Mossberg maverick 88

[starmac]

I have dione went and bought my first dreaded black gun.
It is a home defense (I reckon) mossberg maverick 88. I don't know anything about mossberg pumps, but do know the 500 is a respected and popular pump gun, is the 88 worth haveing, is it a cheap version of the 500??

[CHeatermk3]

Mine needed a bit of tuning but works OK now. Had to deepen the extractor cuts in the barrel to get it to extract reliably. It also had a tendancy to spit a loaded round out onto the ground when cycling the action. Needed a bit of break-in the gunsmith up the road advised but I didn't want to wait so he also filed a tiny bit off the operating rods which solved that issue.

If I had it to do over again I'd wait and pick up a used M500 in good shape.
YMMV.

[missionary5155]

Greetings
Have had a Maverick for well over 15 years. Never a problem. Also have had Mossy's the same time and there is little difference. Barrels interchange on mine. More plastic on the Mav but have had no issues. Chunk Chunk boom.
Mike in Peru

[Artful]

As I recall
- the Maverick 88's were part of the international treaty signed by U.S. President George H. W. Bush
the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
setting up Foreign-Trade Zones to have parts made in USA
and shipped to the Mexican free enterprise zone having
been set up to use Mexican Maquiladora labor to assemble
and package then shipped back to USA to be sold at a
cheaper cost then firearms made totally in the USA.

[starmac]

Probably something like that, it says made in usa (eagle pass Tx) which is pert near Mexico. lol I bet at least some part of it is made in the US. lol
Haven't shot it, but it seems to function good and is quick to come up and get on target.

[nagantguy]

Love my maverick was the first gun I bought with my own money from running a trap line. It's a dedicated turkey gun now but it filled all rolls for years without complaints.

[Artful]

Oops looks like I got it backwards
- so much for my memory :?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossberg_Maverick


The Maverick line of shotguns are assembled in Eagle Pass, Texas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle_Pass,_Texas) using some parts manufactured outside of the United States, mainly from Mexico; which contributes to their relatively lower price in comparison to the Mossberg 500 series of shotguns, which is entirely domestically manufactured and assembled at the O.F. Mossberg & Sons factory in Connecticut.

The trigger groups will not interchange between Maverick 88 and Mossberg 500 models, but the majority of other parts including barrels, stocks, and magazine tubes will (the barrel and magazines must be the same length). Maverick 88 do not come equipped with any sling mounts, as the Mossberg 500 series do.

Maverick 88 shotguns feature a trigger guard mounted cross-bolt safety as opposed to a top tang safety, which is used on the Mossberg 500 series.

Early Model 88s were equipped with a single slide rail, but this was updated to a dual slide rail in 1990. Also the Maverick 88 does not have a receiver top pre-drilled and tapped for a Weaver scope mount rail.

Maverick 88's are factory finished with steel bluing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluing_(steel)) only, whereas Mossberg 500s have factory blued, nickel plated (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel_plating) orparkerized (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkerized) (barrel/magazine) options.

There are two basic models of the 88, the 88 field and the 88 security. The 88 field comes with a longer 28" vent-rib barrel, whereas the security comes with an 18-1/2" or 20" non-vent-rib barrel. The 88's have a cartridge capacity of 5 in the tube magazine and 1 in the chamber and cannot have their magazines easily extended without machining. Magazine capacity is further limited, if loading "3 shells, to 4 in the tube magazine and 1 in the chamber.

The Mossberg Maverick comes from the factory with a black synthetic stock and forend. Sling swivels are not included, however they can be installed to allow the use of a sling.

Sorry for the confusion :veryconfu

[starmac]

Thanks Artful, this would be the security version with 18.5 in barrel, dual slide, so after 90. I do not think it is very old as the soldier I bought it from claimed to have bought it new. It does have provision for a sling in the buttstock though (kind of cheesy looking).
If I understand that article right, if you swap barrels with a 500, it would have to be the same (18.5 )length, that seems odd.

[Lonegun1894]

The barrels of different lengths can be swapped on both the Mossberg 500 and the Maverick 88, but the barrel has to be a match for the magazine tube being used. For a hypothetical example, you can get 3 Mossberg 500s, a 5 shot 18.5" and a 5 shot 28", and swap the barrels, but they will not swap onto the 8 shot 20" you also bought (just to have the full set?) due to the magazine tube being a different length. Does that make sense? Same thing applies to the 88. Any barrel will fit if it is made for the length of mag tube on your gun. You can switch out mag tubes also if you're feeling like spending extra cash, but it isn't necessary.

