STA

It will be interesting to see if Benelli does anything in print to address the issue regarding the compliance issue or use of US parts exclusively in these two H20 models. If not, it will just open the door to more confusion as they did post 2004 when they sold the mag extensions for several years, then pulled them with no formal written explanation.

As I've always said, as long as Benelli keeps paying Tom Knapp and Tim Bradley to perform and appear in print and TV adverts with their extended capacity Benelli shotguns, I wouldn't worry about it.

Again, more misdirection on the part of the ATF in their FAQ. Please be careful how you interpret their messages when offering explanations of the listed codes/statutes as you are now adding the SAW terminology into these sections when there is no mention of it within the actual text. As an example, 922(l) covers illegal importation issues related to ANY type of firearm; it is not directed at nor does it contain any mention of "semi-automatic assault weapons". 922(l) "Except as provided in section 925 (d) of this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to import or bring into the United States or any possession thereof any firearm or ammunition; and it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been imported or brought into the United States or any possession thereof in violation of the provisions of this chapter." Sure, the assembly of non-sporting firearms from imported parts is still regulated under 922® and 27 CFR 478.39, however where is the officially documented and published non-sporting criteria to be found? The specific short barreled shotgun or destructive device phrases in 5845(a) notwithstanding, non-sporting criteria are not defined within the sections we have discussed so far, however this hasn't stopped the ATF from exercising their creative writing skills in making some interesting connections in their 'official', if otherwise non-legally binding publications (see: FAQ and those personal letters from Sterling Nixon). Note how their FAQ keeps mentioning the ambiguous non-sporting phrase in conjunction with their attempt to propogate the notion of a separately regulated class of firearms under SAW moniker. I believe the SAW terminology was defined and implemented as part of the 1994 Crime Bill, however with this bill's expiration in 2004, it is not clear that the SAW definition still officially exists or could be recognized within the context of the existing Federal law. Since no official non-sporting criteria seem to exist, most every discussion on the topic naturally turns to the old SAW definitions as some starting point, with the ATF all the happier to assist with their own campaign of misinformation. Under the most commonly accepted belief, SAW, or at least SAW type features, equates to non-sporting. One interesting point to consider however comes from the actual text in the ATF FAQ: "Because the vast majority of SAWs are nonsporting, they generally cannot be imported." Since the '94 ban is dead, SAWs cannot be banned from importation or possesion based solely on their SAW status. In effect, ATF acknowledges this here by saying that any ban on importation under of 925(d)(3) or the duplication clause of 922® is due to the non-sporting nature ONLY; it is not due to the SAW issue in and of itself. Now I'm still not sure how you can qualify a SAW as non-sporting without a published definition, but what I think is more important is that by their own implied logic, if the vast majority of SAWs are non-sporting, then there may exist some small minority of SAWs which ARE NOT non-sporting, i.e. there may be some SAWs which are 'sporting'. This begs the question, if some SAWs or SAW featured firearms are indeed sporting, then what else is used for the basis of determining the sporting/non-sporting nature? Apparently SAW features alone do not equate to 'non-sporting', and if there is no other defined basis for determining the sporting status, how can other SAWs (or more properly, firearms that have features once covered by the now defunct SAW criteria) be evaluated for their legality?

Unfortunately, I don't think the issue is as clear cut as the above would suggest. This section comes from the definitions in 921(a)(30) which, along with the prohibitions of manufacturing, transferring or possessing as covered by 922(v), were added as part of the 1994 Crime Bill. Per ATF, "The law enacting the ban provided that it would expire 10 years from the date of enactment, which was September 13, 1994. Therefore, effective 12:01 a.m. on September 13, 2004, the provisions of the law ceased to apply." So these clear-cut definitions of 921(a)(30) do not appear to be applicable anymore. If someone can provide a reference to any other section with specific, documented criteria along these lines which is still in effect, I'd love to see it. ATF likes to hold power over the issue and they will readily send letters of a cut and paste nature that paints a picture implying those definitions are still in place and applicable towards 925(d)(3). Please remember 922® does not define any actual weapon configurations. The prohibited configurations are defined within 925(d)(3) and specifically 5845(a), and even these do not call out anything like the definitions within 921(a)(30). The real problem is that the AG is given free reign to determine the sporting suitability for an imported shotgun, and in theory, the determination could be made on a case by case basis if ever prosecuted. Good luck trying to find actual documented proof of what the non-sporting criteria is. The personalized ATF letters which have been posted on many gunboards are horrible mish-mashes of opinion and leaps of logic that are constructed in such a way as to provide 'proof' of something which is not necessarily the case. This trashy piece of dissinformation has been spread on so many gunboards that now it is taken as gospel, and most every neophyte who reads a post about a Benelli and a mag tube now automatically quotes something back about 922® and how they know for sure what is being discussed is illegal. As long as this nonsense keeps spreading amongst the gun community, there is little reason to wonder why the ATF or AG haven't put anything in writing on the topic ... the various forum experts are doing more harm then they could ever hope to accomplish. Until then, I think I'll wait for: 1) Publically published information from ATF on specific 'non-sporting' criteria that can be applied across the board, 2) Written clarrification from Benelli in light of their previous sales of parts and published catalogs which said mag tubes were 'now legal', 3) Explanation from Benelli how they can openly sponsor Tom Knapp and Tim Bradley when they are using configurations which every 922® expert knows is 'illegal', 4) Documentation of a 922® prosecution for possesion of a shotgun in the commonly assumed 'illegal' configuration.

