KB Fab

It was more meant as a Jab regarding what Mitch from Mesa said about the OEM c-stock. He had complained that the "pointy cheekpeice" on the c-stock was a major source of discomfort due to the forward part of it. Now, looking at the way they designed the cheek riser, it seems like he's put out something that directly contradicts his complaint about the c-stock. To me, it looks like that riser hanging there could be problematic in terms of hanging up on something if you aren't careful. YMMV. Read about his comment here. http://www.mesatactical.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=847

Funny, Mitch was bitching bout that "pointy cheek piece" on the OEM C-stock but to look at this abomination, I don't see how it's any better. Here's what he has to say about the OEM C-stock. This is from someone who designed the Urbino off of a 5 year old M4 and didn't even know that Benelli ships every 11707 with a 3 position recoil tube. http://www.mesatactical.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=847

I'm glad I cancelled my order.

+1 for the Nordic extension.

Yep. And I can tell you from Mitch's post that it isn't an issue for them. Too bad, I won't be buying one. On the plus for you, if you SBS you won't need to worry and can just put a C-stock on.

And herein lies the rub. If it is a PIA to get the trigger group out without having to remove the stock (with tools) then there is a problem as far as I am concerned. Here is a reply I posted over on the Mesa forum about subject. Post number 21. http://www.mesatactical.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=861 Now, as far as the Urbino "issues" go, one of the reasons I was majorly disappointed is that it wasn't designed along with the original intent of the weapon. That is to say, to be able to field strip/disassemble the weapon without tools. This is one of the many features that attracted me to the Benelli's (I have an M4 and a SuperNova Tactical). To me, it's a big deal. Maybe it isn't to anyone else and that is fine but it is something I consider when purchasing accessories for either weapon. In addition, I assume it's a requirement for the Military so they don't have to be lugging around tools to work on their weapons. Again, that's a big deal to me and makes perfect sense from their perspective. I can't imagine that it would have been super difficult to have designed the Urbino this way but what do I know. I just wish there had been more transparency regarding this issue from the start. That's all. YMMV. I won't be buying one until they make it so the stock can be removed without pulling the butt pad off, like it was intended to be in the first place.

Field-strip the weapon including the removal of the trigger group. Then, take something like a pin punch and pop them out. I did it from the inside-out .

What about a Larue? http://larueosr.com/obr556.aspx

Well, Mitch musta hurt his mangina on the one that they have because he doesn't like the little pointy cheek piece.

Well, I just cancelled my order for the Urbino. I'm sticking with my C-stock.

Those are great, thanks for taking the time to post them. If you could, and are willing, take a pic of the area where the trigger guard meets the stock (while it's installed).

Well!

I'll throw my bad boy in the mix.

Pretty silly that Mesa didn't design this stock to coincide with how the weapon is supposed/designed to be field-stripped. Looks like I'll be canceling my order until this gets worked out.

The cheapest way to avoid 922r is to sell your Benelli M4.

Holy crap! That looks AWESOME! I am in!!!

Got mine in today as well. Stoked!

I still stand by the fact that if you used the proper tool from the beginning you wouldn't have had any trouble. That, and putting a few drops of CLP in a day before the install and you would have been golden.

Mesa Tactical will be offering a PG stock for the Super Nova sometime after the 1st of the year. It will have a shorter LOP than the factory PG stock. If you want the factory model, you can order it through Brownells. http://www.mesatactical.com/

I'm not knocking Mesa but I have had one of their shell holders on my SuperNova Tactical and it was only ok. I thought the retention was mediocre and the shells would most certainly moved under recoil. The retention was also different from slot to slot. Some were definitely looser than others. The other thing I didn't like about the mesa was their finish. It looks like they bead blast everything and then anodize the part. Not a super big deal but I didn't feel like it was super durable. Conversely, the Sidearmor rail I have on my M4 is superb in terms of fit, finish, and retention. There is a reason that it's more expensive and if you can compare them side by side you won't have any problem seeing the difference.

That's correct as far as I can tell in terms of the different brakes. If you google Royal Arms you will see the stuff they do but I don't believe they sell direct. I just ordered my carriercomp OEM brake and a full set of chokes to go with it. Yes, you must use one of the extended chokes in order to be able to install the brake. I also got one of the thread protectors as well since I will most likely use these chokes regardless of whether the brake is installed or not. Looking forward to getting them.

I just ordered one of their Slide Loc 2 pacs to go just ahead of the ejection port on my M4. Looks pretty cool.

I think it's a 2 piece system where one side of the velcro sticks to the receiver via adhesive. Not something I'm too excited about although I can see, and appreciate, the functionality of the product. Yes, at some point the elastic would wear and loosen but my guess is that it would last a good while before that happens. Then you just buy another. I personally prefer my Sidearmor short rail system but the 3 gun product beats anything in the weight dept. hands down.

You copied Travis...........you copied Travis........na na na na na............na na na na na............

Do not, I repeat, do not put these things on your M4. If you do, black helicopters will swoop down upon your residence and you will never be seen or heard from again.