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

Benelli M4 -- Refinish Time!

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

I'm using the 14" barrel, so you're gaining 1.5" of light, roughly, while I'm losing 4.5" of barrel. On my 18.5" m4, I went m300 because I simply like the light having less leverage on the mount during recoil or slamming into anything, as well as only 1 battery in the stack vs. 2, to be slammed back and forth against the springs during recoil. Primarily, these lights were made for 5.56 caliber carbines. Not that theu arent super durable, but the shotgun IS outside of their optimal parameter. The less abuse the battery stack endures, the better, imo. Cr123s don't like being beaten up.

 

Most of these are technicalities that live in the realm of theory, but the m300c with 500 lumens is enough light, and my thought process is logical, so I roll with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice work on the IB bezel. Nice that you found that you can remove the bezel without having to remove the whole body from the gun to change batteries. That, I would not like.

 

I have both the M300 and M600 lights and also both the IWC and AVA mounts having tried out both combinations on my 18.5 barrel.

 

Holding both lights in your hands and shining them down a hallway there's not a huge difference in how much light that they cast between the two. Yeah, 100 lumens.

 

However, once you mount the lights in the AVA mount, there is a big difference in how bright they are because of the barrel shadow amplified by the M300's bezel being further back on the gun and the lower position of the light in the AVA mount versus the IWC.

 

Aesthetically, I like the shorter look of the M300 in the AVA mount but, it really compromises the effectiveness of the light so, I prefer to use the M600 in it.

 

With the IWC mount, the M300 brightness is not so muted because of the higher position and farther distance away from alongside the barrel that the mount locates the light.

 

But I don't like the front sling mounting point on the side that the IWC forces you to use. It makes the sling bite my hand and I don't trust it's strength and longevity when using the gun in a tight slung up standing position when firing.

 

I use the OEM front sling swivel on mine which the AVA mount does not require you to remove. The sling's rear POA is a Noveske QD swivel plate.

 

Just my observations/experience having tried both lights in both mounts.

Edited by Evolution

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

 

The batteries remain in place during recoil, while the light moves rearward. The result is the compression of the spring on the "head", and relaxation of the spring in the "tail". The scouts are well made, and neither action causes loss of contact/random switching. That said, those batteries are hitting each other, as well as the head, each time you fire the weapon. CR123's don't like physical abuse. It's likely a non-issue, but I prefer to cut the mass in half, and reduce the moving parts by half, as well. Again, I'm likely overthinking this, but the math does agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...