Unobtanium

Sad to hear.

As a rule, birdshot of 3 dram or stronger, or 9-pellet buckshot at 1200fps or faster should do. Any of the 3" will run. The reduced recoil stuff is hit or miss.

Stop using "winlite" reduced recoil buckshot until fully broken in, or perhaps all togather if yours just doesn't like it.

I have not owned a tlr, but I have owned an x300. They put out around 170 lumens or so, regardless of rating from sf. My only complaint about the SD rail is weight. It doesn't look like much on paper, but I didn't like it in practice.

First...Welcome! Order a full-length mag-tube from Kip, he makes the strongest Ti tubes on the market, and it will shave nearly 1/2 a pound off the front half of the shotgun while giving you 7+1+1 capacity just like the USMC issued weapon. To mount a light, there really is no perfect way on this weapon, but the closest I have seen is this: http://www.brownells.com/.aspx/pid=44716/Product/BENELLI-M4-BLAM-4-LIGHT-MOUNT I would mount an X300 to this and use the rocker switch. Also, why do you want the C-stock? What do you hope to accomplish, in detail, by adding it? PS: You're from the Z forums, aren't you?

If that's the Flite Control stuff, I tested it through my last M4S90 with MOD and IC chokes. It performed very poorly past 20-25 yards. However, through a CYL choked Mossberg 590a1, I got 100% 12-14" patterns at 40 yards. The Benelli has a smaller bore than most other shotguns, and I think that may not play well with the FC wad, because I have heard of plenty of people doing just fine with IC constriction and FC. I did not try with cylinder, but my M1014 is a fixed mod-choke gun. Still, I guess I should try it. This stuff does plenty well for me though, dumping @40% of the payload in a 12" circle at 40 yards. It spreads like you want a shotgun to, and still carries a tight pattern that should dump most things out to 40-ish yards. Past that, its slug time.

On the patterning board, here is the result (each target is 14x18", and the circle is 12". In the upper left corner, you will see the number of pellets recorded which hit the circle, and in the bottom right, the number that hit the paper anywhere. The Remington targets are below, the Winchester up top. Each target represents 3 shots fired COM, for a total of 27 projectiles per target possible. The targets were individually placed down-range so chances of contamination are nil.) The Winchester averaged 69% payload in the 12" circle, and 90% on-paper. The Remington, 51% and 74%, respectively (all numbers rounded to the nearest percent). Over-all, the Winchester is shown to pattern 17% tighter. Here is a 40 yard target with the Ranger buckshot: The above target is a 5-shot target (45 possible hits) That's a bit over 40% payload in a 12" circle at 40 yards. (3.7 pellets per trigger pull avg.) 57% payload in a 14x18 inch target at 40 yards. (5.1 pellets per trigger pull).

The real difference was pellet hardness. I am not a calibrated lab machine, but I used needle-nose pliers, and tried to crush one pellet from each shell as violently as I could. This is the result: My next test was to use a 25# dumbell and drop one end of it (the other end stayed on the ground and acted as a fulcrum) from a height of 2" on top of 3 pellets from each load, one at a time. A piece of metal was placed under each pellet, and this atop linoleum floor. I noted that the dumbell sounded as though it bounced when it hit the Ranger pellets, but not so much on the Remington pellets. This is the result:

The pellets in both were similarly round with a slight edge going to the Winchester: Both used very similar wads, which protect the shot during its trip down the bore:

I set out to discover if, aside from Flite Control wads and fancy chokes, there could be a difference in how a shotgun patterns from buckshot load to buckshot load. I chose two different loads to compare from opposite ends of the spectrum. One is sold only to LE by company policy, and one is marketed at any Wal-Mart that sells ammo. ALL RANGE TESTING OCCURRED FROM A BENCH AT 25 YARDS AT AN INDOOR RANGE USING A BENELLI M1014 W/FIXED MOD CHOKE. I compared Remington 00 Express Buckshot (9-pellets @ 1325fps) with Winchester Ranger (9-pellets @ 1325fps). Both shells contain a granulated buffer of very similar looking material, except the Winchester buffer is more spherical where the Remington buffer varies more, many pieces qualifying as "shavings":

I have, and got 4-5" groups without a bench at 40 yards. This using the Special Forces slug. The Remingtons were doing SLIGHTLY better. However, without a bench, I cannot definitely say. The groups I posted above measure about 1" CTC once projectile diameter is subtracted from the group. Not bad for one of them being shot right after sighting in, and the other after 20 more rounds of buckshot.

