Unobtanium

Review your ejector housing. I bet it does not show an ounce more damage. I remain thinking this was not the cause.

It only works for homogeneous items. Not complex items like vehicles, which have many multiple sub assemblies with varying lifespans.

Normal.

My 110# ex gf could run my Benelli m4. I truly doubt your size or technique is causing this, but I would recommend something better for lube, although what you are using should be sufficient...its in the USMC manual for this weapon, after all. I honestly am befuddled a bit. One other thing I note is the left impact area from the piston on your carrier rail face is near absent, while the right is very evident. Seems odd to me.

I lean this way, too, as there is no drag on the ejector housing side, and oftem Benelli parts do just show nicks. This doesnt look like one caused the other, necessarily.

This may be locking lug interface, too. I am not convinced for sure on this one either way.

I am unsure if that is the issue in your case. It looks like a 1 time ding maybe from something else in your case. Its hard to be sure without parts in hand.

Please see this thread for reference:

I am noticing on your ejector assembly, photo right side, what appears to be an impact and "shaving" zone. Please verify that the ejector assy and corresponding bolt surfaces have/have not been playing well together.

Normal, just takes practice.

This is odd, it looks like it's not getting enough gas to function, but that ammo should have zero issue with that. Does the weapon cycle by hand just fine? Have you verified that both gas pistons are present and accounted for? 1) Verify the weapon cycles without binding by hand. 2) Disassemble it and verify that the gas pistons and gas caps and O rings on the gas caps are all in good shape and present and were not in a defunct state. 3) Verify that all wear appears even and normal with no gouging or deformation occurring anywhere other than where one would expect, such as a bit on the side of the cam pin, the ejection port corners, etc. 4) Lubricate the cam pin and the rails of the carrier, and just everything in general, really. 5) Try a different ammunition. Other questions: Was recoil robust? Were ejected shells thrown 5+ feet away? It is always possible that you got some underloaded ammunition due to a factory error.

Does your m4 deviate from box stock in ANY way?

What product have you tried? Le133 or Le132 or both? If so, any difference between?

Ill follow on...anyone have function issues with LE133 00 at any juncture in an m4?

Then why be picky about the weight of the M3 vs. M4? I thought you were selecting, not battlefield pick-up ing?

AK operating system does not like the minimal taper 5.56 case. It is meant for heavily tapered x39 cases, and this is a huge aspect of its reliability and operating system design parameters.

M4 entry 11.5-12.5 SBR 5.56 Glock 19 or equivalent This would cover everything pretty much that one could conceive.

Are you saying LE133 didnt cycle reliably?

The 940 heads are about reduction of signature, not performance with common intensifier tubes. If you were to step into a SWIR platform it may be nuts though, not sure.

M300v is going to produce much more detectable light than ML 940. Keep in mind...the ML is pumping out a TON of light...so dont look at it!!!! Its just in the range beyond what your intensifier sees. It can still cause mechanical and biological harm just like it was a modlite OKW.

940nm be like that. You have a spicy 14, but l3 filmless taps out at around 1000nm near completely.

I'd prefer a laser. User's choice of green or IR. Red is kindof played out. An IR laser in the snout cap would be worth losing 1 round of ammo over, for me anyway. I would want something 810g/IPX8 or at least IPX7 certified and properly made. Yes this would cost.

With the IR head it's annoying but it's not really any worse than what you get off of a can on an SBR with it. Point being, if you keep the gun in one position for too long while "looking over the barrel" with the light on, you will get some transient ghosting in your PVS14 tube that will go away after a few minutes of use, but it's not going to damage it unless you were to sit in position for a "long" period of time. Chalk it up to "looking at a street light" type exposure, but not as bad since it's very indirect. It especially isn't bad behind the gun as you are using it. The main "damage" is that it can cause the ABC to kick in and "dim" the tube a hair and you may lose some detail through your optic due to this. Just have to test it and find out.

The M600 AAV will offer M300V performance using AA batteries and push the head out further, still. My guess is by roughly 0.5". It will also open up L91 as a fuel source. Crazy shelf life. At the expense of 100 lumens vs m600V.

SBS and IWC. I took these to showcase the effects. Last photo is where left tube would be with binos, and a 14 wont even hardly see it if worn over dominant eye once the gun is up. Taken on viz, ir is same pattern/spill. Its a compromise between fouling the lens, and light pollution with NODs, for me.