StrangerDanger

It does capture at the front and rear like the OEM handguard, but there is so much play at the rear handguard retainer that there is a lot of movement unless the set screws are used. With that much movement, during recoil, it would likely mar something up pretty badly. At this point, I'm not sure if I'll be keeping them.

I received the pair of rails I ordered to check out. Immediately I noted that the unit is nicer to hold on to than it looks in pictures. There aren’t a bunch of jagged edges on it. It’s far better and thinner than say a Surefire M80. The factory OEM handguards weigh in at 5 ounces, where as this rail weighs in at 6.65 ounces. Not bad for being 6065 aluminum. The OEM handguards are more ergonomic than this rail, but it isn’t terrible - It’s tolerable unlike the M80. What I don’t like: The set screws are a terrible design. Whoever designed it should hang their head in shame as a designer and really be ashamed of themselves. Without using the set screws, the rail will wiggle significantly more than anyone would be comfortable with. Naturally if you use them, you no longer have a tool free disassembly. I tried to set them lightly but it didn’t seem to work for retaining the handguard. They could have solved this relatively easily by designing a replacement rear handguard retainer that held the rail in place. I did not use the front two set screws, since it is solid with just the rear set. The set screws are tiny and steel. They aren’t the nicer style that have a polymer tip to minimize marking. These kind of rails are a pain in that you end up scuffing up your barrel during installation. It doesn’t slide on easily, you have to work it back and forth to slide up over the piston assembly on the barrel. There are fitting issues if using this rail in combination with either an Ava Tactical or IWC light/sling mount. The tailcap will hit the rail and you will need to modify the rail for clearance. Or, stick strictly with a MLOK in-line Mount attached to be rail itself. I used a small cutting wheel to gain the clearance needed with an IWC light mount. I used the IWC since it offered a little more clearance and provided QD sling mounts. Had I used the Ava Tactical Mount, I’d need a MLOK QD socket since I’m mounting the light on the ejection port side of the firearm. I dont have my new Taps switch in yet to test fit it to the rail to see if it’s worth the trouble and limitations. I wish they had made some some kind of textured panels for the handguard to increase traction. I know I can use some over the Mlok points. I’ll take some pictures later.

I remember seeing that handguard with the picatinny rail attached. I copied a lot of it when I did my IWC scout light mount embedded in to the inside of the OEM handguards. I wanted to do the same with the OEM handguards and the Taps switch, but there are to many obstructions going on inside and complex angles to cut out. The handguard isn’t that thick either. If using the Pro model of the Taps switch, you can program which switch does the momentary output for the light. So you can run the wires to the front or to the back of the switch block if necessary. Usually the best mehod is running them to the rear. I’m not sure if I can route the wire between the barrel and the mag tube. I don’t think the barrel gets hot enough to melt the wire? Some day I’ll man up and cut the wire and figure out how to splice them to make longer runs! Probably after I melt a wire!

It does seem to be the next step forward. I’ll probably hold off until they release an intellibeam model. 1500 is a little too bright for me in the house.

As for Surefire’s new Scout bodies, I’ve read they are increasing the body diameter by 5mm to take permit the use of the rechargeable cell that can drive the 1500 lumen output. Supposedly you can still use 123A batteries, but the output and runtime will be reduced.

