Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ipguy

  1. Thanks for passing this on to the Benelli forums. I haven't listed on any other forums other than AR15.com (and this one, sort of), so if it does not get much interest, I'll post on Snipers Hide. Really had fun with this shotgun, and the highlight was shooting steel plates at 100 yards with 1 oz. slugs. I've got a homemade plug in it right now for a goose hunt I made in January, but of course, that just pops right out for 7+1 capacity.
  2. "Legal under Federal law, check your state and local laws before purchasing." Benelli already made a statement on this, so all of the points you make about manufacturers being cautious are, well, kind of irrelevant. My point is that now that Benelli has taken a clear position on this, we want the rationale, because it may help us as we wrangle with these obscure statutory provisions and seemingly contradictory statements propounded by BATF in a private letter. Understand my request. I already KNOW that Benelli thinks this is legal. I want the rationale, the line of thinking, the b
  3. Tucker301, As you can see from my post, we civilian customers have fairly exhausted this topic and contacted Benelli and ATF. We've certainly done everything we can do. Hence my request for a written clarification from Benelli. So, your suggestion that we ask ATF for clarification is late but well understood. As for Benelli not having the responsibility to provide their interpretion of the law, I completely disagree. Let's say you bought a pharmaceutical product (prescription drug) from a national pharmacy chain, and you had legitimate concerns that your purchase and/or your use of
  4. This topic has been raised before, but is now churning again on AR15.com forums. See link below: Discussion of legality of M4/M1014 Here's the bottom line: Existing and potential customers of Benelli (M4/M1014 buyers) want some written assurances (other than a small notice on the web site) that their purchase and use of Benelli-manufactured telestocks and 2-rd mag extensions to a pistol-grip M4/M1014 is not illegal under 18 USC §922®. If there is no authoritative and concrete letter, determination, or ruling from BATF as to whether the M4/M1014 is importable under 18 USC §925
  5. Ummmm.... BenelliGirl, Mudhen's tongue was planted firmly in his cheek when he made the above comments.
  6. It hasn't so far.... when it comes to legal issues, the silence has been deafening. Which is kind of strange if all of these mod's are legal in the hands of Benelli customers in the U.S. Perhaps that's because it's still being worked on, but it would at least be nice to hear what that process is.
  7. Yep, the LE133's are great. For competition, if you're shooting slugs, they make a corresponding low-recoil tactical slug as well. Perfect feeding and shooting through my M4.
  8. You unscrew it!!! Don't attempt to remove the plate on the inside of the stock. Just remove the butt pad, loosen the puppy up and unscrew it.
  9. The 3gungear stuff is fantastic. Bought a bunch of do-dads from him, and they're on the M4. Love 'em.
  10. Steven, I haven't heard of this before, but then I haven't really shot my M4 in competition yet. Exactly how fast are you shooting? I know it's impossible to answer this with any real precision; just trying to get a feel for it. Are you shooting at multiple targets very close together, or are you trying to put two slugs on one target?
  11. I use mine for sporting purposes - Sporting Clays and trap & skeet. So it fits the definition. And I use mine for 3 gun competitions, and I feel very sporting when I shoot it. But the feds have long since abandoned the idea that a firearm's capacity to be used for such "sporting" purposes, or even the fact that it is ACTUALLY used for such "sporting" purposes, negates its character as a "nonsporting" firearm. This goes back to 1968, I believe; saw this in some legislative comments. Pretty amazing and sad at the same time. There is certainly a presumption in our gun control laws that bu
  12. Sounding like a broken record again here, but "nonsporting firearms" under 925(d)(3) still doesn't tell us whether the M4/M1014 was characterized as "nonsporting". Just because there is a general prohibition doesn't mean that specific firearms are "by default" nonsporting. It has to involve a determination by the AG or ATF, and we haven't seen the M4/M1014 on any hit list, although many other guns have made such lists, i.e. AK's, Uzi's, M1/M3, etc. Caution is admirable and wise, but I think there is insufficient basis to conclude that the M4/M1014's (fully functional as discussed ad nauseum
  13. Personally, I prefer the 3 Gun Gear 8-round side saddle that I bought a month ago. It fits great, looks great, and comes right off of the Velcro base that is adhesively attached to the left side of the receiver. Interested in the Surefire M80, but no pictures that I'm aware of. Does anyone know what that looks like? M1014, saw your post about how to get 7+1+1, and I'll try it tonight. But I'm not sure I understand the explanation. I'll review and study when I get home.
  14. Sorry, I haven't been paying attention... As I can tell, that groove is just an annular groove, as if it is supposed to add some resistance to collapsing. When I got my shotgun, me and the dealer immediately replaced the factory tube and put on the extension as a complete replacement. It does not attach to what's it on there from the factory, because the factory tube is artificially shortended. Not sure if that helps.
