Are these rifles any good or are they shit?

Shit meme rifles for cuckolds. Just buy an AR.

>>33325988
They have their uses but they have some problems, especially the .308 models that like to break their bolts.
>completely retarded mag release on both models, although the .308's mag release is somewhat more retarded due to taking like 7 different styles of mag (AR10, LR308, M14, G3, maybe others)
>sloppy bolt that can bind under vigorous cycling
>meh-tier fit and finish that needs some spit n' polish to cycle smoothly and not gouge the shit out of your ammo
>picky about mags because of poor QC on magwell box dimensions
>some reports of scope base mounting holes being out of alignment
>.308 model (which doesn't have the moving flap to strip rounds) likes to break its bolt just behind the bolt head
>poor copy of the Accutrigger is heavy and gritty
>firing pin spring is about 30% stronger and longer than it needs to be, there are reports of people cutting off as many as 8 full coils and still getting reliable ignition with CCI 41 milspec primers (heavy/long firing pin spring=needlessly heavy trigger pull)
They are surprisingly accurate though. Especially considering only the chassis and laminate stock models are actually freefloated.

Also, the laminate stocks are extremely well made. It's speculated they're contract-OEM from Boyd's.

>>33326027
Not everybody wants to be throwing brass to the 4 winds though. Boltgun .223 or .308's serve a purpose. It may be a niche purpose but still it's a purpose.

My big complaint with the .223 models is they're only available with 1:9 barrels. Which is fine for their varmint/predator model but why the fuck aren't their Thunder Ranch or Long Range models offered with at least a 1:8 if not a 1:7 to actually use the heavy match ammo they're intended for?

I've read there are feeding issues due to how loose the magazines fit on the 5.56mm version, how true is that and have they fixed that?

>>33326138
Stick to high quality AR mags (Pmag, Lancer, actual GI like Colt or OK Industries) and it's a nonissue. Expect problems with cheapo mags like Thermold and Hexmag, just like you would in an AR.

If you're not getting reliable feeding with a Pmag your magwell insert is out of spec, either send it back to Mossberg under warranty and wait the 5 months for them to replace a single $4 part or buy one of the "enhanced" magwells from Tromix or off the mvp forums (note, it's expensive at $75).

>>33326202
what about the smaller 10 and 5 round models? (live in cuck state, sorry)

>>33326224
The factory mags are garbage. My advice is to buy Pmag20's or 10's and use a limiter or get them pinned. I don't know of anybody that makes a quality 5rd mag that isn't a 10 or 20rd mag that's been pinned.

>>33325988
Complete garbage. The action and trigger are a hot mess.

File: 12552876_560121824163651_6992237174587788181_n.jpg (15KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 320x320px

.22 mag is fun, and isn't loud enough to hurt hearing.
https://youtu.be/iAPHmPjYH7Q

Over 5000 rounds through my .308, no broken bolt yet. The part about scratching up brass is true, but only of the factory mags, which are tighter than SR-25 mags. The scope rail also worked itself loose after only about 200 rounds, you have to loctite it. Overall it's definately cheaply made and has its problems, but it's a very fun blaster and it hits what you point it at. If you're willing to spend an extra $200, just get a Ruger Gunsite Scout or Savage 11, which will no doubt be higher quality and a better investment.

Can't say anything about the 5.56 models. I've never even seen one. If you need a bolt 5.56 for some reason, just get a Cz 527.

>>33326718
Their whole schtick is taking AR mags. If you don't need or want AR mags there's other, better options.
>GSR
The Savage Scout is better, the Savage Hog Hunter with an aftermarket stock and DBM is best. The GSR is simply too heavy and too clunky to mess with given its barrel length and the Savage's accutrigger is better than Ruger's M77 trigger (though if you're already modifying it just get a Rifle Basix or Jard for either).

>>33326718
>overall it's definitely cheaply made
>sells for more than an R700 SPS, Ruger M77 Hawkeye, Tikka T3x, Howa 1500, or CZ 527
This is a problem.

If they were a $350-400 rifle with their cheapshit ABS plastic stock then maybe, but their cheapest models are $550 and their chassis guns are more expensive (and heavier) than an RPR.

>>33326778
As long as we're on this topic, does anyone have any experience with Howa's factory DBM and mags? For $45 for a DBM and 1 mag they look like a budget option that doesn't suck even if the mags look like Thermold and Tapco did a joint venture for them.

File: 20170222_231016.jpg (594KB, 2048x1152px) Image search: [Google]

594KB, 2048x1152px

>>33326803
Bump for input with exactly why you should never shoot Tulammo.