UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
  Tactical Forums
  Ground Zero
  Benelli M4 review on SWAT magazine

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Benelli M4 review on SWAT magazine
Tuukka
Member
posted 06-17-2002 21:16     Click Here to See the Profile for Tuukka   Click Here to Email Tuukka     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I learned of the above mentioned review on a another board.

I have not yet read the issue personally since it has not arrived to here yet.

If i am not mistaken, Mr. Awerbuck stated atleast the following.

1. Too long LOP
2. No length adjustments in stock
3. Button pressed accidentally on stock when firing
4. The weight of the weapon

With shooting/handling experience with the M4 shotgun, these do not seem to be critical faults. I would think that the problems with the stock can be easily fixed.

I have seen people say the Super 90 M1 frame can be more easily damaged than on a Remington for example. Well, the M4 is a very robust weapon alltogether and should withstand heavy use.

I have not experienced a single malfunction with proper ammunition on the M4. The recoil is also milder than on a M1. I am a great fan of all Benelli shotguns and do not want to put down the M1 series, but i also do not see any serious faults in the M4

It would be great to generate some discussion on the subject.

IP: Logged

Pat _Rogers
Moderator
posted 06-17-2002 21:59     Click Here to See the Profile for Pat _Rogers   Click Here to Email Pat _Rogers     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Tukka
Louie had it about half right in his article.
The stock is way too long. Perhaps they grow men bigger in your neck of the woods, but the 14" LOP is typically Benneli/ HK nonsense, just as with the M1. This becomes apparent when wearing body armor. It becomes exceptionally apparent when taking a 5 day course. The longer LOP is harder to mount, resulting in a lot of shots being taken from a poor mount.
Louie knows from where he speaks on this.
The collabsibile stock on the M1014 makes sense Only if it had intermediate adjustments.
Last month we took 8 M1014's out and put 9000 rds through them. No one collapsed the stock accidently, can't comment on that, and weight is weight.
Louie was incorrect when he stated that the gun was designed for a specific Marine Corps unit. The Marine Corps acted only as the agent for DoD, and all services had input.
The shotgun is not, despite what the name states a "combat" weapon in the Marine Corps.
Instead, it is a Table of Equipment weapon issued for specific guard functions- ammunition supply points, special weapons and the like.
The pistol is generally considered a useless weapon for combat.
I-MEF, which has 45,000 Marines and Sailors in place, appx 32%- 14,397 carry the pistol. The shotgun totals 1%- 523.
It is not the least used weapon. Until 1998, the Marine Corps- that is, the entire Marine Corps, had 819 sub caliber machine guns. They were replaced by the M4A1, and few remain.

We had no buck or slug, only birdshot, and we had a lot of malfunctions with some of the guns.
However, since that is not what they were designed for, no biggie.
The choke is exceptionally tight. Why can't remington get that figured out?
Force Reconnaissance uses shotguns only for breaching, and the M1014 is uniquely unqualified to do that, as it can't cycle breaching rounds.(
They are hoping to keep the 870's in the Company for that purpose.
The shotgun is pretty much a non issue in the Marine Corps for a lot of viable reasons.
I'm sure a lot of money was spent on R&D, and we probably didn't get anything sisnificantly better then the 870's it is replacing, but it is a TE weapon, not a TO weapon, and will not have any major impact one way or the other- except in Force, who cannot use it at all.
We talked about this a few months ago, no?

------------------
S/F

Pat Sends

IP: Logged

Tuukka
Member
posted 06-17-2002 22:34     Click Here to See the Profile for Tuukka   Click Here to Email Tuukka     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Thanks for the great feedback Pat, we did talk about the M4 and itīs usage some time ago.

I was just merely thinking that it would not a be a great problem to create the intermediate positions in the stock, perhaps Benelli sees the light on this issue.

But was itīs development worthwhile for the other branches of the U.S Armed Forces?


IP: Logged

Pat _Rogers
Moderator
posted 06-18-2002 05:50     Click Here to See the Profile for Pat _Rogers   Click Here to Email Pat _Rogers     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
perhaps Benelli sees the light on this issue.

[/B][/QUOTE]

I doubt it. It took H&K years to understand that the selector switch on the MP5 was no where near where it ought to be.
The fact is that the company (benelli) was responding to what the Program Manager wanted. The issue of stock length should have been resolved then- it won't now.

I can't speak for the other services, but the nomenclature applied to the M1014-Joint Service Combat Shotgun- is certainly as silly as the nomenclature applied to the 970- Shotgun, Riot Type.

------------------
S/F

Pat Sends

IP: Logged

SCHK45
Novice
posted 06-18-2002 08:18     Click Here to See the Profile for SCHK45     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
If you go to the Benelli website and look at the M4 under the Law Enforcement section you will see they offer a collapsible stock that has 2 positions and an adjustable stock stock that looks the same but has 4 positions.

IP: Logged

Pat _Rogers
Moderator
posted 06-18-2002 09:51     Click Here to See the Profile for Pat _Rogers   Click Here to Email Pat _Rogers     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by SCHK45:
If you go to the Benelli website and look at the M4 under the Law Enforcement section you will see they offer a collapsible stock that has 2 positions and an adjustable stock stock that looks the same but has 4 positions.


If you do the search function you will see that this has been done to death. Yes, we know that this is available.
And no, the M1014 doesn't have it.
As i stated above, the program manager should have known this, but for whatever reason it didn't happen.

------------------
S/F

Pat Sends

IP: Logged

SCHK45
Novice
posted 06-18-2002 11:48     Click Here to See the Profile for SCHK45     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Sorry!!!!! Won't happen again

IP: Logged

All times are Mountain

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Tactical Forums Home Page

This site is designed, created, and maintained by David Schuff.


Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.45