Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Mesa Tactical for Mossy 500

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • cj1026
    Senior Member
    • Apr 2008
    • 1107

    Mesa Tactical for Mossy 500

    Do any of you have a Mesa Tactical setup for your Mossberg? If so my big question is....how hard is it to operate the safety and the pump release with this setup? Any input would be great.
  • #2
    agental1934
    Member
    • Mar 2008
    • 176

    I helped a buddy install the Knoxx setup on his Mossberg 590, possibly similar to the Mesa Tactical setup (pistol grip) you are asking about. After the installation, he realized that it became very awkward and difficult to operate/manipulate the action release that sits by the trigger on the Mossberg. Also, though the safety that sits on the top of the receiver is accessible, it is not as easily accessible having the pistol grip.

    He ended up swapping it back out for standard stock.

    Comment

    • #3
      chsk9
      Senior Member
      • Dec 2006
      • 1356

      I was less than impressed with the Mesa Tactical set up on my 870 and will likely put the standard stock back on.

      Comment

      • #4
        spmat
        Member
        • May 2007
        • 304

        Mesa Tactical for Mossy 500

        I have one on my 590. It is a great stock. My Mossy is for sale on gunbroker if you want to see a picture of the shotgun with the stock.

        Comment

        • #5
          Shane916
          Calguns Addict
          • Feb 2006
          • 5004

          I'd recommend the Knoxx over Mesa.

          The safety is a bit awkward to use once a pistol grip is installed on the Mossberg.

          Comment

          • #6
            supermario
            Veteran Member
            • Nov 2008
            • 4569

            I have a knoxx on my 500 and it works great!

            Comment

            • #7
              Ballistic043
              Senior Member
              • Feb 2008
              • 1704

              the safety is hard to reach with either model. they both use pistol grips! there is nothing magical about the knoxx

              as far as the pump release- i have no problems reaching it with either hand using the mesa setup. its downright perfect for me-

              the biggest difference between the two models is function= the knoxx is cheaper but reduces alot of felt recoil. it doesn't look too pretty but has great function in reducing the load in higher powered shells.

              the mesa tactical focuses on modularity rather than comfort. you can add AR15 style buffer tubes, stocks and pistol grips, picatinny rails, shell holders, sling attachments, etc. and since you can retrofit an enidine shock on there, you can have a custom feel AND reduce the kick in those high powered shells-best of both worlds

              i would choose mesa over knoxx- more options, plus they are like 5 minutes away from rifle gear!
              Last edited by Ballistic043; 12-10-2008, 5:13 AM.

              Comment

              • #8
                Baron
                Senior Member
                • Mar 2007
                • 797

                I have the Mesa High tube stock with the endine shock. I like it alot and like the way it looks over the knoxx specops. Although the Knoxx is about half the price. I did just put a Knoxx compstock on my wifes 500, so I need to try it out and see how if feels compared to the endine... The compstock looks like a conventional shotgun stock....

                As for the safety goes I also purchased a Cav arms safety for my 500, so I can reach the safety with my thumb without removing my grip from the pistol grip. It works great and I couldn't be happier with it.

                One more thing to think about my mesa adaptor seems to weigh alot, but I think the Knoxx is made out of plastic or some kind of polymer, so it might be lighter. I prefer the extra weight of the mesa adaptor due to the fact it even out the front end heaviness from my sidewinder kit I also have installed
                .
                .
                .
                .
                .


                sigpic

                Comment

                Working...
                UA-8071174-1