User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 7:40:56 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted: Besides the "military fanboyness" of the M4, why should someone who has an M2 want an M4 instead?  No idea beyond the fanboy/collection aspect. Can't stand Benelli guns myself; overpriced, overhyped, finicky, controls in all the wrong places for me, stocks a mile too long for anything but skeet shooting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 8:17:24 PM EDT
[#2]
Besides maybe a light the military isn't normally putting anything else on it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 8:49:46 PM EDT
[#3]
The M2 "can" malfunction with the add-ons due to the inertia system. M4 designed with gas system to overcome this, due to military need/want to add these extras. Tool-less breakdown is "important" to our boys in the field for obvious reasons. Some issues with light target loads in a new M4, until broken-in @ 100 full power shells. My question would be, "why would anyone shoot light loads out of it" except to save $ on ammo? I would never use an M4 for skeet or bird hunting. I have Remy 1100 and 1187 for that. Load up the M4 with 00buck or slugs and Never have a problem. As for the consumers that hang every toy from a Brownell's catalog off their shotgun, there are many out there. I am minimalistic though. The M2 is a wonderful shotgun, hope to have one soon. Wife bought me the M1014 (M4) for my birthday and I love it. I have always been a Remy guy since I was a kid and the ergonomics are burned into my soul. I have(2) 870 police, 1100, and 1187. That being said, Benelli's are different but nothing I can't train to overcome. So, my answer to you may be that the M4 is not necessarily an upgrade to the M2. Both are designed to achieve different wants/needs. Some guys will tell you a $600 Mossy is as good/better than the $1000-2000 Benellis, and they may be right. But I don't want a Mossberg, I wanted a Benelli M4. Now I want the M2. They are both great guns and are just 2 more tools in the tool box.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 9:46:38 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:. My question would be, "why would anyone shoot light loads out of it" except to save $ on ammo? I would never use an M4 for skeet or bird . That's my thinking also. For hunters, it's important to shoot light loads, but duck hunters don't usually put all sorts of tacticool crap on their shotguns, so it's only an issue for the defense minded people. And then as you said, why do you care? If anything, don't you want occasional stoppages in your training ammo so you can train recovery? What would you have to hang off of an M2 to get it to jam on full power loads????? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 9:49:48 PM EDT
[#5]
well I loved and abuse my M1 so I bought and M2 and then I added an M4, mostly because I could and I like it
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 10:49:09 PM EDT
[#6]
From an Owner of both, I prefer the M4 over the M2 because:
-the M1014 does not have choke tubes -M4 is heavier -M1014 has a longer recoil spring -bolt face engages locking lugs easier -hourglass charging handle -116.5mm carrier length as opposed to the M2's 113mm carrier length -Cast aluminium trigger group I enjoy the M4 system so much I matched it with the M2's ergonomic handling and styling. However my true favorite will always be my Pistol Stock M3 with ring sights. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 11:12:35 PM EDT
[#7]
Why? Cuz I paid $500 for it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 11:35:17 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
-the M1014 does not have choke tubes Quote HistoryQuoted:
-the M1014 does not have choke tubes Isn't that a bad thing? You can radically change your shotgun's performance to suit a specific goal by swapping out choke tubes. For example, a full choke can make 00 buck pattern tight enough at 50 yards to be effective. I had no idea that the M4 doesn't have chokes. That's a big negative in my book...almost rules it out. If you don't like the way it patterns, if it doesn't match your needs, you're what, screwed? -M4 is heavier Isn't that a bad thing? I mean if you're recoil sensitive, the heavier the better. But a heavy gun also causes fatigue a lot faster. -M1014 has a longer recoil spring -bolt face engages locking lugs easier -hourglass charging handle -116.5mm carrier length as opposed to the M2's 113mm carrier length -Cast aluminium trigger group Except for the bolt handle which is a common and cheap aftermarket upgrade, what are the practical benefits of these things? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 11:37:53 PM EDT
[#9]
Also, what on earth is the second shotgun from the top? Is that photoshop or did you stick an M4 barrel on an M2? If so, why?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 11:41:19 PM EDT
[#10]
I love my M4, I have never even held a M2. I hope to check one out someday. At first I had some problems with light loads, but a few hundred rounds of higher problems fixed that. After the first break in and cleaning, it will take anything I feed it now. I will never get rid of my M4. But if I like the M2, I will add it to the stable. I also want to get a H&K imported M1.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2014 11:47:42 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I love my M4, I have never even held a M2. I hope to check one out someday. At first I had some problems with light loads, but a few hundred rounds of higher problems fixed that. After the first break in and cleaning, it will take anything I feed it now. I will never get rid of my M4. But if I like the M2, I will add it to the stable. I also want to get a H&K imported M1. Why did you decide on the M4 without looking at an M2? I'm in the pre-purchase stage and I've looked at both. The M4 is nice, but the M2 feels much lighter and feels better in the hand. If you pick up the M4 first, it feels great, but the M2 feels better. If you pick up the M2 first, the M4 feels like a brick. If they do the same thing (without adding a ton of weight to the M2), I don't see the point of the M4, so I'm trying to see if I'm missing something. Military cachet, more tactical looks, but what else? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 1:35:12 AM EDT
