Double_wield

James00 - PM sent BTW - are these particularly preferred over the 8-shot model? [ 06-01-2006, 12:11 AM: Message edited by: Double_wield ]

doubletap - Nice. Were did you get that QD rear sling loop attachement?

Received a call from the dealer today regarding my order, but didn't get home until after closing time, so I'll have to call back tomorrow to see if my number has finally come up. Fingers crossed... UPDATE: #11707 in the house. It's worth noting that the bbl. is of the 2-port variety, & is threaded for swapping chokes. It comes NIB w/ a modified choke, I believe. [ 12-23-2005, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: Double_wield ]

I was informed back in Sept. that they should arrive by Nov. Well, I'm still waiting after 1 yr + 2 mos (& counting).

I've had 2 on order since Sept '04 (w/ 50% pre-paid). Dealer recently informed me that a rep. informed them they should take delivery sometime this month. Realistically, this probably means they'll arrive sometime early next year. Or not. I'll certainly post when I receive them. I'm particularly keen on testing to see whether or not the "low-recoil" bbl. config. carrier breaking-problem has been remedied, as I've been told it was. We shall see. [ 11-13-2005, 03:14 AM: Message edited by: Double_wield ]

Honestly, I didn't ask for specifics (& I should have ). They're apparently aware of the issue, as I didn't have to explain it to the CS girl on the phone. I may call them again to get clarification, but I'd bet they probably don't know any specifics. Maybe they were just given a line to read. Assuming my guy at the fun shop was on the up, I'll be inspecting the bbl. personally in a few weeks when I take receipt (No-hold-U-breath). I think stevenb has a 4-port w/ retrofit parts, & his has been running fine. Along this line, I'm going to guess that the retrofit has become SOP back at the factory. This would make sense for obvious reasons, not the least of which is the added associated costs for non-productive labor (ie. repair in lieu of production) to handle the problem. I'm only guessing, though. Ultimately, if the fix works, then it's all good, AFAIC'd.

I spoke w/ CS today about this issue. The word given was that the newest batch coming off the boat are remedied of the problem. My order has been in a holding pattern for ~1 yr, & I only recently received word from the fun shop that a Benelli rep. came by & apparently echoed the news about the problem being fixed; also told them they should receive order shipment sometime this coming Nov. It'll be interesting to see how this all pans out. I'll follow up when I finally have them directly in hand. [ 10-14-2005, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: Double_wield ]

Personally, the side rails could be 75% of their illustrated length & still provide plenty of mounting room. That would reduce rail support issues. I'm not seeing how anything would need to be mounted that far forward - lights, lasers, whatever - on any of the rails. I keep stuff from extending beyond the end of the handguards on anything I put on rail mounts. Too front-end heavy otherwise.

Oh Mother Mary. Get the facts from the maker. Want to be able to change bbl. chokes? Get the M4S90 (any serial # model). Want to add a telestock? Get the #11707 M4S90. Want to believe the hype? Get the M1014. Call or email Benelli customer service. Only way to be sure.

Looks good thus far. Here's a vote for keeping the rail the same length as the foreend. I can't imagine needing any more top rail space than out to the edge of the foreend. Adds more weight for no real benefit at all, that I can see. IOW's - the target render is right on the $$$.

Steven, That Surecycle requires heating of the receiver to remove & replace the stock recoil tube housing. You sure you want to do that? Is it really an upgrade? I have on good authority that the issue M1014's are impressing users in the sandbox in stock trim.

I'd hit it! Count me in as a buyer if it goes through. I agree that the lower should be polymer to reduce weight. Also, the lower rail should be removable like the side rails, rather than a permanent part of the HG mold. All the rails, save for the top, should be removable, IMO. Hex screws would also be nice, & more secure. The side saddle carrier rail interface is a welcome feature. Current offerings leave alot to be desired, IMO. [ 05-06-2005, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: Double_wield ]

Talk about de-evolution...

The M1 doesn't employ a gas operation. Hence, you normally wouldn't experience a gas leak. Different story w/ the M4S90. I've read a report from someone who actually dropped $$$ for it & they were non-plussed for the aformentioned reasons. It's your money, but I'd either go w/ the Sidearmor rail, or wait for Surefire to release theirs.

