify reliabilty, safety, accessory (bayonet), finish, durability and materials requirements. In fact, the model 500 does NOT pass the 3443G spec, which requires a metal trigger guard (3443E only required a certain impact strength). The 590 does have a metal trigger guard, and that is why it is what the military is currently purchasing.

Now there is one bit of information that we're lacking, and that is how many, if any, other manufacturers submitted shotguns to be tested against the 3443 requirements? If Remington and Winchester didn't submit samples, then it's possible that they are fully capable of passing the test. However, since Remington and Winchester pumps are still in use by the military (leftovers from before the 3343 requirements document) then it seems odd that the manufacturers would not sumbit samples. As for price, according to http://www.asafm.army.mil/budget/fybm/FY07/pforms/wtcv.pdf page 278-279, the military is paying US$316.24 each for the 14,818 model 590s they ordered in 2005; you can certainly buy an 870 Wingmaster for less than that, or a Whichester 1200, or a Benelli Nova, so it looks like price isn't the only issue here. It may be that only Mossberg considers the US$4.6 million contract worth the effort. scot 19:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tang safety?

This article requires mention of the Mossberg's tang safety, which is probably the most attractive feature of this defense favorite. RPellessier | Talk 17:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. Or maybe overdone, I also included how to field strip it :) scot 18:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You de man! RPellessier | Talk 19:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hammerless?

First off, good article overall. However, it's not a hammerless shotgun as stated. The hammer is indeed internal, located on the rear of the trigger group, but it is definitely a hammer. Hammerless firearms are striker fired - the firing pin/striker is spring loaded. Think Glock.

Not in the context of shotguns; hammerless has meant internal hammers since the early "hammerless" doubles. This is to differentiate it from the exposed hammer designs such as the Winchester 1897. See for example the Cowboy Action Shooting rules, which require exposed hammers. I'm not aware of any striker fired shotguns--that's not to say that none exist, but it is certainly not at all common.

Can you document using other than CAS rules? CAS rules also prohibit DA revolvers, which were not uncommon in the Old West (think Starr cap'n'ball, and the Colt Thunderer and Lightening revolvers). I cannot view this as definitive. After doing some reading of books from the '40s and '50s, the original term was "internal hammer." "Hammerless" is as much a misnomer as is calling a detachable magazine a "clip." It's simply... not. FYI, I do believe there are now some striker fired doubles on the market, but I cannot name them without a thorough search as they're fairly new. Perhaps a phrase such as "internal hammer, more commonly but erronously known as "hammerless," would be in order. What do you think? J.S.

There is also a problem which seems unique to the Mossy 500, and it can be very dangerous. If the trigger group gets too dirty, it will fail to fire, feeling as if the safety is on. If you set it aside and wait for a minute, it will free itself and you will be able to then fire it. I've also had them where I yanked on the trigger repeatedly to make it go off while pointing in a safe direction.

The fix for this is simple: Take the trigger group, spray it with CLP or other cleaner which is polymer safe (at least with limited exposure), rinse it with very hot tap water, and blow it out with compressed air until dry. Lightly oil everything when you're sure it's dry. I wouldn't recommend taking the trigger group apart; it's hard to get back together without a third hand.

Actually it's pretty easy as these things go. For the average person? J.S. Now the Grendel P-10, that was a real pain to get back together, what with the watch-type hammer spring and the internal magazine, plus a couple of other springs, all needing to be under compression simultaneously as the subframe with back into the grip assembly. That operation drew blood every attempt until I got it right.

Perhaps a "common maladies" section is in order?

But can you document this as a "common malady"? What you describe sounds like the hammer spring and strut are so gunked up that the hammer is hanging in the fully compressed state, rather than moving forward slightly to engage the sear. This is a problem that could occur with ANY coil spring powered hammer. Given the ease of disassembling the 500, and the amount of dirt you'd need to have there to gum up the hammer spring, I'd say that it's gone beyond mere "dirty" and well into negligence. Keep in mind that the 500 is documented as having passed the Mil-Spec 3443x test (the exact value of "x" depending on model; the current "G" requirement calls for a metal trigger guard and excludes all but the 590 series; earlier versions did not and could be passed by a 500). That test calls for a rather intense firing session with minimal cleaning, with a sub-percent failure rate.

What do you all think?

Josh <><

I think you're going to have a hard time with this one, unless you can document but the failure of the 500 AND the lack of similar failures in other shotguns. Otherwise what you're doing is equivalent to saying "If I beat it with a sledgehammer, it breaks", which implies that this is unusual and that other models won't break when beaten with a sledgehammer... scot 12:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Break for Readability

I can document this off of conversations on firearms boards. Other people have mentioned this same problem.

I discovered it when it occured with mine. I had just gotten it and discovered it had this malady. It did NOT look overly dirty, just fired. I asked around on the gunboards http://handgunsandammo.proboards36.com/index.cgi (I built that one for a Mr. Stephen A. Camp, so I likely would not admit it as evidence), http://shootertalk.com/ , http://www.shootersville.net/ , and a few other ones specializing in gunsmithing. The answer came from a work associate of that time who had the same problem. I wasn't into gunsmithing then as I am now. It was a huge learning experience for me and one I try to pass along to everyone.

Thoughts on using gun boards as documentation?

Josh <><

military and police bbl length? Are these simply not just short barreled shotguns available to anyone who is legally entitled? If so, referring to them specifically as military and police rather than NFA SBS is misleading.

[edit] Number 500

Harold Murtz in Gun Digest Treasury (DBI Books, 1994), p.193-4, says the 500 was number-two selling pump shotgun in U.S. history, after the Rem870. Trekphiler 01:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)