stevenb

Thanks for the comments double_wield. Their shell system has been coined the "Shell Holder." The term Side saddle I guess is a trademark of Tacstar. If a polymer handguard assembly is produced, the bottom rail would definately have to be removeable. I'm pushing for this on the aluminum model too. The issues mainly are not to interfere with anything on the inside. Here is a new rendering with a proposed Shell holder design that would be optional. The design is to mount to the existing picatinny holes. A mount design which hooks to the picatinny rail itself is also being considered. Going polymer will reduce weight by about 20% over aluminum. Not a huge amount. The biggest benefit is the ability to do complex ergonomics cost effectively. -Steve

I paid 1350 with shipping and my FFL transfer fees. Mine was a 11703 model. -Steve

Depending on the interest, the more willing the maker is to put up the bucks to do polymer moldings (very expensive) Right now, everything is on paper for extruded aluminum. This is pretty much set for the top rail, but the handguard section is up in the air. Personally, I would like to see a polymer handguard assembly due to weight, and the ability to mold in any feature you want fairly easily. On the bottom picture, the overmolding is not applied. You can see the large rectangular slots milled into the handguard assembly. This is our first design for routing tape switches that do not disconnect from the tail cap. The idea is to snake the preasure pad through the slot to wherever you need it. This design may change though. Removal of the factory picatinny rail is pretty simple. I was expecting worse due to the fact that they're flatheads. The replacement will come with either socket or hex key screws to replace the cheap flat heads (this is what I'm told) Anyone who has suggestions or ideas feel free to express them. We're weighing any and all options as they come along. -Steve

You'll notice the side saddle. That is optional. Replacement of the Tacstar carrier is high on my list. -Steve

Here's the rendering I promised. -Steve

usctf, Thanks for the comments. I examined the B&T unit and found a list of downfalls a mile long as have others. One of the major problems with an open design is the venting gas beneath the handguard assembly. Weight was another issue. Comfort. Ability to hold a zero. Lack of an uninterupted top rail from the receiver over the top of the rail system. This is the major support for the rail systems ability to keep a zero. The top rail and most of the "heatshield" is attatched to the weapon by 5 bolts/screws on the top of the receiver. Naturally, you replace the factory picatinny rail. The sides and bottom rail system are one piece which locks into the top rail assembly, and is engaged between the receiver extension and barrel extension much like the factory handguards. The magazine cap then holds everything together just like the factory design. No modifications to the weapon which cannot be reversed are needed. Weight is a huge issue with our design. The Benelli M4 is already an overweight monster. Which on one hand helps with recoil, but on the other wears out the user who is carrying it for an entire day. The wiring routing plans are really slick. Something which I haven't even seen done in AR15 rail systems. The idea with rail covers is to have the ability to remove the rail or install a shortened one to reduce weight or things for webbing/gear to catch on. With any picatinny rail, you could use rail covers if you wish. As soon as I get permission to post a rendering, I will do so. -Steve

Current systems for mounting a light to the Benelli are pretty limited, unless you're talking about using half a roll of duct tape. I don't consider barrel clamps to be a viable solution since they usually complicate the disassembly of the weapon. If you don't need anything to mount, then a rail system isn't for you. Using this rail system will require the user to remove a number of factory pieces, so the weight differences is minimal. Top factory picatinny rail, factory handguards. -Steve