[#12]
I wasn't planning on buying it when I got it. It was an impulse buy. At the time it was a gun that I liked but I hadn't really looked into the M series. I went to a local place to talk to them about a reservation on a rifle. While I was there I noticed they had the M4s so I asked to see one. Other than being a bit heavy, I loved the way it felt. They gave me a good price so I took it home. I don't regret it at all. If I had researched it more, I may have ended up with a M2 and I may have never gotten the M4. But hopefully I will end up with both now. On a side note, I am actually better at shooting clays with my M4 than I am with my Super Vinci. But you saying that the M2 is lighter has peaked my interest because I have Spina Bifida. Weight doesn't bother me too much if I'm in my wheelchair, but lighter is better when I'm using my walker.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 11:39:30 AM EDT
[#13]
The M1014 was a limited run of 2500 shotguns. These have a fixed choke and American Flag engraved on the receiver. The M4 is the same gun but with interchangeable chokes and rib where the barrel meets the receiver.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2014 9:31:54 PM EDT
[#14]
The 18.5" M4 is threaded for a choke and comes with an IC one installed, the 1014 and 14" do not. Thread needs moar M4 eyecandy...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2014 5:17:20 AM EDT
[#15]
My M4 has been flawless and have no regrets in buying it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2014 9:21:10 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
What am I missing? Besides the "military fanboyness" of the M4, why should someone who has an M2 want an M4 instead? The question I see is,......"why would someone buy a M2 vs an M4"? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2014 1:23:50 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The question I see is,......"why would someone buy a M2 vs an M4"? Yes. That's the decision I'm trying to make. And I see no reason to buy an M4 except military cachet. The M2 is completely reliable the way any normal person would use it (put on an extension, mount a light, a side saddle and maybe a light optic). The M2 is lighter, cleaner and less expensive. Short of "I want the gun the military uses because it's cool," I see no logical reason to pick the M4, and so far no one here has provided one. I get the "I love mine, no regrets" stuff. It's a Benelli, what's to regret? But if you own neither and are in the market for one, it seems to me the M2 is the only logical choice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2014 1:55:20 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And I see no reason to buy an M4 except military cachet. You are correct. I prefer my FN SLP to either though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2014 9:34:41 PM EDT
[#19]
The M2 is better suited toward shooting sports, three gun and the like.
The M4 is better suited toward defense, home defense, tactical LEO use and the like. I have owned both,......I only own the M4 now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2014 11:10:23 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The M4 is better suited toward defense, home defense, tactical LEO use and the like. What makes the M4 more suited towards defense/tactical use? Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's not much you can hang off of an M2 that will make it less than 100% reliable will full power loads. The M4 cannot cycle rubber slugs and other less than lethal rounds, so what is it that makes it more suitable? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2014 3:08:50 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What makes the M4 more suited towards defense/tactical use? Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's not much you can hang off of an M2 that will make it less than 100% reliable will full power loads. The M4 cannot cycle rubber slugs and other less than lethal rounds, so what is it that makes it more suitable? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The M4 is better suited toward defense, home defense, tactical LEO use and the like. What makes the M4 more suited towards defense/tactical use? Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's not much you can hang off of an M2 that will make it less than 100% reliable will full power loads. The M4 cannot cycle rubber slugs and other less than lethal rounds, so what is it that makes it more suitable? What makes the M2 more capable of "cycling rubber slugs and other less than lethal rounds" than a M4? The M4 at least has dedicated barrel for that with 4 drilled gas ports. In contrast, the M3 is specifically designed AND advertised to manually cycling those rounds if the inertia system can not perform that task. I |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2014 7:19:29 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What makes the M2 more capable of "cycling rubber slugs and other less than lethal rounds" than a M4? Quote HistoryQuoted:
What makes the M2 more capable of "cycling rubber slugs and other less than lethal rounds" than a M4? Nothing. The M2 cannot cycle rubber stuff either. The M4 at least has dedicated barrel for that with 4 drilled gas ports. No it doesn't, not for that, because it cannot cycle those rounds. No auto can. Those gas ports are so it could pass the military trials where they attach everything and its grandmother to the shotgun and see if it still cycles. Keep in mind that the M2 can still cycle normal power loads with total reliability with a ridiculous contraption such as this hanging off of its nose: 
So what exactly can the M4 do that the M2 cannot?? In contrast, the M3 is specifically designed AND advertised to manually cycling those rounds if the inertia system can not perform that task. At this point I would buy that the M3 is more suited than the M2 or the M4 for defense/tactical purposes for that reason. That still leaves us with why you think the M4 is more suitable for defense/tactical purposes than the M2. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2014 7:30:31 AM EDT
[#23]
I have an HK marked m1s90 with the benelli extension so I can have 10 rounds on tap. I have no use for an optic on a shotgun so a top rail does me no good.