I find it interesting that they state it's adjustable for 3 length settings. Must have changed it in response to user comments.

Considering my situation as of the current date, I'd hope they concentrate on just actually shipping product to the customer.

ip, I've seen +2 extensions before, & they seem to slide over the existing 5-shot tube w/ the cap screwing onto the threaded end of the extension (I'm not sure what still prevents it from sliding off, however). This photo doesn't show the (expanded) back end/edge of the extension over the feed tube, only an annular goove at the tube+extension junction. Was this picture photoshopped to remove that back edge of the extension? Looks different from what I've seen. [ 11-15-2004, 05:34 PM: Message edited by: Double_wield ]

Oh now, that looks nice. Dammit! I am growing weary of waiting to take delivery of mine. I'm coming up on the 2 month mark since I put my 50% down payment for 2 M4S90's, & still not a break in sight. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why I'm having to fiddle while others are getting theirs.

bumpity

Anxious to see what SF brings to the table. ip - I thought the +2 extension slides over the feed tube, which would make it slightly larger in diameter at the feed tube-extension interface than the distal (far) end of the extension that the tube cap screws onto. The photo shows a feed tube + extension that appears to be uniform in diameter, save for the slight groove in the middle. What's the deal there? Is it just the photo?

Steve, The B&T rail review was posted sometime during the previous summer. I can't immediately see a solution to its gas venting problem, since the lower rail section is open by design. I don't recall any zero-hold issues, but the thing is reportedly hefty (somewhat apparent in the photos). Personally, between the 2 known systems, I'd go w/ the Sidearmor unit hands-down. It extends the basic contour & functionality of the basic M4S90 design, & allows take-down maintenance to be performed w/o having to remove it from the gun (via unscrewing those 2 knobs). My only small grip is that the protruding knobs that secure that top rail to the side rail assembly limit the usable real estate on the R-side rail. This is probably a non-issue in practical terms (it still has rail space there), but I have to wonder if a more compact method of securing the system together (throw lever-type method?) couldn't be made. Or maybe not. Whatever the case, the SA unit looks trim & simple. I like that the SA unit provides a longer top rail, & its side rails are directly astride the bbl. instead of riding lower, in between the bbl. & the feed tube, as on the B&T unit. ORACLE, The ARGO is supposed to ensure reliability in spite of added weight (breaking parts notwithstanding. I hope they fix this before I take delivery of mine). The mounting methods don't interfere w/ the action. BTW - anyone look at the M4 on the SA site posted by ipguy? What's up w/ the feed tube? Doesn't look like the +2 extension, & I haven't seen "dimpling" on the full-length tubes either. What gives? [ 11-04-2004, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: Double_wield ]

OK, this is not a piston-related problem, but rather, it's the carrier this time. Once again, metallurgy seems to be the problem. I sincerely hope this gets resolved soon. I've got mine on order, but at the rate it's going, Benelli may have the fix instituted by the time they're finally made & delivered. [ 10-28-2004, 10:28 PM: Message edited by: Double_wield ]

I'm getting the impression that the pistons: a) are designed w/ insufficient diameter/thickness to prevent breakage or bending, or b) are being fabricated in some substandard manner (possibly an outsourcing-related issue?), such that their metallurgical properties are inadequate to handle the loads that they are subjected to. This is the 2nd piston-related failure I've heard of, both occurring w/ in the last 2 months. Not good. I hope the factory's USA branch is taking note of these issues & addressing them. No worse form of advertising than to have potential customers see your flagship product bite the dust. Miami, I hope this is strictly a manufacturing issue instead of a design flaw. This thing supposedly passed some intensive testing to claim its title. If I were a Benelli USA rep., I'd be less than happy about my product breaking "...in front of a class of 24 law enforcement professionals". Someone better get on the phone to Italy. [ 10-28-2004, 10:17 PM: Message edited by: Double_wield ]

Well, if they have documentation of an affirmative judgement from ATF, & you have a negative, it's potentially going to be a mess to resolve. [ 10-25-2004, 09:33 PM: Message edited by: Double_wield ]

I have to ask: why didn't you request proof from Benelli? Assuming they're on the up, they should have some sort of documentation, which could mean the response you received was a reversal of the previous ATF agreement. [ 10-24-2004, 11:04 PM: Message edited by: Double_wield ]