(http://cdn2.thefirearmsblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/mb37200-tfb.jpg)
Has anybody seen these yet? They are a brand-new offering from Mossberg. Mike Nelson, the owner of Excalibur Sporting Goods (the range and gun shop that is hosting Oklahoma's next Appleseed this weekend) clued me in to them... he said he just got a couple in last week. It is a regular Mossberg 702 Plinkster action inside a plastic AR-15-looking shell. They come with A2-style carry handle sights that are fully adjustable for windage and elevation, a 6-position buttstock, 18" barrel, a picatinny rail that mounts to the carry handle, and a quad rail forearm. I see that Bud's has them for $230.00. http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=69670 (http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=69670)
This looks like it might make a perfect LTR.
I will get to handle one this weekend at the Appleseed... I'll let you know what my impressions are.
Looks like it has serious potential at an attractive price... I'll be watching for reviews of this product..if they're solid, I'll be in line to add it to my ever growing LTR loaner rifle collection.... BeSwift
Looks cool.
After handling one and seeing one in action at an Appleseed this weekend, I do not recommend them. The main problem is that the barreled action is encased in a plastic "clamshell," which is basically in two halves that screw together, split down the middle. It is really in 4 pieces, since the handguards are separate from the part that encases the receiver and attach with a key slot. The sights are part of the plastic shell, rather than being attached to the barrel or receiver. The rifle has a sling swivel up front and a stud on the stock, but when you sling up and put any kind of pressure on the front swivel, it pulls the halves of the plastic shell apart... you start to see a big crack of daylight down the middle of the front sight block, and it moves the front sight quite a bit.
Also, the sights are not click-adjustable as originally reported -- they are just on plastic screws. They do not use any M-16 sight parts. It adjusts for windage and elevation at the rear sight, and the front sight is not adjustable at all. Also, the 6-position stock is not adjustable -- it is pinned in place. If you look at the picture, you can see it has no lever for adjusting the stock. I assume they do this to make it legal to sell in places with extra-restrictive gun control laws. Apparently it uses an actual CAR stock (I don't remember what brand), so presumably you could buy and install the parts that make it adjustable, if you really wanted to waste the time and money on this piece of junk.
This thing is honestly built like a cheap toy. Definitely not fit to use as an LTR, or for anything else for that matter.
This is the Mossberg 702 Plinkster in a AR Shell. It's written right on the barrel. They took a $110.00 Rifle and "Dressed" it up to look like an AR for an additional $150.00. It even takes the same mags as the 702.
Now with this said the "regular" 702 isn't a bad rifle for the money. I have one and used it to shoot Rifleman.
Would I recommend buying the Tactical......well that's for you to decide.
Thanks Henschman...I do like the 702 that I have ...I won't waste my FRNs on the "tacticool" model...
W44
my 702 has "made" at least 7 riflemen.
I was going to post that we saw one in Manchester, and (after the shooter frustrated himself) an instructor (RH/SB) could only get 12+ MOA out of it. He said that he had had similar experience with others.
So...though it looks a lot like a Marlin 795, it doesn't seem to shoot like one.
In view of the comments above on ones that come up to standard, perhaps the Mossbergs and the Savages should be viewed as hit or miss. Whereas every 795 I've seen comes in well under 3 MOA. (Course I haint seen all of em.)
Let me be clear; The stock 702 plinkster is indeed a fine LTR (the stock sights leave a lot to be desired, but tech sights for a Marlin should work). There have been several many Riflemen produced behind my Plinkster. I rate it as equal to the Marlin 795 (that is high praise indeed)
On a related point...Both my 702 and my 795 like different ammo, neither shooting well with what the other rifle likes.
W44