Short and Sweet
June 5th, 2018Mossberg’s Crazy, Legal, Short-Barreled Shotgun
I saw the craziest thing during my breakfast routine. The BATF has cleared the general public to buy short-barreled (“sawed off”) shotguns.
Because of weird quirks in federal firearms law, it is legal to sell a smoothbore shotgun with a barrel shorter than 18″, as long as it is (and always has been) fitted with a pistol grip. You can’t buy the same shotgun with a buttstock and replace it with a pistol grip unless you want to go to prison.
The Mossberg company sells a gun called the Model 590. It’s the typical Mossberg pump, with a little pistol grip and a very short barrel. It will hold 6 rounds of ammunition. Of course, the amount changes depending on the length of the shells.
A long time ago, someone told me it was impossible to control a 12-gauge shotgun without a buttstock. This is completely wrong. I put a laser on a Saiga 12 and fired it from the hip, and I had no trouble hitting what I shot at. It looks like the Mossberg is no less controllable.
Here’s a video that starts out with a man shooting the Mossberg held at his side, more or less. He doesn’t fall down. The gun doesn’t fly out of his hands. He doesn’t have problems holding it on target. Later on, he shoots a dummy at 7 yards and puts the pellets right where he wants them.
The man in the video either runs or works for Gunblast.com, which is a very nice site. They do excellent gun reviews.
Would I buy this gun? Of course. Because it is a gun. But other than that, would I recommend it? I don’t think so. The capacity is very low. Miss six times, which is something that happens every day in shootouts, and you’re done. Sit down and wait for Enrique the MS-13 Dreamer to walk over and plug you. You can reload it, but by the time you find the first shell and pull it out of your ammo holder thing, your brains will be on the wall behind you.
Also, it’s a pump, and pumps are stupid. They’re slow, and it’s very easy to screw up and fail to chamber a round properly.
Me, I will continue to rely on the 31-round, 100% reliable Eastern Bloc rifle, shot from the folded state. If I miss someone with that 6 times, I will still have 25 tries left, and if I carry a magazine with me, I’ll have another 30 rounds I can load in three seconds.
“If pumps are so stupid, why do the cops and the military use them?” I don’t know. Probably because committees choose their weapons. They also use the .308 for sniping, and it’s inferior to other well-known choices. They used revolvers when criminals were using Glocks.
“Pumps are more reliable than semiautos.” In what way? Semiautos fire chambered rounds just as well, and they chamber rounds just as well, only much faster, without requiring you to take your mind off your target. If your semiauto has a malfunction, so what? Yank the bolt handle and keep shooting.
Time for a tangent. Why do movie guns jam irreparably? You know what I mean. The bad guy pulls his trigger, the gun doesn’t go off, he pokes around at it like a confused monkey, and then he throws it away and reaches for a knife or something. What kind of gun jams so badly you can’t clear it?
I’ve been on Gunbroker a lot, and I’ve never seen this: “My AR-15 jammed while I was trying to shoot up a tractor pull in the name of Allah, so I am forced to sell it for parts. Barrel and furniture are fine.”
Movie bad guys don’t just put their jammed guns down. They throw them. Why is that? I hate watching actors throw valuable guns or slide them on concrete. They don’t act like it bothers them. Let me tell you something. If you took the cheapest gun I paid for (or even a gun you just took from Enrique) and dragged it across your driveway, I would have kittens. No one in his right mind throws or drags a gun he paid for.
Actors don’t pay for their guns, and sometimes they’re not even guns. They use replicas and dummy guns. Bruce Willis doesn’t care about the finish on an M4 his studio paid for, and he definitely doesn’t care about the finish on a fake Glock made of black plastic.
Actually, that sounds like the description of a real Glock.
If your AK-47 jams while you’re working things out with a burglar, you don’t throw it away and go after him with a throw pillow. Clear the jam and resume hostilities.
Am I wrong? I have never seen or heard of a jammed semiauto that couldn’t be cleared in a hurry. Is there some special case where a shell folds up and wraps itself around a gun’s internals? I’m not omniscient, but it sounds unlikely.
The Mossberg looks like fun, but I don’t see it as an intelligent choice for self-defense. I don’t see any real advantages, unless you live in a house with 18″-wide hallways and really need a short gun.
If you really need a short gun, buy an AK pistol and put a vertical foregrip on it for control. This is illegal, but you can always take the extra grip off before the cops arrive. Even if you live in Massachusetts, they’re not going to think to ask you if you used an illegal grip, and turning you in for an NFA violation will be the last thing on a wounded burglar’s mind.
Can you even have an AK-47 in Massachusetts? I don’t know. I know MS-13 members can have them. Not sure about law-abiding citizens.
Yes, the Mossberg shoots a larger pattern than a rifle, but it may be as small as three inches and won’t be bigger than maybe 8, so you still have to aim, and if most of your 8″ pattern misses, the few pellets that hit the burglar may not do much harm.
In order for a shotgun to work, you need at least one pellet to hit your guest in an important place, and if most of your pellets are off to the side, the ones that hit are probably going to land in areas that aren’t vital.