Hey everyone, Like many with the Benelli M4, I've been seriously disappointed with the current aftermarket rail systems for this weapon. Currently I personally have the Sidearmor rail system. It leaves a lot to be desired though. I have been in contact with an industry manufacturer in the firearm industry for a while now. They've developed a platform that is very impressive. I did throw in a tip here and there. This rail system once installed will make disassembly slightly easier then the factory stock handguards. The top of the rail system is an uninterrupted rail from front to back. The top rail extends aprox. 4 inches past the front of the stock handguards. 3 and 9 o'clock rail positions are true to the barrel. Rails on the sides are optional, and different lengths can be used depending on the users needs. The rail system offers a complete heatshield enclosing the barrel for the entire length of the railsys. The system offers a free floated barrel assembly. No barrel clamps or bolting the rail to the weapon to prevent disassembly. Exact materials are yet to be decided. Cost of molding/machining has to be taken into consideration before a final decision is made. As with final cost is yet to be determined. Right now, a wiring plan is being laid so the user can properly route tape switches and keep them from being damaged. Something which no AR-15/M16 platform has offered. Weight is a major issue, and is being dealt with in many different ways. There are a few other "features" that are being developed with this project that will make the weight penalty null. Now, the only problem is the marketability of this item. There needs to be an interest in this item for the manufacturer to tool up to produce them. Crossing fingers and hoping for Military/LE contracts is risky. We've all seen the rail system that is likely from Surefire that was at the Beretta booth at the NRA show, it was okay, but lacking. The manufacturer will be watching this thread, (along with a few other places that I post it) So all you have to do is show some interest. When we get a little further with the design, the maker will probably let me post some renderings. My personal interest? A. I want one, it is by far the best design I've ever seen B. Some of the design points I've helped with would be neat to see actually developed. C. Resume material. -Steve

Someone mentioned it might be the Surefire rail. Haven't the slightest idea. Beretta is the Benelli importer, so I guess that makes sense. Look at the two companies facility address in MD. Spitting distance from each other. If it is the Surefire, I'm disapointed that it doesn't have a top rail. -Steve

Try these guys. They're kind of picky about who they deal with. THey lean towards police/military sales. http://www.royalarms.com/ -Steve

Why is the M4 at the Benelli booth? Never seen that forend though. Looks promising. Looks like a bottom rail along with the 3 and 9 o'clock positions. Match that with a Sidearmor complete rail, and you'd have all 4 axises. Now, the question is, who makes it and how much. -Steve

People report that it isn't very good. They said the holes on the bottom of the handguard allow gas to vent out the bottom and get all over your hands. They said it added a lot of weight to the weapon also. Maintaining a zero was hit or miss since the only thing keeping the rail on is the receiver extension and the barrel extension. Now, if they lost the bottom vent holes, replaced the top rail so it mounted to the top of the receiver as well as being held in place by the receiver/barrel extensions (the thing that holds the stock handguards in place.) Then they'd have a winner. Switching to a lighter material would be even better, similar to the PRI carbon fiber forend with metal rail points. Not to mention its price is steep for what you get. -Steve

The weight of the weapon may make the single point sling difficult to use. I purchased my 11703 about 6 or 7 months ago. Mind you the 11703 is different from the 11707 that everyone wants right now. The 11703 doesn't have the notches for the collapsible stock. That's about the only difference. No the extended feed tube did not come with the weapon. Almost had to use the weapon lastnight. SOmeone stole my crappy Buick Skylark. Just missed them. Could of given a range report on the green laser... -Steve

No first hand experience with the M1014, but I'm pretty sure the pistol grip stock will fit on it without any modification. I got the 11703 which came with the pistol grip stock and a few other design changes. Here's my monster. http://www.citlink.net/~lmiller/M4/benelli16b.jpg You can find some deals on the parts you want here: https://www.calssportingarmory.com/Benelli.htm Never personally used them, so beware. They even sell the upgraded barrel from the m1014, the one that has removeable chokes and 4 gas ports instead of 2. Take a look at the Sidearmor mount. It may be what you want for your light. It's sturdy enough to mount a laser and not loose any zero. http://www.sidearmor.com/cart/catalog/product_50_M401_Shotgun_Interface_system_for_Benelli_M4_M1014.html -Steve [ 04-03-2005, 08:43 PM: Message edited by: stevenb ]

