View Full Version : The M4 Article
June 4, 2002, 03:42 PM
Proof positive that SWAT doesn't bow to the advertisers. Louis Awerbuck's article is CLASSIC.
I was laughing out loud while reading it. This is a peice of work you don't read very often.
Kudos to louis for calling a spade a spade. Or in this case a shotgun a POS.
June 5, 2002, 01:32 AM
I don't think we'll be approaching Benelli for an ad anytime soon. The concept has much to recommend it. Like so many designs, however, the designers forgot to go the last 1/4 mule by getting it into the hands of REAL SHOOTERS before sending it to the assembly line.
Actually, I was real surprised. Benelli's been around long enough and has enough proven designs under its belt to know better.
June 5, 2002, 07:17 AM
"Herrre's a clue for you! This *&^%$##@ thing doesn't worrrk. Call the boys in R&D!"
June 5, 2002, 09:32 AM
Seems a quick fix if an M4 lands in your hands is to order a replacement fixed stock for it.
Other Benelli shotguns seem to be sized just fine. At least for me.
June 6, 2002, 06:01 AM
I just got my copy a couple of days ago--how about Rob's take on the Israeli training session? :eek:
Though, with that said, I must also say it seems to work well for them. Maybe it matters less exactly how you train than that there's a guy behind you with fireworks and a bullhorn to make you train like a madman.
What a fantastic issue all around! Your best yet, folks.
And keep Pat Rogers writing! No rest for that guy, he's too valuable.
June 19, 2002, 01:36 AM
I'll admit that I chuckled quite a bit over Louis A's article, too!
Really, he seemed to downplay the good points quite a bit: it functioned well, the sights were good and robust, the gun pattered well, and the system uses an elegant method of giving you an extra round.
Just goes to show you, one or two wrong spices can ruin a dang good stew.
June 19, 2002, 12:34 PM
I think his point with regard to the good points is that previous Benellis do all those things. His exact observation was "The M4 doesn't do anything that other weapons don't already do, so what is its purpose?"
Of course, we all know that its purpose is to be newer than the old models (and thus instantly better) and to introduce new features. I think Mr. Awerbuck's problem was that the new features were so impractical as to overshadow the rest.
I shot with a guy with a Benelli w/Vang Comp conversion a few weeks ago, and his gun was reliable with nice sights. It also used that famous Benelli carrier system so it held that extra round. The question is, why buy the new gun with its problems when you can have the old gun without them?
(Not that I'd turn my nose up at an M4 if you offered it to me, but then Mr. Awerbuck and I use shotguns for very different purposes. I bet that short stock would be perfect for deer hunting in four layers of insulated clothing, but it might give Mr. Awerbuck a heart attack if I suggested such a thing. :D )
June 20, 2002, 10:27 AM
I handled an M4 at the SHOT show, and I thought the stock sucked. And that is being nice.
I imagine that if you replaced it with a real stock that would solve most of the guns shortcomings.
June 29, 2002, 10:56 AM
go the last 1/4 mule Rich...would that be a metric mule or a SAE mule ?
New and innovative sells new product.
A shame that new isn't always an improvement.
July 15, 2002, 02:45 PM
OK, I haven't read the article yet :( but I had the impresion from the piece on American Shooter that this was designed to US Marine Corps specs--is that not so?
And if it IS so, shouldn't the blame for the deisgn be aimed at 8th & I, rather than Bennelli?
(Father of a friend of mine was a designer at GM,and had a hand in designing the Gamma Goat. When we found that out we almost killed him. He said that all of it's problems were a result of design parameters in the original concept.)
July 15, 2002, 03:52 PM
The Benelli M4 (or M1014 by its military designation) was a result of military specs. We have been advised by both Benelli and H&K that many of its shortcomings are being rectified.
July 20, 2002, 10:15 PM
There's an article in GunWorld or a similar rag about the M4 that I read today. The stock must be really bad; they even mentioned that the cheekpiece 'might need redesign' (the rest of the gun got a glowing review).
August 3, 2002, 01:35 AM
I think that folding stock is ugly...even if it was legal, I may opt for the standard stock. Because looks DO matter :D
I guess I gotta find me this mag. I hope I can find it somewhere down here in Socal.
August 3, 2002, 06:50 PM
The article on the M4 (or the M1014 in militaryese) was featured in the September issue. Back issues are available here http://swatmagazine.com/archives.htm
August 19, 2005, 07:01 PM
I was searching for more info on my shotgun and wanted to read the pros and cons...
August 19, 2005, 07:16 PM
That was the July 2002 issue. it is available in both print and PDF dowload version at www.swatmag.com
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.