I would still buy an m4 but it's low on my list of wants, really low. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2014 7:39:38 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have an HK marked m1s90 with the benelli extension so I can have 10 rounds on tap. I have no use for an optic on a shotgun so a top rail does me no good. I would still buy an m4 but it's low on my list of wants, really low. For the record, the M2 tactical is drilled and tapped for a rail, and it costs 40 bucks for a quality rail made in the US. If the answer to "why is the M4 more suited to tactical purposes than the M2" is "because it has a rail" then that's really disappointing. Both the M2 Tactical and M4:
So what gives? Why is the M4 considered more suited for tactical purposes than the M2? Is it just because the military uses it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2014 9:42:36 AM EDT
[#25]
It boils down to a few things to me.
1: M2 Inertia vs M4 Gas. Opinion of the military and some others is that the inertia system can malfunction if not shouldered solidly when hanging items off of the gun. Not to say the M2 has been proven to operate perfectly with additions added or that the M4 hasn't choked on some light loads. 2: price $$$. M4 is $400-500 more than a M2. Some buyers are cost conscious, others have $ to burn. 3: Looks: to each his own 4: Military uses it. Some buyers like having having what military has/uses. 5: The M2 girl next door / M4 the pornstar analogy. You can draw your own conclusions. In a perfect world, I'd say get both. If only option is to have one or the other, then I think OP, YOU should get the M2. Reading your posts, I believe you would be happier with the M2 due to your stated reasoning. I do not think the differences we have given you here are enough to persuade you to go the M4 route. And that is perfectly fine. Please let me know if you come across a good deal on the M2, I am looking for one myself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2014 12:41:22 PM EDT
[#26]
But all of that is opinion based on assumptions and the rest is "but but the military uses it!"
Is that really all there is to the M4? Can no one provide a single objective reason why it's better than the M2? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2014 2:40:20 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But all of that is opinion based on assumptions and the rest is "but but the military uses it!" Is that really all there is to the M4? Can no one provide a single objective reason why it's better than the M2? Maybe you should ask better for what purpose? My use might be different than yours. So my needs would also be different. I'm sure you could make the same arguments between a Mossberg 500 and 590A1. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2014 2:50:05 PM EDT
[#28]
Fair enough, but the M4 only comes in a tactical configuration, so I assumed everyone would be on the same page as far as purpose. If not...tactical uses. Home defense and other tactical purposes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2014 2:56:20 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
. I'm sure you could make the same arguments between a Mossberg 500 and 590A1. As for this, I would answer as follows. They are essentially the same shotgun for all practical purposes, and while the 590A1 has some stronger components (steel vs plastic, etc.), but the biggest difference is that the 590 is available with a parkerized finish which offers better resistance to the elements. However, the extra weight from the heavy barrel and the questionable bayonet lug add unnecessary weight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2014 3:38:43 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As for this, I would answer as follows. They are essentially the same shotgun for all practical purposes, and while the 590A1 has some stronger components (steel vs plastic, etc.), but the biggest difference is that the 590 is available with a parkerized finish which offers better resistance to the elements. However, the extra weight from the heavy barrel and the questionable bayonet lug add unnecessary weight. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
. I'm sure you could make the same arguments between a Mossberg 500 and 590A1. As for this, I would answer as follows. They are essentially the same shotgun for all practical purposes, and while the 590A1 has some stronger components (steel vs plastic, etc.), but the biggest difference is that the 590 is available with a parkerized finish which offers better resistance to the elements. However, the extra weight from the heavy barrel and the questionable bayonet lug add unnecessary weight. Again I think it's going to come down to your potential or perceived use. You might think the extra weight and bayonet lug would not be attractive to you. Others might want it for those exact reasons. Both are very similar. Both have a market and a customer. Some people will be willing to spend the extra money to get what they think is a better fit. I would say the real answer to your question is personal preference. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2014 4:14:46 PM EDT
[#31]
But that does not address the M4/M2 conundrum!
