The Marines are going with the Benelli M4...

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

Nightcrawler

New member
My question is why? Is there something the new Benelli M4 gas-operated autoloader can do that the Mossberg 590A1 with peep sight can't? Why spend the money, especially since shotguns are a limited-issue basis weapon in the military?
 
I've never heard of the Mossberg jamming. How does a pump shotgun jam anyway? If you short-cycle it, you'll have problems, but that's operator error and can happen with any pumpgun.
 
I have watched Mossberg autos jam with consistency on the skeet and Sporting Clays field. Perhaps that is why Mossberg no longer makes autos.

You are right of course about the difficulty of jamming pump guns. I guess I will have to learn the numbers for Mossbergs.

The marines are going to the Benelli because it is an auto and a very reliable one at that. Is is a very simple mechanism that does not require the maintenance of Gas operated autos. Benellis have a great rep amongst duck hunters.

I once was soundly thrashed at Sporting Clays by a young guy using a Benelli M3 with short barrel and extended mag tube. I encouraged him to take up Trapshooting:D
 
That's the thing...according to Benelli's website, the M4 is Benelli's first gas-operated autoloader.

I don't see that a semiauto service shotgun provides an advantage over a pump. In fact, it would probably be unable to use low powered less-lethal ammo that may be what a military shotgun is used for.

Plus, the Benelli undoubtedly costs twice as much as the Mossy or a Remington 870 would.

There must be something more to it, but I'm not sure what.
 
why..because you cannot heavily add accessories to the inertia recoil operated benelli in its present form...the gun will not cycle..thats why benelli went to the gas....winchester actually started the inertia recoil system in the model 50..it never sold..and the delayed roller blowback on the HK was invented in the US in the 1920s...just a little history..as usual we invent..dont buy it..and somebody overseas puts it into there guns and then we think its great because it must be good..it was made overseas....buy the way..the m4 stock is wonderful..but the gun itself weighs a ton..ive handled it....was not impressed
 
We do have here a number of M4's in Moscow gunshops, but Benelli's price is something outstanding: $1,800, while Rem-870's for only $400-$500.

A gas-operated semiauto seems to be a good choice for service shotgun, especially when it is made as reliable as Benelli. The only question is why did they install an M1S90-type recoil spring in the buttstock (just like AR15 buffer)? Benelli M3S90 had a recoil spring placed over the magazine tube, so it could been used with both PG and a full stock. M4 shotgun can be used with special Uzi-type folding stock only because of the recoil spring housing.

BTW, does anyone know if Benelli M4 is available with classic full stock, like M1S90 or M3S90? I've never seen M4 with fullstock, but I dont see any reason why it couldn't exist.

With best regards,
Sergey Podgirin
 
Last edited:
Ok Dumb question.. can it be fired one handed? Otherwise why a pistol grip stock?

Some tech stuff I've read says it will shoot anything you put in it from low brass 2 3/4 to max dram 3 inch shells and is expected to last 25,000 rounds without and parts changes. Sounds cool to me.

The 'folding stock" looks like something that will get tied up in web gear. Why not a sort of m-4 carbine type stock? Or is the spring buffer tube forcing the stock down instead of straight back? Charging handle on the bolt looks small, can it be reliably engaged with heavy gloves?

And I sort of agree.. do we really NEED a new combat shotgun? the argument seems to be putting funky doo-hicky sights and stuff on the shout gun. Really does a shotgun NEED a laser range finder?

BTW saw a thing on discovery/history channel the other day about the battle of Hue.. US Marine said they borrowed a bunch of shotguns for house to house fighting from the army. That sort of suprised me, an 8 shot weapon over a 30 shot weapon when ranges are varied from point blank to 100's of yards.? Well according to one marine YES.. it was all shot guns and grenades.
 
Doctor, it hurts when I do this [moving arm up and down]!!!

Yes, you can shoot a shotgun one-handed and you should practice this skill. I am amazed how many people think that they will not be shot in a gunfight.

"Pistol grips" are for GSCs and part of that raging infection the "Iwannacoolgun" virus. They allow the weapon to be ripped away from you easier. However, the militree likes them because they make the weapon easier to handle for people with smaller hands (i.e., females). Folding stocks are silly and are solely for GSCs who claim in their Selous Scout days they needed to retract the stock as they jumped out of the helicopter with a knife in their teeth.

We may not need a new shotgun; we do need increased training. Why not let each unit decide what they want given a choice between the two? A shotgun does not need a laser/phaser, but does need a light and good sights.

Shotguns have long been used in fights. Depending on your range and understanding that it is just a tool, it may be the right tool, but the operator is most important.
 
I find it interesting that the Marines would find the 590-A1 unreliable. My understanding is that the 590-A1 was the only shotgun to pass the durability test when it was adopted several years ago.