If you get a center-mass hit with a 12 gauge, the mess will be incredible. No doubt about that. But it’s like betting your life savings on one lottery ticket. I would rather shoot 31 30-caliber bullets at someone, getting 31 chances to aim, than shoot 30 or so 30-caliber shotgun pellets at someone with two or three shots and only a few chances to aim.
Is the Mossberg good for defending a vehicle, because you would be shooting through a small window at short range and probably wouldn’t miss? No. It’s a pump. Do you really want to have to swing your elbow around, racking a shotgun while confined in the front seat of your car, behind the steering wheel? Of course not. You want a semiauto.
I was just looking at an article by an “expert.” Experts used to tell us not to give water to fever patients. They also told us to eat trans fats. Anyway, an expert has cited the “intimidation factor” of a home-defense shotgun. Really, dude? Really? That’s irresponsible. What burglar looks at your gun and says, “I only give up for shotguns”? What criminal looks at an AK-47 and feels good about facing it?
Criminals are stupid and sadistic, and many are crazy or on drugs. Many will shoot back at an armed homeowner. Google the stories and see. If you think the scariest gun wins, you’re dreaming. The gun that wins is the one that incapacitates fastest and most reliably, period. Also, the gun that wins is the one that doesn’t run out of ammunition during the fight.
I’ll tell you where I saw the “intimidation” remark. It was on the Chuck Hawks site. Really dumb. I love the site, but they dropped the ball this time. I hope no one took their advice seriously. It’s like they channeled Joe Biden.
The writer cites unnamed “experts” who favor the pistol as a home defense weapon. I am shaking my head. He, himself, says a pistol won’t damage your home as badly as other guns, and it won’t “overpenetrate.” Oh, man.
What’s worse, when you’re trying to avoid being raped? Two holes in your drywall, or 6? No intelligent person thinks about things like this.
Second thing…there is no such thing as “overpenetration.” The idea is that a bullet will go through a perp or a wall and hit your kid, or, worse, your new TV. You know who doesn’t worry about overpenetration? Cops. They shoot what works, and you should, too. An “expert” once pointed out that a round that won’t go through a wall may not go through a criminal, either. Believe it or not, things like clothing and skin slow bullets down a lot.
Many “experts” test cartridges on ballistic gelatin, which has no skin and no clothing. Ballistic gelatin doesn’t wear leather jackets or heavy metal belt buckles. Ballistic gelatin rarely uses PCP. It doesn’t hide behind drywall.
At least when it comes to pistols, the FBI’s official position is that you want a big caliber and huge penetration. They came to that conclusion after some of their agents fared very badly in the famous Miami Shootout. Rifles are somewhat different because of higher velocities, but still, you want tissue damage. The cops shoot M16’s in cities, and they don’t use rat shot or rock salt. The theory, I presume, is that the small chance of hitting an innocent person is greatly outweighed by the danger of being killed by a criminal your mouse gun failed to put down.
Overpenetration injuries in police shootings are very rare. They have happened, and there have been lawsuits. The cops still use guns that “overpenetrate,” even after having lawyers flung on them. What does that tell you? It tells me, “Use serious ammunition and try to point your gun away from innocent people.”
The article’s author also says that when it comes to home defense pistols, he prefers revolvers. I just don’t know what to say. Six shots, and then a lengthy reloading process. Meanwhile, your enemy has 18 rounds in his Glock, and he may have two magazines in the pocket of his saggy pants.
Semiauto, semiauto, semiauto. That’s my motto. And try to stick with long guns. Eastern Bloc rifle in the house (and under a truck seat), and Glock everywhere else. If you have to use the Glock, if possible, use it while making your way to the rifle.
Guess I’m wandering.
The Mossberg 590 Shockwave is a neat gun, and it shows how clever gun makers can find ways to make our silly gun laws look even sillier. That being said, I can’t see handicapping myself intentionally by using one for self-defense. Reasonable minds may differ, but I am right.
I hope.
June 5th, 2018 at 3:28 PM
I saw that Mossy and my first thought was: great car gun.
-XC
June 5th, 2018 at 10:20 PM
When I saw the 590 in Shooting Illustrated, my first thought was, “Neat, but I don’t really need to take down any liquor stores.”
That BATFE ruling on the Mossberg is going to astonish people the first time some mutant commits a crime with one that gets a lot of cable news coverage. It’s of a kind with the ruling which made bumpstocks legal to sell to the public. Those were apparently legal because unlike similar products which had a spring to return the gun forward after being fired, (I think there was one designed for the Ruger 10/22) the absence of any mechanical device to operate the trigger meant that no modification to make the weapon into a machine gun had occurred.
I’m fairly certain I’ve got that right.
June 5th, 2018 at 10:56 PM
There is a very good video interview featuring the BATF guy who made the bump stock ruling. You can probably find it on Youtube.
The rationale for the ruling was this: when you use a bump stock, you have to pull the trigger once per shot. According to the BATF, a machine gun fires multiple rounds with one pull of the trigger.
June 6th, 2018 at 10:22 PM
“Why do movie guns jam irreparably?”
I generally assume ignorance on the part of movie and TV show script-writers. The great thing about that is it explains away any stupid thing you see in a movie.