Jump to content

922R compliance a waste of money?


Domonlord

Recommended Posts

Has anyone ever been in trouble with 922R compliance for the Benelli M4? The M4 is my favorite shotgun, and I'm interested in getting into 3 gun this month. All the guys there tell me to not worry about 922R.

 

Looking at parts... it'll be $400ish just to get into compliance with a full length magazine tube, hammer, follower, and forearm for a Benelli M4 with 2 shot extension and collapsible stock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did it. I did it because I have too much to lose to get caught with an illegal weapon and face federal charges. Probably nobody is ever going to come up to you at a range and demand to inspect your shotgun for compliance.

 

It doesn't happen that way. It happens like an accident or peripheral to some other incident. It's worth the insurance and peace of mind to me.

 

Possessing illegal weapons is not something to scoff at if you value your lifestyle, home, job, etc., etc.

Edited by Evolution
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also did it as well, I'm very risk averse. Besides, actually spending the money gives you a better product. The full length mag tube from CarrierComp is compliant, no need for an extension, and it's lighter/stronger than the original. The follower from FFT is brighter colored and aluminum, so it should hold up longer. The Geissele hammer is more preferred than the Benelli stock hammer, and I believe FFT sells a virtually identical foreend (or you could always buy the FFT disconnector).

 

Once you buy it all, you'll have a better, compliant, and more re-sell-able weapon.

 

 

I did it. I did it because I have too much to lose to get caught with an illegal weapon and face federal charges. Probably nobody is ever going to come up to you at a range and demand to inspect your shotgun for compliance.

 

It doesn't happen that way. It happens like an accident or peripheral to some other incident. It's worth the insurance and peace of mind to me.

 

Possessing illegal weapons is not something to scoff at if you value your lifestyle, home, job, etc., etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Made my M4 922 compliant after adding Carriercomp magazine extension just to avoid any BATFE issues. I have witnessed what the BATFE has done to FFLs and individuals that are not in compliance with all their regulations, and it is not a pretty sight.

Write your Congressman and Senators about all the out-of-date and unnecessary BATFE regulations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parts counts hold be 4 US manufactured pieces if the collapsible stock is used.

 

As far as 922 compliance, is it really worth the risk? Mine is compliant, it's only the smart thing to do.

 

I didn't know about the 4 part deal with a collapsable.:o I live in Ca. and a C stock on a M4 is verboten.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did it, too much to lose. My normal FFL owner didn't, said his BATFE Contact told him not to worry (and he's probably correct).

I just see it as an additional charge to be added if you get arrested for anything, so I took that option away from the Feds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First rule of Fight Club . . .

 

+1 It always cracks me up when I see posts like this. "Hey folks, I'm thinking about breaking the law and just wanted to announce it on a public forum that might be monitored by police so that there is a written record of it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BATF told Benelli to stop selling the H20 after Benelli attempted to skirt the law by having the M4's coated in NP3. I believe 60 - 70 M4's with collapsible stocks and full length magazine tubes made it out into circulation before they were shut down.

 

Many of the upgrades are worthwhile on their own merit for the M4. So 922 compliance isn't all terrible and a complete waste of money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought 922r was Clinton thank you to all of us?

Oh, and I fixed it for you too;)

 

It was Bush Sr. who established the notion of 'not suitable for sporting purposes' shortly after becoming president (the import ban bypassing Congress), and that is the basis of the pointless, nonsensical 922r.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1989 import ban was all Bush Sr. Clinton was the 1994 Assault a weapon ban with the sunset clause.

 

Thank you both, did not know that.

 

Glad he only went one term as he didn't believe in anything he said (guy he lost too wasn't that great either)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol sugar coat it before I get my dam gun taken away over some propaganda ******** you better be dam straight I am going have my **** 922. and if you think for one min that the cops won't use that agence you for ones that are using shotguns for home defense your wrong reality check check.these ************ will use anything they have agence you in a Cort of law to put you down............ and i'll be dam if that's going to be me in that number............. Stranger Danger I agree....... Semper-FI...

Link to comment
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
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
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...