I'll take simple function over any of the fancy stuff any day. Thank you for your service Sir...
Just wondering what you're basing the TX4 and 500A1 usage on. Haven't heard or seen anything about those at all as far as the TX4, and the 500A1 was a production request by the Navy for a modified 500 back in the 80s.Webster82 said:The US Navy uses the Mossberg 500A1's and the 590's.
The Marines used the Mossberg 500A1's, Beretta TX4, and Benelli M4.
Not too sure about the Army and Air Force.
The Navy and Marines have been primarily interested in using pump action shotguns compared to the semi auto shotguns for the simple fact that they can jam from dust and debris. There is less moving parts as well. The Mossbergs are also very reliable for a VERY cheap price.
m24shooter said:Just wondering what you're basing the TX4 and 500A1 usage on. Haven't heard or seen anything about those at all as far as the TX4, and the 500A1 was a production request by the Navy for a modified 500 back in the 80s.Webster82 said:The US Navy uses the Mossberg 500A1's and the 590's.
The Marines used the Mossberg 500A1's, Beretta TX4, and Benelli M4.
Not too sure about the Army and Air Force.
The Navy and Marines have been primarily interested in using pump action shotguns compared to the semi auto shotguns for the simple fact that they can jam from dust and debris. There is less moving parts as well. The Mossbergs are also very reliable for a VERY cheap price.
As far as the Navy and MC wanting pumps, the Marines drove the M1014 program and are pretty much the only users of that shotgun.
The 500A1 was a wierd request originally from the 80s. The shotgun is essentially a 590A1 with 1.5" of barrel removed. I guess somebody high up decided that the extra 1.5" on the readily available existing shotgun had to go, but dropping down to another COTS 14.5" 590A1 was a no-go for some reason. Oh well, .gov purchasing does not always make sense. I completely forgot about a recent single source request on that shotgun from a few years ago, so I can completely see those still being in use even when the normal 500s and 590/590A1s are being bought.Webster82 said:I was a Gunners Mate onboard USS Rushmore, LSD-47.We had 10 Mossberg 500's and 500A1's onboard.
This is me with the 500A1
My buddy Williams shooting the Mossberg 500
That's interesting. I've never heard or seen anything on the Marines using the TX4. I wonder if that was a go-fast purchase or something done with unit funds. The Marines' big shotgun purchases have been the 500/590/590A1, and then the 1014. The main reason the pump guns are still around is that the 1014 will not cycle breaching/LL rounds that they sometimes have to use, so some amount of pump guns have to stay in the inventory. I am curious about the story behind the TX4 being there, and how it got in the mix.The only reason I know that the Marines use the TX4 is because the Marines Armorers like to compare weapons with the GM's when they come onboard. They only had 2 of the TX4's and 1 Mossberg. I am not sure if those shotguns were on their way out of the Corps. Most of the shotguns were the Benelli's.
A lot of the SAWs are quite old, and very worn. That leads to lots of reliability issues. I would guess that is why, although it may also have been a desire for the 7.62 over the 5.56.What I never understood was why the Marines wanted to give up their SAW for our M60's?
m24shooter said:The 500A1 was a wierd request originally from the 80s. The shotgun is essentially a 590A1 with 1.5" of barrel removed. I guess somebody high up decided that the extra 1.5" on the readily available existing shotgun had to go, but dropping down to another COTS 14.5" 590A1 was a no-go for some reason. Oh well, .gov purchasing does not always make sense. I completely forgot about a recent single source request on that shotgun from a few years ago, so I can completely see those still being in use even when the normal 500s and 590/590A1s are being bought.Webster82 said:I was a Gunners Mate onboard USS Rushmore, LSD-47.We had 10 Mossberg 500's and 500A1's onboard.
This is me with the 500A1
My buddy Williams shooting the Mossberg 500
There was also a 20" 500A1.
Now that I think of it, it may simply be that the arms locker racks were built to house the 17" barrels, and to keep from having to fab new racks or adapters they decided to stay with that barrel length. I can completely see that happening.
m24shooter said:That's interesting. I've never heard or seen anything on the Marines using the TX4. I wonder if that was a go-fast purchase or something done with unit funds. The Marines' big shotgun purchases have been the 500/590/590A1, and then the 1014. The main reason the pump guns are still around is that the 1014 will not cycle breaching/LL rounds that they sometimes have to use, so some amount of pump guns have to stay in the inventory. I am curious about the story behind the TX4 being there, and how it got in the mix.Webster82 said:The only reason I know that the Marines use the TX4 is because the Marines Armorers like to compare weapons with the GM's when they come onboard. They only had 2 of the TX4's and 1 Mossberg. I am not sure if those shotguns were on their way out of the Corps. Most of the shotguns were the Benelli's.
m24shooter said:A lot of the SAWs are quite old, and very worn. That leads to lots of reliability issues. I would guess that is why, although it may also have been a desire for the 7.62 over the 5.56.Webster82 said:What I never understood was why the Marines wanted to give up their SAW for our M60's?
Of course, now a lot of the SAWs are being replaced with the IAR, so we are returning to the BAR philosophy but with a 5.56 version as opposed to a .30-06 version.
Thanks for the info and the pics.
oli700 said:wonder why they dont use AA12 ?
Corelogik said:One of the biggest mistakes the military ever made in my OPINION is put more than semi-auto in the hands of common soldiers. Waste of ammo which leads directly to degradation of marksmanship skills.