Are remington 870s still plagued by bad quality control and shit?

File: 1466869605548.gif (35KB, 390x260px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 390x260px

Anyone here actually knows more about guns than shit from call of duty?

>>30800509
>Anyone here actually knows more about guns than shit from call of duty?

Well I was going to answer your question but you can just fuck off back to wherever you came from.

We don't need cunts like you shitting up our 10th prestige threads.

>>30800068
What do you mean bad quality? You mean like before the flexitab carrier?

File: 1465485430841.jpg (40KB, 625x574px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 625x574px

>>30800068
I have both, and have found that the Mossy is the way to go for what you seem to need it for, little bit cheaper too for the mossy compared to the rem

>>30800625
Oh and the barrels for the mossy are like 100 bucks for slug, or just an extra

File: 1469678409490.jpg (42KB, 500x649px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 500x649px

>>30800571
Like I hear they have a shit load of extraction probelms, shitty fit&finish, rough machining, shit rattles alot.
I don't know much about shotguns as I'm more into rifles, I've tried my hand at trap shooting recently with a friend's maverick 88 and it was good except for the fact it rattled.

File: 1468035049199.gif (245KB, 262x238px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 262x238px

>>30800571
On my rem, the forearm does rattle considerably more than that of my mossy, but its just a little thing. The rem also does do some funny shit trying to cycle certain shells compared to others, and the bluing isn't nearly as nice as my mossy, hope this helps

>>30800068
>Ever getting Remshit 870
>Ever getting a assberg 500
>Ever getting a pump shotgun unless forced by poverty

Get a Mossberg 930 or CZ 712 kid, semi autos are for real men.

>>30800759
>tl;dr : Mossberg 500 > Remington 870

File: 1469806653498.jpg (202KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 960x720px

>>30800772
Call me old school but I like the feeling of racking a pump action, and semi auto tube fed shotguns are boring. I'd prefer a vepr 12.

>>30800734
My father's 870 from the 70's is great, it's been hunting religiously for decades with no malfunctions. On the other hand I bought a later model that I'm pretty sure is hot a few years back and it will not extract shells for the life of me. I've polished everything inside and bought a new extractor claw and its still shit so I'm wondering the same thing

>>30800734
>extraction
short-stroking is a user error
>fit and finish is shit, rough detail
it's the quintessential marine shotty from before the upgrade, it's gonna look rough as fuck, that's why it's affordable
>battle rattle
you want that play in the mechanism

File: 1468684127354.gif (2MB, 431x306px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 431x306px

>>30801868
Are you from remington?

>>30801868
>it's the quintessential marine shotty from before the upgrade, it's gonna look rough as fuck, that's why it's affordable
its not the fact there is roughness the chink knockoffs are rough utilitarian and fine. its the location of the roughness that causes issues like rough chambers causing extraction issues. rem doesnt give enough of a fuck to do an extra pass. the customer does their own quality control

File: 12878b8d-d6df-4dac-9827-f505b2ecfc3a.jpg (119KB, 720x564px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 720x564px

>>30800068
Could I get something like that for my dog? How much would it be?

>>30801868
For fuck sake, a shitty finish that rusts constantly coupled with ill-fitting parts is inexcusable and a waste of fucking money. I bought a remington 870 in 2013 and the finish was such shit I just sanded it off and gave it a camo paintjob.
Fuck off, shill

File: Orange_Clear-WEB_large.jpg (25KB, 480x324px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 480x324px

>>30804038
http://rexspecs.com/collections/frontpage/products/rex-specs-dog-goggle?variant=8707873987&utm_source=gshop&utm_medium=google&utm_campaign=RS153&gclid=Cj0KEQjw_eu8BRDC-YLHusmTmMEBEiQArW6c-BQ4Fu8jUKRwh_r-fFvODd_fNUsgC0XjIhLppZTX3UEaAqze8P8HAQ
Do you love your pupper enough?

>>30804157
Oh nice, thanks brudi