  15. My +2 extension looks just like that. Gives me 7+1. I put 50 rounds of skeet loads through, just for kicks, then 50 rounds of 00 buck, and 50 rounds of 1-oz. slugs. You ought to see this thing punching through man-size targets at 50 yards. Recoil is great and muzzle jump is significant, but FUN AS ****!!! After 8-10 slugs, I tore a big gaping hole into the target, and the laughs from the folks around me were priceless. Just praying I don't have a part failure like I've been hearing.
  16. Ha! Yeah it was me who sent the FOIA request. They denied it (got a letter today), because they think I'm a "commercial requester," and they want me to either commit to copy and research charges coincident therewith, or appeal their decision and prove that I'm an "individual." Therefore, I appealed the decision, but asked for specific clarification as to what I could do so that they can be convinced of my "individuality." LOL. You gotta laugh when dealing with the gov't, otherwise it would make you cry. More delay...
  17. dport, you almost sound like you WANT this to happen. That is rank speculation on your part , unless you know something we don't. What "already prohibited shotgun"??? The statute says "identical". Not "substantially similar" or "functionally equivalent." Am I being overly optimistic here, or are you being overly pessimistic? I cannot find a single piece of information that would suggest that the M4/M1014 has ever been characterized as non-sporting, But, even if ATF were to make such a ridiculous determination tomorrow, it would not predate either the importation or modification of M
  18. M4, So if what you are saying is correct, then in order for the M4/M1014 to be "prohibited" under 922®, the ATF had to have denied (some time in the past) a Form 6 for that shotgun in a configuration that included a telescoping stock and an extended magazine, and pistol grip. Then, and only then, if the gun is "prohibited" as a result of that previous denial, then any modifications to a "sporting" version (such as the civilian M1014 or M4 without a telescoping stock) that would make it "identical" to that "prohibited" gun, would be illegal (a violation of 922®). So, if that is t
  19. dport, You are assuming that Benelli is not importing a USMC version of the M4/M1014 because it would be illegal to do so under the 1989 import ban. Maybe Benelli is not importing a full 7-round mag, pistol grip, telescoping stock version of the M4/M1014 because it has CHOSEN ON ITS OWN to keep a low profile on this gun. Without all those "features", there is less to alert ATF or at least cause them (the Attorney General) to declare it to be "nonsporting." As long as it flies under the radar, then it is importable (non-prohibited) and hence modifiable by consumers. That would make p
  20. Unpublished rulings??? So, when I'm prosecuted for violation of 922®, the prosecutor will present as evidence unpublished (and heretofore unknown)rulings from ATF that clarify whether I'm a felon?! Come on, I need better than that. If all the ATF and the federal prosecutor can say is "we know it when we see it", that dog won't hunt. I'll bet Benelli has worked this out with ATF along the same lines as what I've said earlier, but please give me something concrete. I'm willing to admit I've got it all wrong, but I need something better than unpublished rulings. Sounds kind of "Area 51"
  21. That is exactly what I cannot find. Where is this writing that categorically declares that any imported semiautomatic shotgun having in excess of 5 rounds in the mag or a telescoping stock is NOT suitable for sporting purposes (as if it were ATF's decision to make)? In the letter to M4Madness, ATF only referenced the statutes and the single reg. If there were other ATF regs or internal rulings, should they not have been cited? The only other reference was to an "enclosed brochure." Please provide any info you have on any other ATF reg or ruling that declares all semiauto's as not suitab
  22. dport said: Punt? I'd say it was a brush-off. It is apparent that most of us have already read the statutes, 18 USC 925(d)(3) and 922®, as well as the regs, 27 CFR 478.39. Going to the ATF site for answers is a "fox and the henhouse" proposition, don't you think? All we can do is draw our own conclusions. Here are mine. CAVEAT: These are my own conclusions. They are not legal advice. Consult your own attorney. Do not rely on any of this. (1) 18 USC 922® prohibits "assembly" from "imported parts" of any semiautomatic shotgun which is identical to any shotgun prohibited
  23. Can we PLEASE get some information from Benelli on this issue? I don't care whether it's Benelli in Italy or Benelli USA, someone has to take ownership of this matter and address it for the benefit of all of us who have M4/M1014's. Some of us purchased 11707's and separate collapsing stocks, and some of us are modifying existing M1014's to have the same function. It would be extraordinarily helpful if Benelli could articulate its position on the legality of these kinds of modifications, if for no other reason than to give us something to tell an ATF agent when we get stopped at the rang
  24. Has anyone seen or used this rail system from Side Armor? Looks interesting... http://www.sidearmor.com/cart/catalog/product_50_M401_Shotgun_Interface_system_for_Benelli_M4_M1014.html [ 10-12-2004, 10:31 AM: Message edited by: ipguy ]
  • Create New...