[kungfustyle]

Maverick is a decent shotgun. I did have a problem with my mag spring(it was gnarled up inside when I bought it and I didn't know it) Called Mossberg and they sent me a new spring for free. Put the mag tube in a vice between some would blocks and unscrewed the receiver took a bit but not to bad. Replaced the spring and now it runs like a champ. You'll be happy with your purchase. Worse case save some $$ and trade it in for another later.

[lancem]

I bought a field model a couple of years ago and put a short 500 barrel on it for home. With the long barrel on I've shot a lot of trap with it and won a lot, never had any problems with mine and now after hundreds of rounds it's as slick as any pump gun I've ever owned.

[slim1836]

No complaints here either, I've used mine for dove hunting the past 8 years with zero issues.

Slim

[starmac]

Well that barrel thing makes some sense. I don't see me ever changeing it anyway, easier just to switch guns. lol
This thing seems like it would be handy on the four wheeler, much handies than a long barrel.

[Remiel]

I picked up a 88 field that was cut down by the previous owner for home security, i cleaned up the cut and it serves as a dual purpose rig(hunting/home defense) for now, but i plan to get a rifled 500 barrel and retire my Ithaca model 37(the full time hunting gun), my only complaint is the recoil seems worse than my Ithaca deer slayer and the barrel on the 88 is longer by an inch, I am thinking its the plastic stock.

[starmac]

Just curious, why retire the ithaca??

[OnHoPr]

and retire my Ithaca model 37(the full time hunting gun), my only complaint is the recoil seems worse than my Ithaca deer slayer and the barrel on the 88 is longer by an inch, I am thinking its the plastic stock.

WHY, those are great smooooooooth pumps, and deadly and fast and can be accurate.

Heck, I would make a place for something like that in my closet with bed pan, walker, depends, wheel chair, crutches, and whatever else a retired gun needed. I could start a HMO plan for it.

[Maven]

"NAFTA stands for North American Free Trade Agreement. Signed in 1994 by President Bill Clinton, NAFTA eliminated all tariffs between the United States and Mexico within 15 years. While Canada and the United States had already been trading under the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA went even further to eliminate trade barriers between the US and Canada.

[Artful]

Really?
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQvYC-OcjGNp6P_KU6Nysdqi4ZAuv5qEwNt23L3L8piTMDJxEy9
http://forum.mtstars.com/373729.html


Prime Minister Brian Mulroney of Canada and President Carlos Salinas of Mexico, pictured below.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_JvuH_kVATXQ/TLnmlYqaESI/AAAAAAAAAG4/0W4qzMDZSvs/s1600/Bush_Salinas_Mulroney.jpg
Bush negotiated all its terms, promoted the policy, then "fast tracked" its signing. Evidently, he wanted NAFTA to be HIS legacy. The negotiations and terms of the treaty had actually wreaked havoc during the extremely divisive Canadian parliamentary elections as far back as 1988, and continued to do so until 1993. Mulroney was forced to resign in July of that year.

The treaty required ratification by their respective legislative bodies, which took place in the US after Bush Sr left office during the Clinton administration. Clinton added protections for American workers and required the partners to adhere to US environmental practices and regulations. Passage of the treaty by the US Congress was highly contentious. The vote breakdown in support of NAFTA was as follows: In the House GOP 132, Dems 102; in the Senate GOP 34, Dems 27....not exactly a resounding endorsement, but owing to its bipartisn support, Clinton then signed it into law

Yeppers. No two ways about it. NAFTA is a GOP brainchild which they inflicted upon us and has staunchly defended ever since, except, of course, when they are playing pin the blame on the democrats.

Mossberg magazine tube explained a little more

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuxCLivZ-Vk
about 15 min in

[Remiel]

Just curious, why retire the ithaca??
was my grandfathers, dont want to wear it out, parts are a bitch to get, i take the mav on rainy days

[Remiel]

WHY, those are great smooooooooth pumps, and deadly and fast and can be accurate.

Heck, I would make a place for something like that in my closet with bed pan, walker, depends, wheel chair, crutches, and whatever else a retired gun needed. I could start a HMO plan for it.

it is one hell of a slug gun, but it was grandpas and I want it to last as long as possible

[starmac]

I can understand that. The way I shoot, I have never given wearing one out a second thought and my first rifle was made in 1932. lol I do have some oldies that I shoot somewhat reduced loads in, my thinking is there is no reason for undue pressure on an old timer just to plink with.

