Unobtanium

There is a point, and a counterpoint for everything. I personally don't think one should use their daughter's bedroom as their backstop. However, someone might indeed do this. Who knows. How about this? You hear a noise, adrenaline pumping, the BG runs into the hall, charging you, and you shoot him. At that point your daughter, who you didn't know was in the kitchen getting some milk when the BG kicked in the door hears the gunshot and comes running to investigate to see if daddy is okay/what occured. You are glancing into the bedroom to look back at your wife and assure her you are okay and are so keyed up that when she lunges around the corner and you catch a glimps of her quick-moving form charging in to hug you, you spin and fire. She catches a full load of #6 in the throat/face area. You shouldn't have a gun. Pepper spray and tasers are best. They don't allow you to accidentally kill anyone. See where this is going? Give me a lethal tool and the know-how to use it as safely as possible. Everyone else can have their pepper-spray, #6 birdshot, and WWJD bracelets. Different strokes, as they say.

I suppose after the Military had Mossberg fix their trigger-group...for the third time...that the Mossy is decently reliable. I will keep my M4 though

Lol, I don't take offense easily at all. Really the only time I get irritated is if someone physically insults me. I tend to lose my temper then.

I had a MRD on my M4. It looked like Duggan's mount. LaRue warrentied it, but also said the M4 rail is not in-spec, don't do it again, basically. ETA: No damage to the rail.

I agree with much of what you said, except that there is LESS litigation killing a person than there is wounding them, usually. Also, 100% with you on the MOD choke. I also like it because ANYTHING can be put through it. Steel, lead, tungsten, slugs, whatever. Except Sabot rounds or stuff like that. It is very versitile and does well. I love it. I recommend Briley or Trulock.

I got mine for $725 Shipped next-day air a few weeks ago. Plenty of people on this forum have sold them for $800+ a pop and gotten rid of them fast.

By break-in, I meant: A period of time where the weapon malfunctions consistantly because it was not manufactured to operational tolerances.

I counted 25 rounds (1 in the tube, and 1 ghost loaded, 23 in the mag), impressive! I bet it gets heavy as **** though!

I think the reason they recommend against it is this: Someone kicks your door in, you "set up" in your hall-way protecting your family in the bedroom. You see the guy in the hall, your adrenaline is pumping and you ID him as an unknown, he charges at you and you begin dumping lead. Was it 3 shots or 4? 5 or 6? Is the next round OO or a slug? You don't know, and you don't care. About that time your bedroom window blows in and some thug lunges into the room. Grabbing your wife and placing a knife against her throat. What's next? Buckshot or a slug? Are you sure...how sure? Was it 3, or 4 rounds you put into the thug in the hall? Maybe 5 or 6? Can you live with yourself if you are wrong? What now? Remember, every second you FAIL to act, that thug is growing more and more secure in his thinking that you WON'T act. He grows more purposeful and bold as you grow more divided and scared. Had you stuck with all OO (or the single load of your choice), and patterned your loads properly, you would know that at that distance, if you aim 3-4" to the right of the guys head, your wife will be MUCH less in danger of a stray pellet than the angry thug's knife after figuring out you killed his partner. Had you stuck with slugs, you could drill him in the forehead and be done with it. But you don't know WHAT is up next. Could a slug pass harmlessly 3" to the right of his head and he ram the knife into her cervical vertebra/trach/jugular? Could you try to drill him in the forehead, only to have unthinkable collateral from the buckshot? I guess this is the reasoning behind not candy-caning. Now, if you life alone, and would not need to take a shot like I just outlined, then maybe it isn't such an issue. Not everything works for everyone. However, just food for thought.

