Mossberg Brush Gun

[shoot-n-lead]

Does anyone have one of these?

If so, what is your opinion of it?

[jmort]

I assume it it is a 464. Big fan of the 464s. Love mine. Want another.

[shoot-n-lead]

I assume it it is a 464. Big fan of the 464s. Love mine. Want another.

Yeah, it is Trapper length, lam stock and marinecoat finish...pretty neat looking little gun.

[Bzcraig]

I assume it it is a 464. Big fan of the 464s. Love mine. Want another.

Jon - Do you have the 30-30 or 22LR? I'm thinking about adding a rimfire to my leverguns and can't decide between the Henry and this.

[jmort]

I have the .30-30. That would be a dilemma, a .22 Henry or the Mossberg.

[osteodoc08]

Interesting

[northmn]

The 464 is a good rifle. That particular model is a good way for Mossberg to make something they can charge more for. I would not buy one because I really don't like 16 inch barrels on a rifle, others do. On a 30-30 they are worse. Don't like the grey stocks and silver finish but others do. Matter of desire. My favorite "brush gun" is my Marlin 35 Remington with a 24 inch barrel and a scope. Don't believe in spraying lead through the brush to get something.

DEP

[FergusonTO35]

They make one in .35 caliber or above and I'm sold. No interest in .30 WCF in a barrel that short. If Mossy comes out with revolver caliber lever actions for under $500.00 real world price they will sell like mad. Love my 464, going to get it d&t for a receiver sight tonight.

[osteodoc08]

They make one in .35 caliber or above and I'm sold. No interest in .30 WCF in a barrel that short. If Mossy comes out with revolver caliber lever actions for under $500.00 real world price they will sell like mad. Love my 464, going to get it d&t for a receiver sight tonight.

Agreed. Id love to see another entry of 41 mag and even a 480 Ruger.

[jmort]

Yes, a .357 and .44 and .45 would be nice.

[shoot-n-lead]

I think we might see them make a handgun caliber...JMO.

I think that it would be an instant success.

But, as to this gun...I like the looks of it and my Winchester Trapper in 30/30 works so well for my woods deer hunting...I think that this little rifle would be great, also. But, I am partial to short barreled rifles...I have them in several calibers and actions...like them all better than longer rifles.

[FergusonTO35]

Don't get me wrong, I like carbines alot. My 1894C is easily my favorite long gun. I just think they are better matched with a bigger caliber. Likewise, I have no interest in a revolver cartridge out of a 24" barrel although they are well loved by the SASS crowd.

[shoot-n-lead]

Don't get me wrong, I like carbines alot. My 1894C is easily my favorite long gun. I just think they are better matched with a bigger caliber. Likewise, I have no interest in a revolver cartridge out of a 24" barrel although they are well loved by the SASS crowd.

When you say better matched...what do you mean by that? Just wondering...

As a comparison...my 14" Contender in 30/30 will consistently put a bullet completely through a deer at 80yds, and probably farther...kills as well as 20" levergun, at least, at that range.

[FergusonTO35]

I suppose I mean that, the .30 WCF is going to lose a fair amount of velocity out of the short barrel and the muzzle blast will likely be more. Most .30 caliber cartridges are at their best in a barrel of 20" and up. Likewise, the revolver cartridges seem to do their best in barrels 16-20". Any longer than that and the gains in velocity and accuracy will probably be minimal and the gun will be longer and heavier.

[jmort]

Most people overestimate the velocity lost between a 16" 30-30 and whatever length. Around 12 to 18 fps per inch typically. So I doubt 80 fps or less loss will make any difference.

"The Powley Computer generally gives good estimates of performance for pressures around 40,000 CUP. Here, it predicts a 170 gn load going 1987 fps from 16", not too far off the numbers Tycer found for you. Going to 20" the Computer estimates 2058 fps or about 18 fps/inch."

The Myth of Barrel Length and Velocity Loss

One of the biggest myths that I have heard over the years is that if you shorten the barrel of your rifle or hunt with a carbine that you are going to drop so much velocity that you’re better off getting a more powerful caliber. Well this myth is still going on strong even though it was put to bed more than fifty years ago.
Enter Phil Sharpe

Phil Sharpe was, in his day, perhaps the biggest experimenter of all things guns and at a time when very few could afford such accommodations. His own ballistics lab was only rivaled by those of the ammunition factories, and it became known to handloaders big and small that if you wanted a load tested, Phil was your man.