Good buy! The M4 is similar to the M1 except for the gas piston system instead of the inertia recoil driven system. Surefire is supposidly in the process of making what is called the M80 dedicated rail system. This is not a dedicated light array. You'll have to piece together a light system yourself. I actually prefer this. I suggest dropping them an e-mail and asking them where it is. It was supposed to be done for this shotshow. They're tired of my e-mails. If you're in a hurry, you could get the Sidearmor rail system that mounts ahead of the factory forearm. It would be mandatory to use a tape switch for your activator with this method. I would stay away from barrel clamp design lights. Yes, Benelli offers a pistol griped fixed stock. The Benelli M1 tacstar does fit on the M4, however many people dislike it. If improperly installed, it can jam up your weapon by binding the receiver. I currently use one though. It makes disassembly of the trigger group a real PITA. There is another company making the 3 gun gear I believe that makes a glue on one. Personally, I stay away from permanant mods like that. Not to mention elastic shell loops are tough to reload one handed, so you end up not using the shells while you're out shooting since it is such a PITA to reload. The Tacstar is great, they slip in with no trouble. Hope this helps. -Steve

Please do a review on the 3 gun gear version. I hate the way the tacstar attatches to the receiver. But I do like the firm rubber molded shell holders. The elastic types usually are a huge PITA to put fresh shells into. Don't you have to glue the 3 gun gear carrier to the receiver? They should make a tacstar that mounts to the top rail and drops over the side. WHen my Benelli goes to Robar, I might try to get them mount the carrier without the use of the trigger pin. -Steve

What's the deal with the restricted feed tube? -Steve

http://www.royalarms.com/ Check these out! The only problem is the company only sells muzzle brakes to civilians, their door breaching design with the jagged teeth on the front are LEO/Military only sales. They do sell one that has a smooth end, and acts as a brake to civilians. It allows you to use different size chokes within it also. I might get with a machinist after I get one, and have them put the teeth into it. I'm looking for a good muzzle strike device for my M4. Might have to hook up with a gunsmith to mill my own teeth into it. -Steve

Rabmp5, how does the bolt release attatch to the factory button? Do you have to drill it? Much better price. -Steve

What about this thing? http://www.brownells.com/aspx/NS/store/ProductDetail.aspx?p=62&title=SHOTGUN+SCOPE+MOUNT Never personally tried it, but it doesn't look real sturdy to me. Not to mention the M1 doesn't like added weight. Plus the problem that you could bind up the receiver if you tighten the bolts too much. This is one of the reasons I went with the M4 for the stock Picatinny rail mount. A good gunsmith could probably mount a rail to the top of a M1 similar to the way it is mounted to the M4. You'd be paying a pretty penny for this, expecially if your sights needs to be moved. -Steve