Hmmm, on the first page of a google search for "Benelli M4 standard stock" you would have found this info on a Beretta spec sheet. M4 STANDARD STOCK The M4 can be reconfigured without tools with a choice of three modular buttstocks: M4 Standard Stock (#81041), M4 Pistol Grip (#81040), M4 Telescoping Stock Assembly (#70085) This is the one ...

Good luck with lisc.net. I tried them last year when I also searched for a mag tube and found their site. The woman on the phone was pissed I called and threw down a rant how they no longer carry Benelli and how she wished people would stop calling. Check out all the old models listed as "New". Guess they're too busy being rude to update their website.

The factory full length tube I have here looks to have a nominal 1.00" O.D. tube with a square thread of 2mm pitch. The crest seems to be 0.9mm (.035"), the root seems to be 1.1mm (.043") and the thread depth of 0.4mm. Again a shallow thread that is covered with a rough parkerization, so those measurements are as close as I can figure for now.

It will be interesting to see inside one of these. It appears from the photos that what we are seeing is just the magazine tube and not some other shield or gas deflector. I think one of the complaints of the B&T system (and possibly of the initial M80 prototypes) is that it was completely open, and excess gasses coming from the pistons or ARGO system could be directed upon the support hand. I wonder how Surefire has addressed this issue ? p.s. And rail envy aside, does anyone besides me wish Surefire would just have come out with a dedicated forend "Weaponlight" ?

PDW, missed your response when I replied so I'll edit this ... To reiterate, the only other points was that the 11701 commemerative M1014 also had special M1014 - XXXX serial numbers to go along with the flag (as well as un-notched recoil tube and solid, non-screw-in choke barrel). As per my other posts, there has been a recent spate of "M4 LE" marked 11707s, and checking the serial number and two letter date codes on the receivers, it does appear these were from the AWB era. These rcvrs have been mated with high serial number (new) barrels and are being sold as new 11707s.

An ebay member 'toovira' had this, though it's no longer a valid auction number. Benelli M4 M1014 telescoping stock same as #70085 New Take Off from M1014. No longer available! US $510.00 This listing (320111579936) has been removed or is no longer available.

The M1014 commercial (limited edition) release had the etched flag on the receiver, non-milled recoil tube, solid choke (non screw-in) and special "M1014-XXXX" serial numbers. In my post around 2/24, I discussed this rash of 'new' 11707s that have older receivers with the M4 LE marking. The new 11707 I examined had a lower serial and 2004 date code, yet was mated with a high serial number barrel. When asked, the dealer said it was new and just came in from Benelli. I think before the 10 yr expiration of the '94 ban, Benelli did offer an M4 with the milled tube for Law Enforcement sales. I recall seeing many variations on Cal's and Impact's sites, and always presumed these were the versions with the LE marking. Speculating a bit, it would seem that Benelli had a cache of older LE receivers and is now using them up to produce new 11707s.

Thanks for the info. I see in that thread, the SBE II uses an additional cast plate. For my buddy's older SBE, they only show a steel stock locking plate and the plastic drop shim in the manual. Our confusion is highlighted by the statement on pg 66, "Coupling instruction: the drop change kits are identified by letters. A-S B-S C-S letters refer to the stock locking plates for the left-hand shotgun to be used only with left-hand (cast-on) stocks." Additionally, Numrich lists separate part numbers for "-S" versions of the three lock plates, so this would seem to confirm there is a right vs. left hand setup for the SBE. In his calls to Benelli CS and Mann & Sons, they didn't seem to dispute his search for the LH kit. p.s. I just checked Numrich again. Previously some of the parts were out of stock, but now it looks now like the A-S, B-S, C-S plates and the A, B, C shims are all in stock. If we can confirm the older SBE did use this separate setup for the LH drop kits, then I will let him know to just order all the individual parts separately to make his own LH 'kit'.

I'm trying to help a buddy who picked up a used left-handed Super Black Eagle. He's a righty, but left eye dominate so he does all his shotgun from the port side. He's having trouble with alignment and since his SBE didn't come with any shims, he's been searching for the lefty kit. He's tried direct to Benelli, Mann&Sons, and Numrich, but no one has got them. I said I'd post a request here on his behalf in case any members know of any sources or perhaps a local shop that has the lefty shim kit. Many thanks for any leads ! STA

There were some changes to the barrel extension when the 11707s hit the shelves again early last year. A flange now abuts against the receiver and there's a 'wing' that now follows the inside edge of the ejection port. I think this flange is what has prevented some B&T rails from fitting the new 11707's and I would guess the handguards now need a slight relief cut as well. My barrel TM12XXX has the older extension, while I've seen barrels back to TM14XXX have the new extension.

Of course, only those of us who are law abiding citizens transfer guns this way. The vast majority of those used by criminals, and hence the ones you need to worry about, are done under the table, stolen, etc. We have enough laws now, and the problem is that as more and more of these laws get enacted, we must choose to give up more of our freedoms just in order to comply and remain 'law abiding'. I hate any new law which turns today's law abiding citizen into a criminal tomorrow if they don't change their ways in order to comply. The criminal by his very definition does not comply with the laws, and will not change his ways to please some politician.