My plan is to use a Unity Tactical Taps switch block on the left side, and mount the light to the right side. I have three options for the light itself; 1. Mount directly to the Hayl via a MLOK Mount 2. Reverse the Ava Tactical Mount to mount it to the right side, this gives me issues with sling mounting unless I get a MLOK QD socket 3. Use the IWC mount which is ambidextrous. In all three scenarios it will use the same IWC backbone light body. As for the Hayl handguard, we will see soon. All I have seen is their pictures and a few other vague mentions online. The set screws could be an issue. My guess is I can set them so that it locks up tight, but not so tight that you cannot remove the rail without tools. Depending on the set screw, it may leave marks on the rear handguard retainer and the front handguard retainer of the barrel assembly. I have no interest in mounting anything to the bottom rail. What interests me is the out of the way MLOK rail points at 11 and 1 o’clock that appear to be perfect for mounting a quality switch block like the TAPS. Using a light with a thumb activated switch is a little dangerous on a heavy recoiling platform like the Benelli. It’s really easy to jam your thumb under recoil. Pressing inward on a quality tape switch would be a better solution (in theory.) I’m still researching to see if I can get away with using the standard model instead of a pro model. I have a pro model on hand to test with. I have no use for the Insight wire lead, so I’ll either cut it off or find a place to tuck the wire inside the rail. I’m not afraid to modify the rail to loom the wiring inside. I have concerns about the ergonomics of the Hayl rail too. Im not a fan of sharp metal that appears to have been made for cosmetics rather than function. I hate those hand stops they show the rail with. If I were building a rail like this, it would be like the Magpul MOE handguard sets. A semi-smooth outer face with lightly recessed panels with aggressive stippling. Polymer all the things over aluminum.

I ordered a Strike Industries Hayl mount to test another mounting solution. I may mount a TAPS switch block to the rail in the MLOK position. I may put an IWC inline MLOK mount on the opposite side to compare against the IWC and Ava Tactical mount. I'll probably flip the Ava tactical mount so that the light is on the ejection port side.

The M4 will function with one piston, albeit a little more sluggishly. Found out when I snapped one. With the one I have 15k through, the receiver looks brand new aside from the beveled edges of the ejection port.

With the IWC, you can add various bodies other than Scout lights, but you get stuck adding picatinny rail sections. If you’re going with the IWC, you should also buy their M600 backbone light body. Then add the lamp head and tailcap you want to the package. Ava Tactical is sold out with more being made currently. Another batch will likely be done in 60-90 days. It certainly mounts cleaner and pulls the light closer to the weapon. This is good and bad as it can exaggerate Barrel shadows. This will be minimized on your 14” Barrel. There can be some fitting issues since the light rides so close to the weapon. Scout tailcaps will not fit without modifying the shroud. There are aftermarket tailcaps like the McClickie that will work, but I personally prefer the Surefire clicker. I personally use the IWC backbone light bodies with the Ava mount. The foot of the body locks in to place to prevent any unwanted movement. For lamp heads, you won’t have any issues with the M300C, I only ran in to problems with the M600IB which has a bezel diameter of 1.37”. Some light lathe work resolved that issue. My experience with the 1” diameter bodies is limited. I didn’t like the Surefire P3X, it weighed too much and it seemed like recoil was damaging the three cells.

For a bunch of Italians, you'd think they would have had a shorter LOP! Just round up on Twitter. Your profession should add a good solid four inches anyway! I wish the Mesa Tactical Urbino didn't have that retarded attachment system. I could never get used to the field stock on the M4. I hated the way it would hang slung. The pistol grip really helps control the roll of the shotgun when you're hands off. It has that standard full length of pull too anyway. I'd say with the Sync rail on the M4, you'd have a better sight picture with the RMR than with the irons. To me it is a little tight and cramped on the stock, but perhaps someone with shorter arms would do better?

It’s a little more comfortable than using the iron sights, but I don’t find it comfortable and slower to get a proper cheek weld/shouldering. It almost feels like I have to twist my head slightly to get behind it. I’m big enough at 6’2 that the full length position doesn’t bother me, so I’ve gone back to using it full time.

Thanks! Not bad for an ipotato!

Finally got my parts back from the painter. My guy matched the NP3+ quite well on the light. I took the shotgun out today and tested it and got her sighted in with some slugs at 25 yards.

