Originally Posted by
psalms144.1
We still have SGs (14" Mossberg 500s) as our primary long arm. Even though we work for DoD, rifles are still few and far between (though we carry them on deployments - go figure).
I'm bipolar on the issue. On the one hand, the 500s are heavy, low capacity, slow to reload, non-ergonomic (standard stocks are WAY too long even for gorillas like me), have just the single bead sight in front, and all of our issued ammo is full powered 00 buck or slug. Patterning these SGs at 15 yards shows you have to aim about diaphragm high to have any chance of keeping MOST of the pellets on the silhouette - if you aim where I teach you to with a rifle, SMG or handgun, you're going to through a lot of pellets high off target, unless you REALLY get behind the SG and know how to run it. Recoil is heavy, to say the least. This side of me wishes they'd go away, because, frankly, the overwhelming majority of our agents shoot 15 rounds through them twice a year, fail the qualification, and go on record as "familiarized" - meaning they can't operationally deploy the darned thing anyway. The usual arguments carry weight, the AR is easier to shoot more accurately, at greater distance, with more capacity and faster reloads, better ergonomics, better sighting options, etc, etc.
The other side of me recognizes just how devastatingly effective a SG is at close-moderate ranges in the hands of a capable shooter, and never wants to see them go away. Like TGS, I'm convinced if we went to a shorter stock and Flitecontrol 00 and slugs, not only would more people qualify, but more people would actually want to train with the SGs. But, last time I made those suggestions most of the decision makers (including a lot of FIs) looked at me like I had a penis growing out of my forehead, and rapidly moved on to less "outlandish" suggestions (like approving Taurus handguns and .40 S&W 1911s for personal weapons carry).