Sukhoi_fan

There may not be that many R1 enthusiasts on this forum who would know the answer to your question. I would suggest making an inquiry directly with Benelli.

I am without words.

So from this video one can conclude that a special muzzle device is unnecessary for 'door breaching' (aka state sanctioned thuggery).

That's my point...'door breaching' = those involved in some form of state sanctioned thuggery.

1) Reduce recoil 2) As a set-off device for 'door breaching' (which I question the practicality of, while it may sound cool in theory I don't see it has a safe operation of a shotgun - although I've never tried that [have no interest in doing so anyway]; so what exactly is one intending if one is seriously thinking of doing some 'door breaching'??? Realistically where does one need to do such a thing???) 3) As a way to relieve pressure should something like mud get lodged in the muzzle of one's barrel without one realizing it, thus preventing a bulged/burst barrel (that alone would make it a worthwhile addition to one's M4)

Disappointment with your kit in the midst of a storm is an extremely unpleasant experience. Which is why I have no issues with spending the money on a T-1.

That OKP-7 is a very interesting looking optic.

When using NV one needs NV compatible sights.

Aimpoint T-1.

I like the essentially non-existent Carrier-comp version. I have one, would like another...ah, to dream.

I have a new, unused FFT sear I'm not going to use if you're interested.

I concur on the appearance of the receiver extension, it should still be ok so long as you stick with OEM parts. As for that aftermarket c-stock you're thinking is 'made in USA' I get the impression that it's misrepresented as such and is actually made in China, hence the soft retaining pin.

I'm thinking a bad roll pin may have damaged the receiver extension. When everything is as it should be there seems little chance for an issue.

I think I found what I've been looking for. http://www.bluesheepdog.com/uncle-mikes-breacher-vest-review/

I suppose I was mistaken, it does appear to have a M4 BCG and FCG although the description fails to mention all that. Still, at the reserve price I'm relatively certain that one could purchase a new M4, as well as plenty of the appropriate aftermarket items and still have plenty of dinero left over for cases of ammo.

It appears the only Benelli components retained are the barrel assembly and the mag tube. It's an entirely new receiver so it's nothing more than some one-off custom. No thanks.

You should not screw on the buttstock super tight. While it may *appear* that's it's not tight enough if you're able to manage one more turn out of it by applying lots of pressure to get there 'snug' is just right IMO and it's not going anywhere. I suggest you back off one turn.

That's what I was thinking - I suppose I'll just stick with the T-1. It's pretty durable.

So I contacted Trijicon re: the NV compatibility of the RMR and the lady in CS advised me that a NV device such as a PVS-14 needs to go IN FRONT OF the RMR. Now I'm wondering if there is a mount for the PVS-14 which will get the PVS-14 low enough to be inline with the RMR when both the PVS-14 and the RMR are mounted on the Scalarworks rail. Anyone know?

When using NV in conjunction with the RMR does one view the RMR thru the NV (e.g. a PVS-14) using one eye or does one view thru the NV with one eye and sight thru the RMR with the other eye?

Don't waste your hard earned money on junk. You bought a high end shotgun, don't cut corners by making a regrettable choice. jmo

Don't kid yourself, the Russians are fully capable of designing and producing superior quality BVR AA missiles and other types of missiles. Are you familiar with the Sunburn and the Moskit aka Onyx (Indian joint venture name: Brahmos)? And apparently your uncle isn't telling you about the sims where they got spanked by the Su-27. Also, the west has nothing comparable to the Su-34 fighter-bomber (NATO codename Fullback, Su-27 family) which is currently produced with 3D asymmetrical TVC. The Su-34s built in the 80s and 90s are being upgraded with current 3D TVC engines (15% more output than original engines). The west has nothing comparable to the Su-34 which can fly terrain hugging at mach speed, can remain on station for up to 12 hours with crew accommodations (cockpit is roomier than a Tu-160 bomber cockpit), is configured to act as a mini-AWACS directing other fighters, AND can engage in a knifefight should the need arise -

FWIW, the Russians have been doing tailslides since the '80s, it wasn't until the introduction of the cRaptor that any MIC aircraft were able to do tailslides since all MIC aircraft would flameout if a pilot did anything which caused a negative pressure at the intake. Perhaps you're unaware that a one off Su-27 (bort P-42) STILL holds all the time to altitude records (excepting the SS to 20,000 meters record still held by the one-off F-15 Streak Eagle) since 1987 - the SS to 15,000 meter time to altitude ET for P-42 is 70 seconds. The Russians have an entirely different mindset when it comes to aircraft. This Su-27 was crashed one day and flew the next day (right main gear would not lock and give a green light) -

The Su-35 (Su-27 family of aircraft) with 3D TVC is in production, the Su-37 (asymmetrical 2D TVC) was their first TVC test mule and it was put in service in '96. Even their Su-34 fighter-bombers are being retrofitted with upgraded 3D TVC engines. The Russians first asymmetrical 3D TVC was an in-service MiG-29 that they simply installed new engines into in 2004, several years before the cRaptor was put into service. Bort 156, the original asymmetrical 3D TVC MiG-29, capable of nearly 180 degrees angle of attack (flies tail first, @ 3:00 in video below), in service since '04 -

That much negative Gs = 'redout', NOT safe. It's just that the airframe can withstand it. x29? Meh. Check out the latest Su-35 Gen 4++ with asymmetrical 3D thrust vector control (the F22 cRaptor is limited to 2D symmetrical TVC, which is straight out of the mid-80s) -