Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Benelli Forums

calviroman

Members
  • Content Count

    162
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by calviroman

  1. There have been several members who have shortened PG stocks. I did one back in 2010 when C-Stocks were hard to come by. You will have to use a "grind to fit" butt pad. You also have to fabricate new mounting holes for the butt pad screws. A shortened OEM stock is "nicer" than the mesa aftermarket option but is several hours of work to get right!
  2. For a shorter length of pull, options include: 1. Benelli C-stock run in its middle position. This is a bad time to be buying them as prices are elevated to roughly $500-$600. I'd suggest waiting until they drop to at least sub $400. 2. Mesa tactical PG stock. Solves your LoP problem but is a lesser quality product compared to OEM. Could be used as a placeholder. I've seen them sub $100. 3. Gunsmith shortened LoP on a Benelli field or PG stock. I did this once myself as a placeholder for a C-stock.
  3. Dang prices are bad right now! Note this appears to be a knockoff C-Stock and not a Benelli OEM.
  4. I have the CC Ti tube on my 14". Every ounce counts when you're taking it off the front end of the shotgun!
  5. Some folks have flush mounted QD sling docks into the stock, accessing the work area via the buttpad cavity. There have also been folks who have installed a QD sling dock plate in place of the existing flat sling loop, however they indicated there was a fair amount of "gunsmithing" type work involved as that part of the firearm is not very service friendly.
  6. Assuming you have the C-Stock you need the Limbsaver 10403 and two M4-0.7 x 16 mm Phillips Pan Head Machine Screws. Total cost is under $40. The slide on one is trashy on a M4.
  7. Hi -- it appears to be an OEM C-Stock. As I recall the Promag ones had a glossier finish.
  8. Seems legit...excited to see a review. Mesa if you're seeing this get a demo unit over to mrgunsandgear for his M4!
  9. So which of us is going to fly to Europe and smuggle back 500 of these rails?
  10. One interesting item I saw was the Aridus Industries "CROM" mount which replaces the rear sight and also functions similarly to the Scalarworks SYNC Micro. They sell it as a Beretta 1301 part and I messaged them to see if it was M4 compatible (I suspect it is not).
  11. Looks great but must be very heavy with all those shells
  12. Welcome. 1. The magazine spring retainer ring sits in the tube under tension and does not "lock" or "snap" in. Because of this, it is not suggested to remove the thread on magazine end cap when the magazine is loaded as the magazine spring retainer can launch with a good amount of force (ask me how I know) 2. Sorry don't know. Back in 2010 when I put my seven shell tube on to replace the factory five shell tube I can't recall if Kip included a new / longer mag spring or not.
  13. Sounds like a good plan. So long as you're sticking with the factory fixed PG stock, I second going with the new Scalarworks mount for your Aimpoint Micro. Also second that AVA and IWC both make excellent weaponlight mounts for this application. Enjoy the new shotgun! My buddy & I took ours out this past weekend (his an 18.5" and mine a 14") and had a blast out in the desert.
  14. JosERW -- "Strangerdanger" on this forum is a M4 specialty gunsmith and would be a great choice for the work. Obviously the difficult part of PG stock cutdown is making the new buttpad look great. Back in 2010 I had cut down my PG stock but never quite figured out the "make the buttpad match" part and ended up trashing it for a C-stock.
  15. Interesting on the Nordic extension. Yes the cap is the same. While a bit goofy for serious uses, I could see someone running this in a 3-gun match where max capacity is required to be competitive.
  16. Yes - and it is my understanding that there are only two variants of the IWC mount (direct Scout attach or pic rail), so IWC's drop list should only show "Scout direct mount" and "1913 rail" verses the current four options which are somewhat confusing. Regardless of the confusion, great weaponlight mount!
  17. Since its just a short piece -- just post it here and crowdsource feedback
  18. Yes the only "upgrade" for the SBS magazine is a CarrierComp Ti unit. Same length & capacity, slightly lighter. One thing some folks with the SBSs do is pickup a full length CarrierComp Ti magazine (seven shell mag) plus an 18.5" barrel assembly so that they can swap over to a non-NFA configuration for impromptu interstate travel or other apps where the nine shell capacity is beneficial.
  19. From IWC...when selecting the mount there is a drop down list from which you can select the version which includes the rail segment. It's not very clear (poorly worded) on the IWC site which of the last two drop down options you want so you may need to email their customer service for clarification. When I preordered mine I don't recall there being any options and I was direct mounting a Scout so just needed the most basic version.
  20. For an X300 you'll need the picatinny rail attachment option. The basic mount is setup only for direct Scout light attachment so the small rail option will act as an interface adapter for your X300
  21. While I am a fan of oversized safety and bolt release, not digging the style shown.
  22. It's my understanding that it has a retaining bolt that threads, from the rear, into the receiver's recoil spring tube extension. From what I've seen looking at necro posts there may be issues with this bolt coming loose, or causing issues with the extension if threadlocked into place. So SD you don't recommend the Urbino to your customers & for the M4 builds you do now that C-Stocks are readily available for $250? I remember the bad old days where C-Stocks were selling all day long for $450-$500 and before then even higher! When they dipped down to $230 at one point I bought two in case I ever messed mine up!
  23. I've been running a factory C-Stock at the middle "setting" (approx. 12" LOP) for a while now and have always thought the cheek weld was ho-hum. While I do have an OEM Field stock and OEM PG stock (LOP is too long for me on those two) I've never had an Urbino stock. It at least appears to work OK in some video reviews back from when it was first released, but in nearly all cases it seems to have been bought as a budget substitute for a C-Stock at the middle setting and was replacing a OEM PG stock...NOT as a replacement for a OEM C-Stock. For those who have owned and used both the C-Stock and Urbino, preferably with a RDS such as an Aimpoint Micro, is there a general preference for the Urbino over the C-Stock? If buying an Urbino, I'd likely get the model with the LimbSaver and cheek riser (set in its lowest height setting). Thoughts? Current setup is below:
×
×
  • Create New...