Pellet crush comparison as described in text above:

ALL RANGE TESTING OCCURRED FROM A BENCH AT 25 YARDS AT AN INDOOR RANGE USING A BENELLI M1014 W/FIXED MOD CHOKE. Here are a couple of 3-shot groups with Remington Sluggers (1oz@1560fps). I know 3-shot groups are frowned upon, but overlaying the two results in a group of similar size to each separate group. Also, I compared Remington 00 Express Buckshot (9-pellet) with Winchester Ranger 9-pellet full-power. Both shells contain a granulated buffer of very similar looking material, except the Winchester buffer is more spherical where the Remington buffer varies more, many pieces qualifying as "shavings". The pellets in both were similarly round, with a slight edge going to the Winchester. Both used very similar wads, which protect the shot during its trip down the bore. The real difference was pellet hardness. I am not a calibrated lab machine, but I used needle-nose pliers, a counter-top, and my own weight/strength to crush each pellet as much as I could. This is the result: On the patterning board, here is the result (each target is 14x18", and the circle is 12". In the upper left corner, you will see the number of pellets recorded which hit the circle, and in the bottom right, the number that hit the paper anywhere. The Remington targets are below, the Winchester up top. Each target represents 3 shots fired COM, for a total of 27 projectiles per target possible. The targets were individually placed down-range so chances of contamination are nil.) The Winchester averaged 69% payload in the 12" circle, and 90% on-paper. The Remington, 51% and 74%, respectively (all numbers rounded to the nearest percent). Over-all, the Winchester is shown to pattern 17% tighter.

I tried Federal DPRS in my M1014 and it was pure crap. Same story in my friend's 590a1. We went from fist-sized groups at 40 yards to dinner-plate size groups. Here are two 3-shot groups at 25 yards that I fired for you today, rickp1

2-4" at 50 yards is what the weapon should be capable of with ammo that it likes.

No, it is strictly to aid in passing through a choked barrel/choke-tube.

You're viewing this somewhat myopically. Some rifles carry a 1MOA guarantee, some a 0.25MOA guarantee, and some none at all. The M1014/M4S90, and NFA variants do not carry a guarantee, and there is no "standard", just rough guidelines, which several of us have already weighed in on.

This is a Foster type slug, and it will not spin, or if it does, it is irrelevant. No slug that you will fire from your shotgun is going to spin for stability. It uses a weight-forward design like a shuttlecock. The slug will not "bite" the bore, nor does it need to. It should seal with the bore and fly down it, and that's it. It's physical design regarding weight distribution stabilizes it. The 'fins" are there to be mushed into the "valleys" as it passes through even a Full choke, so that the weapon is not harmed. Not for aerodynamic purposes.

Brownell's still has them in stock for anyone else looking for one.

Foster slugs are not spin, but weight stabilized. Due to the large bore volume, the 14'' SBS doesn't shed much velocity vs. the longer barrels.

Lubricate with TW25B or other quality grease (any "hook" or "shelf" looking spot that you see) and fire a few boxes of birdshot through it. My M1014 had a heck of a trigger pull on it when I got it. Now, it is similar to my other M4S90's. Probably a full few pounds lighter than when I got it.

This varies from weapon to weapon, but I would expect fist-sized groups at 50 yards with a slug that it likes. If anything, it will be more accurate than the 18.5" version. A shotgun actually begins the recoil phase before the slug leaves the barrel. This means that "follow-through" is important, even with slugs. The shorter the barrel, the less important it is, and since you are "human", the better for you.