[fatnhappy]

hunh. NAFTA was signed into law by Bill Clinton.
http://d75822.medialib.glogster.com/media/ba/ba15c6fb1598484b3d8abb3b0444c7d1d29f87ffe1d3082d2d 26c57c63801d2c/nafta-1229.jpg

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/nafta-signed-into-law

1993 NAFTA signed into law





The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is signed into law by President Bill Clinton. Clinton said he hoped the agreement would encourage other nations to work toward a broader world-trade pact.




NAFTA, a trade pact between the United States, Canada, and Mexico, eliminated virtually all tariffs and trade restrictions between the three nations. The passage of NAFTA was one of Clinton’s first major victories as the first Democratic president in 12 years–though the movement for free trade in North America had begun as a Republican initiative.
During its planning stages, NAFTA was heavily criticized by Reform Party presidential candidate Ross Perot, who argued that if NAFTA was passed, Americans would hear a “giant sucking sound” of American companies fleeing the United States for Mexico, where employees would work for less pay and without benefits. The pact, which took effect on January 1, 1994, created the world’s largest free-trade zone.



http://i.ytimg.com/vi/a-afGfdQ2xA/maxresdefault.jpg
President Clinton's remarks at the signing.
http://millercenter.org/president/speeches/speech-3927

Transcript

Thank you very much. I'm delighted to see all of you here. I thank Speaker Foley and the Republican leader, Bob Michel, for joining us today. There are so many people to thank, and the Vice President did a marvelous job. I do want to mention, if I might, just three others: Laura Tyson, the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers; Bob Rubin, head of my national economic team; and one Republican Member of the House that wasn't mentioned, Congressman David Dreier, who went with me on a rainy day to Louisiana to campaign for NAFTA. There are many others that I might mention, but I thank all of you for what you have done.
I also can't help but note that in spite of all the rest of our efforts, there was that magic moment on Larry King, which made a lot of difference. And I thank the Vice President for that and for so much else. In the campaign, when we decided to come out for NAFTA, he was a strong supporter of that position in our personal meetings, long before we knew whether we would even be here or not.
I also would be remiss if I did not personally thank both Mickey Kantor and Mack McLarty for the work they did, especially in the closing days with the Mexican trade representatives and the Mexican Government. I'd also like to web come here the representatives from Mexico and Canada and tell them they are, in fact, welcome here. They are our partners in the future that we are trying to make together.
I want to say a special word of thanks to the Cabinet because we have tried to do something that I have not always seen in the past. And we try to get all of our Departments and all of our Cabinet leaders to work together on all the things that we all care about. And a lot of them, therefore, bad to take a lot of personal time and business time away from their very busy schedules to do this. I thank the former leaders of our Government that were mentioned and our military. I can't help but noting, since General Powell is here, that every senior military officer with whom I spoke about NAFTA was perhaps—they were as a group perhaps the most intensely supportive of any group I spoke with. and I think it is because they have in their bones the experience of the world of the last several decades. And they knew we could not afford to turn away from our leadership responsibilities and our constructive involvement in the world. And many of them, of course, still in uniform, were not permitted to say that in public and should not have been. But I think I can say that today I was profoundly personally moved by the remarks that they made.
I do want to say, also, a special word of thanks to all the citizens who helped us, the business leaders, the labor folks, the environmental people who came out and worked through this-many of them at great criticism, particularly in the environmental movement—and some of the working people who helped it. And a group that was quite pivotal to our success that I want to acknowledge specifically are the small business people, many of whom got themselves organized and came forward and tried to help us. They made a real difference.
And they've been mentioned, but I couldn't let this moment go by without thanking my good friend Bill Daley and Congressman Bill Frenzel for their work in helping to mobilize this effort. Congressman Frenzel wrote me a great letter the other day and sent me one of his famous doodles that he doodled around the NAFTA legislation, which I am now having framed. But they sort of represented the bipartisan spirit that encaptured the Congress, encaptured the country in the cause to change. I hope that we can have more than that in the days and months and years ahead. It was a very fine thing.
This whole issue turned out to be a defining moment for our Nation. I spoke with one of the folks who was in the reception just a few moments ago who told me that he was in China watching the vote on international television when it was taken. And be said you would have had to be there to understand how important this was to the rest of the world, not because of the terms of NAFTA, which basically is a trade agreement between the United States, Mexico, and Canada, but because it became a symbolic struggle for the spirit of our country and for how we would approach this very difficult and rapidly changing world dealing with our own considerable challenges here at home.
I believe we have made a decision now that will permit us to create an economic order in the world that will promote more growth, more equality, better preservation of the environment, and a greater possibility of world peace. We are on the verge of a global economic expansion that is sparked by the fact that the United States lit this critical moment decided that we would compete, not retreat.
In a few moments, I will sign the North American free trade act into law. NAFTA will tear clown trade barriers between our three nations. It will create the world's largest trade zone and create 200,000 jobs in this country by 1995 alone. The environmental and labor side agreements negotiated by our administration will make this agreement a force for social progress as well as economic growth. Already the confidence we've displayed by ratifying NAFTA has begun to bear fruit. We are now making real progress toward a worldwide trade agreement so significant that it could make the material gains of NAFTA for our country look small by comparison.
Today we have the chance to do what our parents did before us. We have the opportunity to remake the world. For this new era, our national security we now know will be determined as much by our ability to pull down foreign trade barriers as by our ability to breach distant ramparts. Once again, we are leading. And in so doing, we are rediscovering a fundamental truth about ourselves: When we lead, we build security, we build prosperity for our own people.
We've learned this lesson the hard way. Twice before in this century, we have been forced to define our role in the world. After World War I we turned inward, building walls of protectionism around our Nation. The result was a Great Depression and ultimately another horrible World War. After the Second World War, we took a different course: We reached outward. Gifted leaders of both political parties built a new order based on collective security and expanded trade. They created a foundation of stability and created in the process the conditions which led to the explosion of the great American middle class, one of the true economic miracles In the whole history of civilization. Their statecraft stands to this day: the IMF and the World Bank, GATT, and NATO.