i'm not trying to attack you. i just don't think you should be so quick to disagree with someone that's almost 3 times your age. I have a 20yr old daughter who thinks she knows it all too and is quick to disregard a little wisdom from time to time. always so quick to grow up but when you get older you'll say it's just a number. 1100 were the sh*t when i was growing up but yea you had to change barrels for magnum and non mag shells. that's as long as you had a magnum receiver. it was mainly about what we were hunting. dove and quail you would use the 2.75 barrel and duck,geese and pheasant you would use the 3" magnum barrel. replaceable chokes were a luxury back then too. if it matters at all i did sell my 1100 w/ 3 barrels for my M2T and i love the **** out of it. it eats anything and everything i feed it but now i need a field gun. what do you think about the ultra light. that would make benelli 2 and rem 1100 1. only because i'm saving my 1st gun, a 1981 remington 1100 featherweight for my youngest son. I am mainly into combat/"tactical" (whatever THAT means now days) weaponry. As such, I have no meaningful opinion on the ultra light. I don't take age into account when it comes to "facts". When it comes to dealing with people, or "experience" type things (building an engine, framing a house, etc. etc.) I take age/experience HEAVILY into account. The reason I disreguard age by and large is because of the proliferate amount of people older than me who aren't that bright---and the tonnes of people younger than me who are more knowledgeable. Age is only an indicator when it comes to experience, and that is a rule of thumb only. Just my .02 No, I have never owned an 1100, but I see complaints about them all the time on other forums and from people I talk to. I know about having to adjust gas ports.Having to keep a GOOD mag-spring in it, etc. etc.

I have heard time and time again from people who know better than I that candy-caning is not a good thing. I am just passing this along.

Why shouldn't I use the shotgun? Is there a logical reason why the shotgun should not be employed? Using my 20ga years ago and that horrid #3 buckshot load that they make for it, I dropped a coyote no problem from a pretty good distance (30-40y?) in my front yard. It seemed to work just fine. Also, as to the instance where the BG was stopped with #6. There are plenty more instances where they were not. I remember one such story where an officer was practicing with birdshot at the range. Anyways, he forgot to reload is shotgun with buck for duty. That night he encountered and shot multiple times an armed suspect in the line of duty. That officer is now dead. Also, now that blind theif can sue, claiming that the home-owner loaded #6 as "an attept to cause the most suffering possible" with the specific goal of blinding and mangling someone. He will claim that the home-owner is sadistic and had planned to shoot someone in the face, otherwise, he would have just fired at COM. THe home-owner clearly is a sadist who wanted to disfigure, maim, and emotionally destroy someone. The jury will then be asked to close their eyes, and imagine that just because they were hard up for some money to fix their radiator, and made a bad call, that now they will ahve to live just like they are now...unable to see. The man will become unemployable in any menaingful way, and his family will now suffer. He has 3 kids? Did you know that? Yep. Their only hope is that that sadist of a home-owner now pay reparations to the family. I would rather just kill the BG. Castle Doctrine. Open/shut case. Buckshot all the way.

I agree that #1 is a GREAT load, but I question it's ability to meet the 12" penetration criteria that the FBI (and I) feel is important, when the range gets out to 50 yards (The range at which I feel that effective patterns can be achieved with correct choke/shell combinations. The last setup I had would put no fewer than 7 pellets of OO into a 14x16" target at 50 yards. Ergo, penetration at 50y is important to me even though buck is not meant for 50 yards. Nonetheless! I think #1 buck is GREAT! stuff and wish I could locate some. I will try. Here is the muzzle-energy of the buckshot I have based on the box's listed MV and commonly accepted weights for the pellets. OOO=2184 OO=1899 w/9 pellets and 2400 w/12 O=2076 #4=2106 I also found on remington's website the pellet-count and velocity of their #1Buck. The energy from this round is: 2224 Yes, at the muzzle it has more energy than OO, and a HAIR more than OOO, but how much more (or less?) energy will it have at 10 yards, or 20? Remember, a sphere bleeds energy FAST. For shits and grins, the 3" stuff (the #1 is winchester, as remington does not load these in 3"): OOO: 2330 OO: 2700 #1: 2304 #4: 2747 In retrospect, I don't know what load they are talking about in the work you cited. Nothing in 2.75" came closer than 600# away from 3,000# energy. Also, anyone using buckshot in Africa is an idiot unless it's a back-up gun for use at close quarters against thin-skinned cats. Then OOOO was a popular load, with OOO being slightly less preferred. It worked OK from what I understand. Still. In Africa, I would take that .458 in a heartbeat over buckshot. Hands down.

