The Marine Corps New Shotgun - Page 2

fal308 · May 7, 2000, 09:32 AM

There have been a couple of postings on the M4 here before. Use the search feature with the words [i]Benelli/i] and M4. One of the postings lists some of the specs and requirements IIRC.

CrociJA · May 7, 2000, 10:12 PM

Excellent pic! Too bad I'll only be able to get a "civie" version. That point in mind, I wonder if it'll be worth the extra dough to get this "new, improved" semi-auto or stick with the M-1 Tactical...?
As for shotguns NOT be able to put up with the rigeurs of HTH, I wonder why they don't(didn't) take the bayonet lugs off the A1/A2/M-4? The only weapons that can probably take the strain of HTH are ~80 or more years old, if your out of ammo a pike, or spear will beat a bayonet planted on a rifle any day of the week.

Jon

hksigwalther · May 7, 2000, 10:55 PM

I'm guessing the speed loaders will be like the M1 Practical's :

(crappy pic from Benelli)

Those bulges apparently replace the bolt-on extensions of the Practical.

- Ron V.

Correia · May 7, 2000, 11:37 PM

The biggest advantage that I see over the standard M1 is that it is gas operated, and will kick less. According to the article the felt recoil was much lower. Apparently it has a dual gas system, so it will work with different power levels of shells.

Also since it is gas operated, it should be less susceptible to jamming if a bunch of accesories are hung off it (side saddle, light, etc). I've heard that the M1 will tend to malfunction if it has to much stuff bolted on, due to the recoil operation.

Now I wonder how much this thing is going to cost?

Icopy · May 8, 2000, 10:39 AM

I was reading an artical in Special Weapons for Law Enforcement and Military ( i think that was it) that they dropped the bayonet requirement early on in the development phase.

Dave McC · May 8, 2000, 11:14 AM

Thanks,Hard Ball.I regard bayonet capability as a minor item.

The piece sounds interesting, but I do note that bulge on the bottom of the receiver(for the speedloaders, I surmise) precludes a comfortable one hand carry.

SEAN WILLIAMS · May 22, 2000, 01:40 PM

In a close quaters combat situation what type of optics & reticle would be beneficial and rugged enough to be used with a combat shotgun, also allowing use of sights should the optics fail.

Erick Gelhaus · May 22, 2000, 02:10 PM

If you're looking at glass optic, I'd say probably a Red-Dot scope of some sort. It would have to be positioned in such a way that the operator could pick-up the iron sights immediately if the Dot failed.

Erick

jthuang · May 22, 2000, 06:29 PM

As Erick said, you need a red dot sight that can take the punishment of a 12 gauge.

What's the ideal CQC optical sight? I would combine the durability of an Aimpoint Comp M-XD with the reticle of a Bushnell/EO Tech HOLOsight with that battery-less operation of a Trijicon ACOG. I don't ask for much, eh?

The Aimpoint sight is the Army's new M68 CCO sight. It's one tough mother. Aimpoint's (or GG&G's) quick detach mounts are solidly made and provide easy on/off capability.

The HOLOsight's stock reticle is, IMHO, one of the best designs I've ever seen. Small (3-4 MOA) dot inside a large (20 MOA?) circle. For up close and personal, you just center the big circle on the COM and let them fly. For precise shots, put the small dot on the target and press. Nice and bright reticle too, very visible in full daylight.

The ACOG uses tritium elements and thus does not rely on batteries. Nothing to forget to turn on either.

If I had to choose one, I'd go for the ACOG. The ACOG is about as tough as the Aimpoint and the new triangle reticle can take care of close and distant shots (put the triangle on the target up close, use the tip for distant shots). And no batteries. And all for $800 or so.

Justin

------------------
Justin T. Huang, Esq.
late of Kennett Square, Pennsylvania

Erick Gelhaus · May 22, 2000, 11:04 PM

...or the Reflex II with the Triangle...wait, that's on my AR - never mind.

wakal · May 23, 2000, 09:46 PM

Yep, I just put one of the triangle-"dot" Reflex II's on my M4...very fast, and a lot more accurate (at distance) than I expected. Well worth the three bills.

SEAN WILLIAMS · May 24, 2000, 01:09 PM

Hey wakal, can you post a picture? what type of mount did you use and where did you place the sight, on the receiver, or on the barrel

[This message has been edited by SEAN WILLIAMS (edited May 24, 2000).]

wakal · May 24, 2000, 09:36 PM

The Reflex is as far forward as I could get and still be on the flat top...I may have to get another base and try it on my 870, great fun.

Alex

May 7, 2000, 09:32 AM	#26
fal308 Staff Alumnus Join Date: October 12, 1998 Location: Missouri Posts: 1,990	There have been a couple of postings on the M4 here before. Use the search feature with the words [i]Benelli/i] and M4. One of the postings lists some of the specs and requirements IIRC.

