The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Dave McCracken Memorial Shotgun Forum

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 7, 2000, 09:12 PM   #26
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.

CrociJA is offline  
Old May 7, 2000, 09:55 PM   #27
Senior Member
Join Date: November 18, 1998
Location: NE OH, USA
Posts: 3,198
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.
hksigwalther is offline  
Old May 7, 2000, 10:37 PM   #28
Senior Member
Join Date: December 3, 1998
Location: SLC Utah
Posts: 3,740
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?
Correia is offline  
Old May 8, 2000, 09:39 AM   #29
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 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.
Icopy is offline  
Old May 8, 2000, 10:14 AM   #30
Dave McC
Staff In Memoriam
Join Date: October 13, 1999
Location: Columbia, Md, USA
Posts: 8,812
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.
Dave McC is offline  
Old May 22, 2000, 12:40 PM   #31
Join Date: October 5, 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.
SEAN WILLIAMS is offline  
Old May 22, 2000, 05:29 PM   #32
Senior Member
Join Date: January 21, 2000
Posts: 823
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 T. Huang, Esq.
late of Kennett Square, Pennsylvania
jthuang is offline  
Old May 23, 2000, 08:46 PM   #33
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.

wakal is offline  
Old May 24, 2000, 12:09 PM   #34
Join Date: October 5, 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).]
SEAN WILLIAMS is offline  
Old May 24, 2000, 08:36 PM   #35
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.

wakal is offline  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2016 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent:
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.05963 seconds with 7 queries