In this very auditorium in 1949, President Harry Truman signed one of the charter documents of this golden era of American leadership, the North Atlantic Treaty that created NATO. "In this pact we hope to create a shield against aggression and the fear of aggression," told his audience, "a bulwark which will permit us to get on with the real business of Government and society, the business of achieving a fuller and happier life for our citizens."
Now, the institutions built by Truman and Acheson, by Marshall and Vandenberg, have accomplished their task. The cold war is over. The grim certitude of the contest with communism has been replaced by the exuberant uncertainty of international economic competition. And the great question of this day is how to ensure security for our people at a time when change is the only constant.
Make no mistake, the global economy with all of its promise and perils is now the central fact of life for hard-working Americans. It has enriched the lives of millions of Americans. But for too many those same winds of change have worn away at file basis of their security. For two decades, most people have worked harder for less. Seemingly secure jobs have been lost. And while America once again is the most productive nation on Earth, this productivity itself holds the seeds of further insecurity. After all, productivity means the same people can produce more or, very often, that fewer people can produce more. This is the world we face.
We cannot stop global change. We cannot repeal the international economic competition that is everywhere. We can only harness the energy to our benefit. Now we must recognize that the only way for a wealthy nation to grow richer is to export, to simply find new customers for the products and services it makes. That, my fellow Americans, is the decision the Congress made when they voted to ratify NAFTA.
I am gratified with the work that Congress has done this year, bringing the deficit down and keeping interest rates down, getting housing starts and new jobs going upward. But we know that over the long rim, our ability to have our internal economic policies work for the benefit of our people requires us to have external economic policies that permit productivity to find expression not simply in higher incomes for our businesses but in more jobs and higher incomes for our people. That means more customers. There is no other way, not for the United States or for Europe or for Japan or for any other wealthy nation in the world.
That is why I am gratified that we had such a good meeting after the NAFTA vote in the House with the Asian-Pacific leaders in Washington. I am gratified that, as Vice President Gore and Chief of Staff Mack McLarty announced 2 weeks ago when they met with President Salinas, next year the nations of this hemisphere will gather in an economic summit that will plan how to extend the benefits of trade to the emerging market democracies of all the Americas.
And now I am pleased that we have the opportunity to secure the biggest breakthrough of all. Negotiators from 112 nations are seeking to conclude negotiations on a new round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade; a historic world, de trade pact, one that would spur a global economic boon, is now within our grasp. Let me be clear. We cannot, nor should we, settle for a bad GATT agreement. But we will not flag in our efforts to secure a good one in these closing days. We are prepared to make our contributions to the success of this negotiation, but we insist that other nations do their part as well. We must not squander this opportunity. I call on all the nations of the world to seize this moment and close the deal on a strong GATT agreement within the next week.
I say to everyone, even to our negotiators: Don't rest. Don't sleep. Close the deal. I told Mickey Kantor the other day that we rewarded his laborious effort on NAFTA with a vacation at the GATT talks. [Laughter]
My fellow Americans, bit by bit all these things are creating the conditions of a sustained global expansion. As significant as they are, our goals must be more ambitious. The United States must seek nothing less than a new trading system that benefits all nations through robust commerce but that protects our middle class and gives other nations a chance to grow one, that lifts workers and the environment up without dragging people down, that seeks to ensure that our policies reflect our values.
Our agenda must, therefore, be far reaching. We are determining that dynamic trade cannot lead to environmental despoliation. We will seek new institutional arrangements to ensure that trade leaves the world cleaner than before. We will press for workers in all countries to secure rights that we now take for granted, to organize and earn a decent living. We will insist that expanded trade be fair to our businesses and to our regions. No country should use cartels, subsidies, or rules of entry to keep our products off its shelves. And we must see to it that our citizens have the personal security to confidently participate in this new era. Every worker must receive the education and training he or she needs to reap the rewards of international competition rather than to bear its burdens.
Next year, our administration will propose comprehensive legislation to transform our unemployment system into a reemployment and job retraining system for the 21st century. And above all, I say to you we must seek to reconstruct the broad-based political coalition for expanded trade. For decades, working men and women and their representatives supported policies that brought us prosperity and security. That was because we recognized that expanded trade benefited all of us but that we have an obligation to protect those workers who do bear the brunt of competition by giving them a chance to be retrained and to go on to a new and different and, ultimately, more secure and more rewarding way of work. In recent years, this social contract has been sundered. It cannot continue.
When I affix my signature to the NAFTA legislation a few moments from now, I do so with this pledge: To the men and women of our country who were afraid of these changes and found in their opposition to NAFTA an expression of that fear—what I thought was a wrong expression and what I know was a wrong expression but nonetheless represented legitimate fears—the gains from this agreement will be your gains, too.
I ask those who opposed NAFTA to work with us to guarantee that the labor and side agreements are enforced, and I call on all of us who believe in NAFTA to join with me to urge the Congress to create the world's best worker training and retraining system. We owe it to the business community as well as to the working men and women of this country. It means greater productivity, lower unemployment, greater worker efficiency, and higher wages and greater security for our people. We have to do that.
We seek a new and more open global trading system not for its own sake but for our own sake. Good jobs, rewarding careers, broadened horizons for the middle class Americans can only be secured by expanding exports and global growth. For too long our step has been unsteady as the ground has shifted beneath our feet. Today, as I sign the North American Free Trade Agreement into law and call for further progress on GATT, I believe we have found our footing. And I ask all of you to be steady, to recognize that there is no turning back from the world of today and tomorrow. We must face the challenges, embrace them with confidence, deal with the problems honestly and openly, and make this world work for all of us. America is where it should be, in the lead, setting the pace, showing the confidence that all of us need to face tomorrow. We are ready to compete, and we can win.
Thank you very much.