May 7, 2000, 10:12 PM	#27
CrociJA Senior Member Join Date: November 4, 1999 Location: Alachua, FL., USA Posts: 236	Excellent pic! Too bad I'll only be able to get a "civie" version. That point in mind, I wonder if it'll be worth the extra dough to get this "new, improved" semi-auto or stick with the M-1 Tactical...? As for shotguns NOT be able to put up with the rigeurs of HTH, I wonder why they don't(didn't) take the bayonet lugs off the A1/A2/M-4? The only weapons that can probably take the strain of HTH are ~80 or more years old, if your out of ammo a pike, or spear will beat a bayonet planted on a rifle any day of the week. Jon

May 7, 2000, 10:55 PM	#28
hksigwalther Senior Member Join Date: November 18, 1998 Location: NE OH, USA Posts: 3,199	I'm guessing the speed loaders will be like the M1 Practical's : (crappy pic from Benelli) Those bulges apparently replace the bolt-on extensions of the Practical. - Ron V.

May 7, 2000, 11:37 PM	#29
Correia Senior Member Join Date: December 3, 1998 Location: SLC Utah Posts: 3,741	The biggest advantage that I see over the standard M1 is that it is gas operated, and will kick less. According to the article the felt recoil was much lower. Apparently it has a dual gas system, so it will work with different power levels of shells. Also since it is gas operated, it should be less susceptible to jamming if a bunch of accesories are hung off it (side saddle, light, etc). I've heard that the M1 will tend to malfunction if it has to much stuff bolted on, due to the recoil operation. Now I wonder how much this thing is going to cost?

May 8, 2000, 10:39 AM	#30
Icopy Senior Member Join Date: April 19, 2000 Posts: 340	I was reading an artical in Special Weapons for Law Enforcement and Military ( i think that was it) that they dropped the bayonet requirement early on in the development phase.

May 8, 2000, 11:14 AM	#31
Dave McC Staff In Memoriam Join Date: October 14, 1999 Location: Columbia, Md, USA Posts: 8,831	Thanks,Hard Ball.I regard bayonet capability as a minor item. The piece sounds interesting, but I do note that bulge on the bottom of the receiver(for the speedloaders, I surmise) precludes a comfortable one hand carry.

May 22, 2000, 01:40 PM	#32
SEAN WILLIAMS Member Join Date: October 6, 1999 Posts: 59	In a close quaters combat situation what type of optics & reticle would be beneficial and rugged enough to be used with a combat shotgun, also allowing use of sights should the optics fail.

May 22, 2000, 02:10 PM	#33
Erick Gelhaus Staff Emeritus Join Date: October 28, 1998 Location: Northern CA Posts: 2,750	If you're looking at glass optic, I'd say probably a Red-Dot scope of some sort. It would have to be positioned in such a way that the operator could pick-up the iron sights immediately if the Dot failed. Erick

May 22, 2000, 06:29 PM	#34
jthuang Senior Member Join Date: January 21, 2000 Posts: 828	As Erick said, you need a red dot sight that can take the punishment of a 12 gauge. What's the ideal CQC optical sight? I would combine the durability of an Aimpoint Comp M-XD with the reticle of a Bushnell/EO Tech HOLOsight with that battery-less operation of a Trijicon ACOG. I don't ask for much, eh? The Aimpoint sight is the Army's new M68 CCO sight. It's one tough mother. Aimpoint's (or GG&G's) quick detach mounts are solidly made and provide easy on/off capability. The HOLOsight's stock reticle is, IMHO, one of the best designs I've ever seen. Small (3-4 MOA) dot inside a large (20 MOA?) circle. For up close and personal, you just center the big circle on the COM and let them fly. For precise shots, put the small dot on the target and press. Nice and bright reticle too, very visible in full daylight. The ACOG uses tritium elements and thus does not rely on batteries. Nothing to forget to turn on either. If I had to choose one, I'd go for the ACOG. The ACOG is about as tough as the Aimpoint and the new triangle reticle can take care of close and distant shots (put the triangle on the target up close, use the tip for distant shots). And no batteries. And all for $800 or so. Justin ------------------ Justin T. Huang, Esq. late of Kennett Square, Pennsylvania

May 22, 2000, 11:04 PM	#35
Erick Gelhaus Staff Emeritus Join Date: October 28, 1998 Location: Northern CA Posts: 2,750	...or the Reflex II with the Triangle...wait, that's on my AR - never mind.

May 23, 2000, 09:46 PM	#36
wakal Senior Member Join Date: March 24, 2000 Location: San Angelo, Texas Posts: 317	Yep, I just put one of the triangle-"dot" Reflex II's on my M4...very fast, and a lot more accurate (at distance) than I expected. Well worth the three bills.

May 24, 2000, 01:09 PM	#37
SEAN WILLIAMS Member Join Date: October 6, 1999 Posts: 59	Hey wakal, can you post a picture? what type of mount did you use and where did you place the sight, on the receiver, or on the barrel [This message has been edited by SEAN WILLIAMS (edited May 24, 2000).]

May 24, 2000, 09:36 PM	#38
wakal Senior Member Join Date: March 24, 2000 Location: San Angelo, Texas Posts: 317	The Reflex is as far forward as I could get and still be on the flat top...I may have to get another base and try it on my 870, great fun. Alex