I was cutting shells apart (I like to know what's what) when I made a discovery. The OO Remington buckshot has a full shot-cup with an integrated "buffer" setup and white granules of buffer. It can be viewed here: http://www.remingtonmilitary.com/am_ss_std.htm The rest of the remington buck has a cardboard buffer with white granules of buffer. Being a detail oriented person, I searched the boxes until I found different markings denoting the change. The ONLY thing I found as a clue was the date of the LLC trade-mark on the cardboard buffered stuff, it was 2006. The "Power Piston Wad" stuff was LLC 2009. That is the ONLY difference on the box. I expect great things being as this junk has a shot-cup to keep the buck from deforming in the barrel or "shaving". I am VERY curious to see how it performs. As noted, the OO is the ONLY Buckshot load to recieve this wad from Remington. I have an idea it has to do with the way the OO "Stacks" in the shell, compared to larger or smaller pellets perhapse. Lending to the wadding being more feasible in some way. The old revision can be seen here in this photo: http://www.remington.com/products/ammunition/shotshell/buckshot/express.asp PS. I have some Winchester Super X and Supreme XX Buck in OO that I will compare the remington stuff to. Let's see if the power-piston wad is the end-all, or just more marketing crap and look-good material. Here are the respective wadding systems along with a picture of the buckshot sizes to be tested. Each shell in 2.75" holds the amount of shot shown. Obvious exceptions are the 12-pellet OO loads from Winchester and Remington and other non-standard items (8-pellet red. recoil, etc).

I do have a clue about the 1100 and most of it's fickle points. True, it is second hand knowledge, but it is from knowledgeable people. What you MIGHT try, is opening up the gas ports. To do this, you get a large bit set with plenty of sizes that go up in small increments. You enlarge the gas ports bit by bit by going up size by size until you get positive function with the rounds you wish to use. HOWEVER: When I buy something, I think it should function well as it comes from the factory. I don't belive in "break-in", and I will not tolerate imperfection when it comes to reliability. The only weapons I ever had that didn't run right out of the gate was a P226Elite ST and a Les Baer TRS. Both are now no-longer with me. I gave each one 500 rounds to straighten out. They did not. Kimber's exec taking over SIG has resulted in FAIL, and Les Baer's obsession with slide/frame fit is pointless. Plenty of "looser" 1911's will shoot right with his without the problems his have. Why are you knocking being 23? I think that ageism in this case is ad hominum.

People need to be cautious when shooting, period, but I am not going to hamstring myself that bad. The smallest I would use is #4 Buck across the room. PS. Could not find #1 Buck, probably won't be testing it.

If you are not ****-bent on QD, then get the T1 with the LRP conversion kit. It will work fine on any rail and is not threading into aluminum like the stock T1 mount.

So, you are telling me something that can't penetrate 3/4" of sheetrock will knock a 240# man in a leather jacket down for the count? That is like me saying "My car is awesome! It isn't capable of going over 70, so I can't get tickets. But I bet it would DESTROY your Supra from a highway punch!" It is a complete contradiction. Yes, birdshot HAS worked before, but more often than not, it doesn't. ESPECIALLY when clothing with some "give" is involved, such as a thick winter jacket worn loosely. In fact, I am going to do some testing to this effect if I can find a heavy coat that doesn't fit me anymore. I will use a heavy coat and soaked phone-books. We just got new phone books today.

My post was a joke, not to be taken seriously.

There is no real timeframe on this item the way I understand it. Kip is trying to get the tubes/rail/chokes/breecher device/a few other unique items, etc. out. A titanium stock really doesn't offer an "advantage" over the stock Benelli one and the cost of it would preclude it being THAT much cheaper than the stock Benelli version. Something like $6-700 per Ti stock IIRC was the projected price. Not enough to matter when you can buy a Benelli one that works just fine. Again, the above is based just on what I gather. Kip will confirm/correct/deny I am sure.

From what I understand, even at the highest levels of government, #7 birdshot has been effectively used in an anti-personel role. Dick Cheney is an authority on this.

Next weekend I will be comparing OOO, OO, O, #1, and #4 buck at 25 and 50 yards.

That might be getting into copywrite territory. Would have to re-design it.

I am glad my Benelli M4 is not so rigidly inflexible by design.