[fatnhappy]

lastly, to best clarify the record one needs only read the published public law 103-182 §101a

emphasis in bold.



Approval of Agreement and Statement of Administrative Action.-- Pursuant to section 1103 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (19 U.S.C. 2903) and section 151 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2191), the Congress approves--(1) the North American Free Trade Agreement entered into on December 17, 1992, with the Governments of Canada and Mexico and submitted to the Congress on November 4, 1993; and(2) the statement of administrative action proposed to implement the Agreement that was submitted to the Congress on November 4, 1993.




President Bush negotiated NAFTA. Bill Clinton had it submitted to Congress and signed it into law.

[Artful]

So they are both guilty of that giant sound of doors closing at American plants in the face of American workers eh.

[Bigslug]

OOOOKAAAAY. . .NAFTA. . .

Meanwhile, on the subject of shotguns. . .

The main difference between an 88 and a 500 is that the Maverick has a left-to-right push button safety on the trigger guard much like that of the Winchesters, 870's, etc..., while the 500 has the front-to-back safety on the top of the receiver.

The main grades will be:
Maverick 88 - plastic trigger housing, right/left safety.
500 - plastic trigger housing and safety, top-mounted safety.
590 - same guts as 500 but with an open-fronted magazine tube and removable spring steel mag spring retainer for easier cleaning of magazine.
500A1 & 590A1 - military grade versions with metal trigger housing, metal safety, and thicker barrel walls.

I generally prefer the top mount safety as it eliminates any confusion as to which way to push it - nor does it care if you run the gun left handed.

I also like the shell carrier / elevator mechanism of the Mossberg family in that there is no way that you can accidentally push it into the wrong position during the various types of reloads you might attempt. In the hands of someone who really knows them, one pump gun is about as good as the next, but the Mossbergs seem a little harder for the uninitiated to screw up under stress, and I like 'em for that.