After a 3 and a half month wait, which required me to b*tch up a storm to get the pieces even then, I finally received my order. I ordered the following: GG&G Accucam EOTech scope mount GG&G Benelli oversized bolt release GG&G Benelli oversized charging handle To install these simple 3 things, took me nearly 3 hours to do so. Mainly for the oversized bolt release. The instructions which came with the parts were weak, and didn't help much at all. It is absolutely mandatory that you have a proper set of punches to properly remove the bolt release. Trying to use a screw driver will not work. Roll pins are a royal PITA to remove. Removing the stock button isn't too difficult with the proper tools. Be sure to observe where the spring is on the bolt release. Once it is apart, there is little that will indicate how it goes back together. The only thing that saved me was the wear marks from the spring on the inside of the receiver and on the assembly. Not much holds the spring in place, so reassembly is a 3 hand job if you do not have the weapon in a vice. I avoid putting alluminum receiver weapons in vices without a receiver block. No such block exists that I know of. So I had the wife help with the holding of the punch and so on. Aligning the holes for the new roll pin is a PITA. You must put the pin in the proper depth, or it will not allow you to install the bolt because the pin protrudes into the receiver rail area if not in far enough. Too far, and the pin will stick out the bottom of the receiver and not fully support the bolt release at the top. The oversized charging handle is super easy to install. It pops in just like the factory one. The new one is very nice. It rotates when you hold it. The large knurled knob gives a better hand grip over the small stock one. The accucam mount for the EOtech is an interesting design. It is rather simple once you've handled it. You simply remove the thumb screw that comes with the EOtech, remove the two torx screws from the left hand side of the scope. The accucam has a large pin that fits in where the factory thumb screw was, and screws into the cam at the other side of the scope. You then screw the accucam to the scope from the two torx holes that you previously removed from the protective shroud. The accucam is adjustable. You remove a big flat head screw from the pivot point, this has a long thin pin that fits into a hexhead screw that has holes drilled on all of its axises. This pin locks the hexhead in place once you've tightened it to the torque you wish. I encountered a problem with this pin though. It is so thin and flimsy, that it broke on me when I reinstalled it. I was able to fix it though. Ratings of each piece: Oversized charging handle Excellent upgrade for the price. My only concern is the slight added weight hooked to bolt/bolt carrier. The weight is nearly identical to the stock one amazingly, but there is a little more mass. I'd give it a 9/10 Oversized bolt release Amazing once its installed. It should come like this from Benelli. Much quicker to locate. If I had the tips and instructions I wrote out above, the 3 hour job would of been 30 minutes. The price is steep though. I'd give it a 5/10 GG&G Accucam EOTech Mount Pretty easy to install, and maintains a zero very well. I co-witness with the laser, so checking its zero is easy for me to do without shooting it. Only thing I didn't like was that retaining pin in the tension lock. Since this device isn't really a mount, I don't think it should cost as much as it does. This device is a fancy way of using the stock cam lock. I'd give it a 7.5/10 Overall for GG&G's service, I'd give them a 3/10, and I'm being generous. I was lied to on at least 5 occassions about the status of my order. I ordered on 1/9/05, and just received them today on 3/28/05. Order from a 3rd party if possible. It is generally cheaper and faster. Unfortunately, I couldn't get the accucam at the time from anyone else. Only when I got nasty with GG&G's customer service did my order get resolved and taken care of. Now for the pictures! http://www.citlink.net/~lmiller/M4/benelli14b.jpg http://www.citlink.net/~lmiller/M4/benelli15b.jpg http://www.citlink.net/~lmiller/M4/benelli16b.jpg http://www.citlink.net/~lmiller/M4/laser4b.jpg http://www.citlink.net/~lmiller/M4/laser5b.jpg http://www.citlink.net/~lmiller/M4/laser6b.jpg Click the hyperlink for a larger image. I'm doing all my small upgrades while I wait for Surefire to release the M80 rail system. -Steve

You reading from this page? http://www.benelliusa.com/firearms/m4.tpl If you want one, do it. But it won't fit the Limited Edition or the 11703 without modification of the recoil tube assembly. If you have a 11707, you're golden and you can slap it on yourself. -Steve [ 03-11-2005, 08:34 AM: Message edited by: Nelli Girl ]

Feed it a lot more buck that you plan on using for self defense. Just because it ate a couple doesn't mean I'd trust it 100% yet. I'd put a 100 rounds of it through it just to be sure. Use the same type you intend to carry for SD. -Steve

Light, forward grip, railed forend. Then a custom refinish, and some action work. I got probably another 1250 or so to put into it until I can say it is done. I have a small company idea I'm considering if I find there is enough interest in it. I'm considering putting together a Labelle AR15 magazine with a Magpul tan follower, ranger plate, silicon spring, and to top it off, have them all refinished at Robar. What would be sweet is NP3 on the inside, and Rogard on the outside. My price goal is to be 25.00 - 27.50 plus shipping for a brand new magazine. Probably have to do a 1000 at a time to get the individual parts down enough and still make a profit. Can you imagine a 1000 M16 mags in your garage? -Steve

We'll see if it causes any problems. The charging handle is cheap. I spoke with someone and they said it fit. I tend to test fire the weapon quite a bit. So I'll let you guys know if I run into any problems. I'm curious to see if it slows down the cyclic time any. The main thing I really need is the oversized bolt release. The stock one is way too small. Maybe I'll find out soon? If you think the Benelli has a lot on it now, wait until the rest of the products I want are released. -Steve