There is no "game" going on. You did, however unwittingly stumble into something. I know who you are (in general terms), Thomas, and I know that you're not affiliated with FFT, or Carrier Comp. However, a lot of people on here are either in an FFT or a Carrier Comp camp, so to speak. While Kip and Todd have spoken in the past and maintain a talking relationship, many of their fans are not so cordial. You see, SOCOMguy came to market first with a "un-neutered" magazine tube for the M1014/M4S90 shotgun. It held 7 rounds and was machined impeccably. Then in around 2008, I believe, Kip entered the scene. Kip does a lot of things--one of them being the making of parts for the M1014/M4 shotgun. He is a former marine and liked the platform a lot, and wanted to improve it. He introduced titanium to the mix, giving us a full-length tube at roughly half the weight of the steel tube. Everyone was suspicious of his grandiose claims, but he came through and they sold like hot-cakes. Therein lies the rub. Some people took great affront to the back-order status that his products sometimes (in the case of the tubes, often-times) maintain. Kip sells a lot of stuff, but only has a finite amount of manpower and time. This means that his lead-times are as stated, 3-5 weeks, and I have seen them take longer (his low man-power also is why his tubes cost $50 or so less than FFT's offerings. It also allows more personal/tighter QC/QA.). However, even his critics have found his products to be beyond reproach. This means that they remain back-ordered for the most part. Enter FFT: They saw that Kip was onto a good thing, and opted to produce VERY SIMILAR products, as well as completely unique products (their handguards, FCG group, etc.). They have teamed with Mesa Tactical for their handguards and "someone else" who I have not bothered to ferret out for their FCG. Their first products were the Ti mag-tube, and the bolt-handle, as I understand it. The FFT mag-tube being the "bread and butter". It costs $50 more than Kip's, but you can get it...RIGHT NOW. I cannot speak for or against its workmanship as I have not bought one. People saw this and the Kip fans took affront to it, calling it a knock-off, idea-theft, etc. Anyway, that is what started this whole schism between CC and FFT. Like I said, though, Kip and Todd remain cordial to each other, and Kip has even described Todd to me in positive terms. However, a fan-base can be a dangerous thing when it gets riled, especially to reputations. I personally remain a fan of Kip and his work. I have sampled products from FFT before (bolt handle) and prefer Kip's. I feel that Kip does more R&D before releasing a product. He pays more attention to detail, in my experience. Kip was all set to release his full Ti bolt handle, for example, when he then decided to make it a hybrid and change the tang to A2 steel to prevent marring and peening of the tang and the cut-outs on the end that interface with the spring/ball retainer. He made a test-run of all Ti bolt-handles, saw that this was indeed a problem--if maybe only cosmetic--and rectified it. FFT placed their product on the market ASAP, and dealt with first issues on the cammo M4's with the paint/bolt, and second with my issue, the peening I mentioned that I documented on my FFT knob a year or so ago. They revised the product AFTER release, while Kip seems to do his very best to revise it BEFORE release. The one exception being his magazine springs. Early versions would only accept 6 rounds of SOME types of shot-shells. The Flite Control rounds, in particular. These became popular, in all fairness, after his first springs were released. He subsequently spoke with Wolff and had this rectified some years back and it has not been an issue. Anyway, back to the hammer that sparked all of this... Many people began dabbling with "that 1 part" that seemed missing from the M4 to make it 922r compliant in certain configurations. We had people on here planning pistons, sears, etc. Kip spoke with Geissele and they produced the hammer, as you know. Then, some time later, FFT now has a complete FCG group. Noone to my knowledge has EVER had a problem with the Geissele hammer, however, a few people have REPORTED problems with the FFT version. Now, keep in mind, these are two fan-bases that are already a bit edgy toward each other. Here you come into the fray, and a lot of people here do not know that you have been weighing in on things, meticulously researching them, posting on various forums, etc. since the early 2000's, regarding your firearm and watch collections. (Welcome to the Benelli world, BTW!) and they start all sorts of rumors (BM4Robbins saying you "tipped your hand", etc. and others). Some people have even opined that you are a shill affiliated with CC or FFT (both, actually, at different points in time). This is of course bad for both FFT and CC, as neither of them indulge in shill accounts, etc. of which I am aware, and indeed to remain cordial with each other outside of business. It's also not factual in the least, as you almost couldn't geographically be farther from both of them at the same time. Anyway, I hope this has helped clear this seeming hostility up for you, and maybe some other readers as well. If that was too much for you to read: FFT and Carriercomp are direct competitors the owners of which maintain a talking relationship. Their respective fan-bases are not always so cordial. Any swipe at either one will probably be met with suspicion from that camp, often, directed toward the other camp. The important thing to remember here, is that we are lucky to even HAVE vendors that cater to such a "niche" firearm, and no-matter what camp you prefer, I encourage you buy their goods and be thankful that Big Brother hasn't tried harder to make your decision a lot simpler... Does this make the mud clearer? *I have no stock options in Carrier Comp or Freedom Fighter Tactical. I buy what I want, and my preferences dictate my spending. However, I hate to see rumors about anyone who is making quality parts for one of my favorite firearms.

Another solid deal!

GLWS, looks like a good price.