Now I'm not saying that there may have been some hanky-panky involved in the switch to the Benelli M4, but it has been known to happen. I am not at all familier with the M4, but if it uses a trigger group like the M1, I see trouble down the road.

Of course, this is just MHO.
 
I know little first hand about either the Benelli or the 590, but I've some insight into the military mind.

First, you should recall that the M-16 was never intended to be a battle rifle, but a survival tool that was to be strapped to an survival kit, or liferaft. Once some fool decided it was a line werapon, it took about 5X as much money to make it reliable and effective as it did to develop the concept.

Second, the adoption of that Beretta 9mm in place of the old Colt warhorse has seen more NDs and injuries in 20 years than the GM had in 70. And, the Beretta rep for FTFs put it way down the list of picks for personal defense.

Now to shotguns....

Ever since the Brown Bess was state of the art, military weapons have ben built as ruggedly as possible. The Garand, K-98, AK etc, come to mind.
My guess is the 590 doesn't hold up, and since the folks that picked it don't want to admit that, they moved on to a "New, Improved" shotgun rather than regress to an older, previously used model.

Point of Fact, possibly the best fighting shotgun from a military POV is the old Model 97. Tough, reliable, ambidextrous, with relatively high mag capacity, it's sole drawback is the fairly high cost of machining the parts. The experimental model w/ grip safety done at SA might still be the best choice in a military shotgun.
 
Dave McC said:

"First, you should recall that the M-16 was never intended to be a battle rifle, but a survival tool that was to be strapped to an survival kit, or liferaft."

Huh? Are you, perhaps, confusing the AR15 and the AR7? The AR7 was indeed a survival rifle, but the AR15 did not come from the AR7.

M1911
 
He's not mistaken.

The AR-15 was originally adopted by the Air Force. The Army and the Marines didn't want it at first, until Bobby MacNamara and his Whiz Kids forced it on everybody.

No matter how you hash it, the M16 is NOT a battle rifle. It's an assault rifle. The M16A2, with it's increased weight and long range sights, is, in my opinion, a step in the wrong direction. They should have made the M16 LIGHTER, not heavier. And why the heck did they put 800 yard battle sights on there? The Army only trains for 300 meters, and the Marines for 500, I believe. They're trying to turn the M16 into something it's not, I belive. Now, they're taking a big turnaround with the adoption of the M4 carbine, and are going back to the weapon being a lightweight, easy to carry assault rifle.

Back to shotguns. Here would be my IDEAL service shotgun.

-Solid steel receiver like the Ithaca and Remington 870.
-Ambidextrious saftey like the Mossberg series, placed in a similar location.
-A ghost ring sight system.
-8 or 9 capacity
-Parkerized finish.

Basically, it's the Rem 870, except I don't like the Remington's saftey.
 
The Air Force originally bought the M16 for the security guards around their airbases, not as a survival tool.

Kharn
 
Here's a thought - maybe the collapsable stock on the Benelli M4 is for use with and without differant amounts of armor, gear, etc? Ever think of that?

When you are wearing an entry vest, your length of pull on the weapon needs to be differant from when you are just wearing BDU's. That was one of the major reasons I was given when asking about the collapsing stock.

Second - it's not a matter of laser sights as much as being able to mount the Comp M / NV combo on it. Being able to see what you are shooting at keeps you from accidentally shooting one of your own guys.

Anyone else here actually handle one? I did at SHOT last year, and found it quite easy to use. It's beeeefy, but handles well, wish I had one for home defense.

Let's see how it survives the first few years before us armchair commandos start bitching about how it sucks ass.
 
Nightcrawler, you are incorrect. As Kharn posted, the Air Force purchased the AR15 for airbase security purposes, NOT as a survival tool for its pilots. Ezell's book "The Black Rifle" talks about the gestation of the AR15 and its procurement for the Air Force.

The AR7 was a .22 survival rifle, but it's an entirely different rifle. Yes, it took quite a while and a fair bit of money to develop the AR15 to the point where it was reliable. But, as Ezell points out, the same was true of most US small arms. The difference is that the AR15 was pushed into combat too quickly, before all the development and testing was complete. There are various people and organizations to blame for that.

M1911
 
The Benelli M4 is better for the battlefield than a pump because
1. You can fire it with one hand. In a war you have a realistic chance of getting wounded in one arm or hand.

2. In a war you might be firing your shotgun in a real confined area like a tight trench or baracade where pumping is difficult.

3. If you are on patrol, your pumping sound may give away your position to the enemy.
 
Mossberg 590

For what its worth..I have a 590, Love it. Shoots a wonderful pattern and never one breakdown. Easy to breakdown and clean. I find the ghost sight setup makes for an easy and quick target locator. If I could change anything on it I would be to put a cleaning kit in the butt end of the shoulder stock like that of an m-16. As for shooting one handed...forget it. You might do it once but would think strongly about it the second time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top