In 1950 Sharpe performed just such a test with a .30-06 Springfield and with a wide variety of loads. He would fire a round then saw off one inch of the barrel. When the experiment started, the barrel was 30-inches down and when it was over it was 12-inches. This fairly simple experiment would lead Sharpe to conclude many things about barrel length and muzzle velocity, things that are just as true today as they were back in 1950, though unfortunately few then or now ever really listened to them.
Findings and Noticings

Of all the loads and rounds fired through that old Springfield, some fifteen hundred in all, Sharpe found that the greatest loss in power was only five percent from one inch taken off and it’s important to note, that was using a cast bullet load. The myth at the time (and one I still hear) is that there is a rule of 25 fps lost for every inch of barrel taken away: Sharpe proved that wrong.
Sharpe proved that the average loss was really about 12 fps for every inch lost, hardly something to fret over. Some loads even gained some velocity with the shorter barrels over the longer ones. Even so, I doubt any deer, moose or bear would really know the difference between the same load hitting him at a difference of 100 fps or so.
Explaining the Phenomenon

How could this be? Well it goes back to yet another myth, also long ago proven wrong. This is the myth that smokeless powder continues to burn the full length of the barrel.

Homer Powley, who was perhaps the best ballistician of his day, found that all smokeless powder gets burned up right in front of the cartridge and even the most powerful magnum rounds burn their powder at the closest three inches to the cartridge. The reason you look down your barrel and see so much unburned powder is because the wrong powder has been matched to that cartridge. A properly matched round will only have a small amount of powder left to look at.
Takeaway

So what about those nice super long barreled rifles meant for super long distances? Well unless you’re a military sniper who intends on waiting in a position for three-days for a shot, you’re better off going portable and getting yourself a nice short barreled rifle. It will do the same job—and you can carry it all day!
A friend of mine who has forgotten more about ballistics and reloading than I will probably ever know long ago showed me his results from similar tests with identical guns of different barrel lengths. His results bore out the truth that a long barrel length is not needed in a rifle other than to look the part of a “sniper” rifle.

His weapon of choice in the brush and rough terrain was a Remington 760 carbine in .30-06 with its short eighteen and a half inch barrel. He killed many whitetail since he bought the rifle in the late 1960’s. I doubt any of those deer would have noticed the velocity gains from a longer barrel.
The next time you are looking at a rifle remember that when it comes to velocity there really is no such thing as too short a barrel. Those few extra fps you might lose will be made up in the comfort of carrying around a shorter and lighter gun all day lon




http://www.guns.com/2012/02/16/the-m...velocity-loss/

[Piedmont]

There is something to be said for a gun that is longer and heavier. It is easier to shoot well and quieter.

[jmort]

I will take lighter and compact over longer/heavier. But whatever one likes, one should use. To each their own. This is opinion, notwithstanding the velocity "myth."

[shoot-n-lead]

i will take lighter and compact over longer/heavier. But whatever one likes, one should use. To each their own. This is opinion, notwithstanding the velocity "myth."

x 2 ^^^^

I ain't gonna lug around anymore barrel than is necessary for the job...and that ain't much.

[FergusonTO35]

For bottleneck cartridges and shooting at anything over 75 yards I want a long barrel. They are easier for me to hold steady and I don't notice that I am lugging around an extra 2-4" of barrel. When I had my Howa 1500 rebarelled to .257 Roberts I went with a 24" magnum contour tube from E.R. Shaw. At 100 yards this rifle has no trouble putting 38.5 grains Hodgdon 4350 and a 117 grain Sierra Prohunter in the same hole repeatedly if not for the fidgety oaf pulling the trigger!

[Errolhill]

For bottleneck cartridges and shooting at anything over 75 yards I want a long barrel. They are easier for me to hold steady and I don't notice that I am lugging around an extra 2-4" of barrel. When I had my Howa 1500 rebarelled to .257 Roberts I went with a 24" magnum contour tube from E.R. Shaw. At 100 yards this rifle has no trouble putting 38.5 grains Hodgdon 4350 and a 117 grain Sierra Prohunter in the same hole repeatedly if not for the fidgety oaf pulling the trigger!

I have carried a 16.25 " barrel in a Marlin maurader carbine in 30-30 For 25 plus years while guiding bear hunts with hounds and also cronographed compared to a 20" barrel and there is roughly A 50 ft per second difference at best .I used hornady leverlutions in 140 and 160 with the 30-30 with the chronograph also my bench rest stolle actions very rarely had a barrel over 19" so I personally don't see the difference in the barrel length being a show stopper ,they are also nice and easy to carry thru the brush you notice the difference between that trapper style rifle and carrying a model 86 at the end of the day