That was kind of my feel on the m300 Backbone, it was more for weapons where the M600 would protrude farther forward than desired due to barrel length or whatnot. Getting the batteries in was a big issue for me as well. I don't mind pulling the barrel to put them in. It's worth the IB capability. Running 500+ lumens inside a structure is a bit much, you get a lot of blow back even when you're being careful and keeping the muzzle low. Then outside, having a lower output light doesn't perform very well. The larger head diameter of the IB model has a better spill than the M600U 500 lumen I compared it against. I was under the impression that the Scout series and the copies of the bodies like IWC were designed to keep the batteries from moving around during recoil. This is why you can't remove the batteries from the tailcap end. The batteries seat against rear on a shelf. That way the battery isn't held in place by the battery spring at the tailcap. I thought there was something similar up front as well to keep it from bashing in to the coil spring on the head of the lamp?

Why do you like the shorter light? I prefer to get the bezel out as far forward as possible to minimize the barrel shadow. Is it more of a preference on the light throw of the 300 reflector? I messed with this build more tonight. I found if I remove the barrel, I can swap batteries without having to remove the light from the weapon. I really like these IB models, the modulation is almost instant. You don't really see it ramp up in output or dial back.

Here is the M600IB model installed on my H2O Extreme build that is slowly being built up. Removing the barrel isn't an issue with the close fit of the lamp head. I'll send this unit out for painting to match the H2O soon. I ordered two more of these lights, I'll machine one of them to go on my burnt bronze build, and one is for the AR15 that doesn't need modified. Also attached below is some shots of the barrel shadowing, and the benefits of the IB model light. The output is significantly cut down at close quarters, and instantly ramps up to 600 lumens at further ranges.

I never cared for the field stock on the Benelli M4 personally. The only real benefit of the collapsible stock is the small storage size. I use the longer length of pull since the sight picture is better for me. The middle position affects the cheek weld significantly. The Sync Mount rides so low that it’s almost like using the iron sights. If it rode higher, the middle position might be more comfortable for me. I’m 6’2, so fortunately the longer length position isn’t an issue for me. I’ll take a picture of the light setup today. The lamps machine easily in the lathe. It only took a few minutes to get it reprofiled. I then hit the machines area with some fine grit sandpaper while it was spinning.

This morning I took one of the Surefire M600IB 600 lumen output IntelliBeam lamps and stuck it in the lathe and machined off the high spots of the lamp to permit a tighter fit to the Benelli when using the Ava Tactical mount. Unfortunately you have to remove the the light from the mount in order to remove the head, but it does fit with the use of the IWC backbone body. I'm going to order a couple more, then have them painted to hide the machining work. It makes for swapping batteries to be kind of a pain, but I feel it is worth it for the IB technology.

Thanks. If doing it again, I’d go with a darker version of the burnt bronze. Yes, that’s the trigger spring kit I mentioned. I tried the ones from TTI, but they caused failure to fire events. The hammer spring wasn’t strong enough to detonate the primers.

The lug on the IWC body fits in the recess of the mod 1 perfectly. It’s also lighter than say a Surefire Scout Light body. The Surefire bodies need to be heavily modified to fit, where as this is a drop in unit. I use the IWC’s exclusiviely including on the AR platforms since the body offers fine tuning for shifting the light laterally in the mount to tighten it up against the firearm. This lateral adjustment doesn’t work when sticking it in the Ava mount, but it would if you were using the IWC light mount.

I have Wolff springs in now for about a year, but do not have enough rounds on them to determine how much better they hold up over the oem.

I've found the longer the better for the light bodies on the M4, getting it closer to the muzzle reduces the amount of barrel shadow. This started out as an old 11703 I bought in 2004. Within the first 50 rounds, I snapped one of the gas pistons due to the 4 port barrel. The M4 continued functioning with the snapped piston. The barrel beat the bolt carrier to death and deformed the face of the carrier to the point that it wouldn't cycle properly. So I sent it back to Benelli around 2008 and they gave me a 11707 barrel, new bolt carrier group, and handguards. I replaced the receiver extension with the 3 position unit around 2011. I had to replace the recoil spring at around the 7500 round mark. I should have replaced it earlier since it was causing malfunctions. I had replaced the springs in the trigger pack twice, they were starting to take a set and the pack seemed weak or anemic. Since the big replacement items, I haven't noticed any wear that will cause further failures. Springs are always consumable.