Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
unclesalty

mossberg 935 auto

5 posts in this topic

Doe's any one own or hunt with someone who has a mossberg 935? What do you think of the gun? I am looking at buying one. Pros and cons, Also looking at a used one from gander or some place else. What should I look for? I know that the majority of you like the 3 B's. But I only have about $500. to spend. I hope you will help out! I know that there aren't a lot veiwing this time of year but I think about waterfoul hunting 365.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would look into a Stoeger M2000. I have shot both the 935 and the M2000 and I like the stoeger alot better. It is modeled after a Benelli M2. I work at Gander and we have the plain black M2000 for 430 bucks. My buddy had a 935 and every 3rd shot or so it would not shoot, just click of the trigger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a 935. Mine has never missed a beat. But I would look hard at the Stoeger. The Moosburg is a tank. I like it, but its heavy. Only complaint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm on my 3rd season with the 935. For me it has been a fine firearm. I have had no issues with 3 or 3 1/2 steel shot loads. However it is a single shot with 2 3/4 loads. The manual states to use 3 or 3 1/2 loads as it was not designed to handle light loads. It was designed for heaver waterfowl and turkey loads not for upland game.

Mal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would personally use a mossberg for a paddle go with the stoeger atleast. Have you looked at the Franchi I 12 its the next cost bracket but I have heard its worth it. $600.00 and thier is always used guns to look at also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Posts

    • Rather than the concepts of teams I think it more appropriate to think in terms of philosophies. Each "team" has a philosophical way of dealing with certain issues: tax codes, immigration, war on drugs etc,  So even though your candidate may be weak you are going to vote, not for them, but for that teams way of dealing with those issues.   A simple example would be tax codes.  The democrats think individual taxes for the top 10%'s should be increased where the republicans believe that reducing taxes on that same 10% will stimulate growth through trickle down economics.   So in essence, you're not voting for a particular candidate, you're voting for the team that will deal with these issues in a way you feel is best. 
    • Like Obabma, he sets up a straw man false premise and then proceeds to attack said straw man.      He is deceived by the fact that the most polarized folks are the ones making the noise, thereby creating a false impression.    You persist in wanting to discuss this article.  Why is that?      
    • So lets recap.   Decriminalization will not reduce prison populations by a noticeable amount.    Will not reduce crime.   Will not reduce monies spent combating drug suppliers and dealers.   Will not lower the consumption rates.    - Will allow regular everyday citizens who use/possess and get caught, not ruin their lives with a crippling criminal record.   May encourage the the habitual users to seek treatment/help.      Which I have no issues with.   My issues are saying with decriminalization it will save tax payers any money.   That's my beef.    
    •   I didn't see the Socialist party listed

    • Nick they are all trash, your party included, until you figure that out you are no better than some blind Trump supporter.
    •   That was a long time ago.   The media has become far more partisan than it was at that time.   

    • You are starting to sound like a helpless snowflake in desperate need of big government to take away the burden of personal responsibility away from you. I try and take a big picture approach and not mico manage our laws based on political views outside of science or common sense.

      No one is advocating for drunk driving or murder to be legal but I guess that doesn't stop you from using wild assumptions without anything to back them up.

      All most of us are asking for is simple freedoms and choices and a government that stays out of the way. Having a bunch of drugs that kill and half of the legal and half of them illegal makes no sense. You either stand for personal freedom and responsibility across the board or you don't, picking and choose this stuff based on political leanings is about as backwards as it gets and you just end up looking like a complete hypocrite. Keeping drugs outlawed because people die is the same kind of reasoning people use to take away guns. All the while you are more likely to die from eating too much McDonalds, you simply can't outlaw stupid people or the things they do and expect that to work. We as a people need to stop trying to control things are completely out of our control, all it does is waste tons of money and time and it does a wonderful job of ruining people's lives.
    • I really don't like a president calling out news media outlets by name and whining about the media. Obama did it with FOX and talk radio and now Trump is doing it with CNN and the NYT's. It's one thing for each men's supporters to do it. But I don't recall GWB or Reagan or Carter calling out the media by name in public.   I don't buy the claim from some(nobody here) that doing such is a sign of a dictator(the same, btw, who cheered BHO doing it). It just makes a president look weak and whiny and looking for other's to blame for their own failures. Not that I'm a fan of the NYT's, but I do believe in freedom of the press even the press I personally don't care much for.   If you're an elected official, the press is supposed to be a thorn in your side
    •   This is what Del was probably talking about and yes he is right, we do have to pick a side or at least a candidate when we go to the polling booth but there is no need to defend every single move the candidate makes and vilify every single move the opposition makes.      I'm not sure what makes us think and behave the way we do, I didn't take enough psychology or anthropology courses in college to answer that question but I do know that to me it is even more repulsive than the small minded thinking that goes in to hating one sports team although they are basically the same as your chosen sports team. I can see liking and rooting for one sports team or political faction over another but the pure hatred for the opposite team is mind boggling to me.     These are the fine points of this article as I see it. Now would anyone like to have a discussion on these points?
    •   This paragraph is important because I believe that most people now when faced with a political discussion do indeed "turn off their intellect". It's the only way to get through the hypocrisy that arises when one chooses a side so completely.  
  • Our Sponsors