Does the M4 have a better more protective finish? Is it more reliable with defense loads? What does it have, what can it do, that the M2 cannot do?? Here are the downsides of the M4 as far as I can see: 1. Heavier. 2. Not configurable for sporting purposes (e.g. can't buy a field barrel) 3. Dirtier (gas). 4. Less flexible with extension tubes. Here are the downsides of the M2: 1. Does not come with a rail, though you can get one. 2. Does not come with collapsible stock, though you can get one. 3. May not cycle light target loads reliably if you add too much gear, but this has no bearing on defensive/tactical use, since you would not use such loads for such purposes. Advantages of M4: 1. Comes with rail. 2. Comes with a collapsible stock (if you like that sort of thing). 3. Is more reliable with light target loads IF you hang all kinds of stuff on it. Advantages of M2: 1. Lighter. 2. More customizable and more flexible (can get field barrels, longer tubes, etc.). 3. Cleaner. So far it seems like a no brainer...unless you have some special tactical need to cycle light target loads with reliability with lights, optics and side saddles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2014 7:11:16 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nothing. The M2 cannot cycle rubber stuff either. No it doesn't, not for that, because it cannot cycle those rounds. No auto can. Those gas ports are so it could pass the military trials where they attach everything and its grandmother to the shotgun and see if it still cycles. Keep in mind that the M2 can still cycle normal power loads with total reliability with a ridiculous contraption such as this hanging off of its nose: So what exactly can the M4 do that the M2 cannot?? At this point I would buy that the M3 is more suited than the M2 or the M4 for defense/tactical purposes for that reason. That still leaves us with why you think the M4 is more suitable for defense/tactical purposes than the M2. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What makes the M2 more capable of "cycling rubber slugs and other less than lethal rounds" than a M4? Nothing. The M2 cannot cycle rubber stuff either. The M4 at least has dedicated barrel for that with 4 drilled gas ports. No it doesn't, not for that, because it cannot cycle those rounds. No auto can. Those gas ports are so it could pass the military trials where they attach everything and its grandmother to the shotgun and see if it still cycles. Keep in mind that the M2 can still cycle normal power loads with total reliability with a ridiculous contraption such as this hanging off of its nose: So what exactly can the M4 do that the M2 cannot?? In contrast, the M3 is specifically designed AND advertised to manually cycling those rounds if the inertia system can not perform that task. At this point I would buy that the M3 is more suited than the M2 or the M4 for defense/tactical purposes for that reason. That still leaves us with why you think the M4 is more suitable for defense/tactical purposes than the M2. Incorrect, the 4 port barrel is very uncommon and IS designed to shoot the low-recoil stuff like rubber. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2014 9:07:32 PM EDT
[#33]
I've had an M1 a couple of M3s and picked up a used M4, just because I found it at Gander Mountain for $1100. I have since sold all of them. I believe there are a lot better options than shotguns, but if I had to have one it'd probably be my 870. If it had to be a Benelli then it would be an M3.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2014 9:16:24 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Incorrect, the 4 port barrel is very uncommon and IS designed to shoot the low-recoil stuff like rubber. That's a specialty barrel that can only do low power stuff like rubber slugs...if you fire normal power loads through it you will damage the bolt carrier and gas pistons. It's only for units/departments that are stuck with the M4 and can't buy a much cheaper (than the 4 port barrel) pump gun to shoot those rounds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2014 10:55:23 PM EDT
[#35]
I'm kind of curious why it matters so much to you? It seems there are lots of people that are more than happy to pay the extra to get the M4 instead of the M2.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2014 10:59:27 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm kind of curious why it matters so much to you? It seems there are lots of people that are more than happy to pay the extra to get the M4 instead of the M2. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 1:02:58 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm kind of curious why it matters so much to you? It seems there are lots of people that are more than happy to pay the extra to get the M4 instead of the M2. I'm trying to decide which to buy. The money doesn't matter, I want the better shotgun. Not the cooler shotgun, not the one that will impress Chairborne Rangers the most, but the better tactical/defense gun. It seems to me that the M2 is the better shotgun, and I'd like to confirm that before buying. I figure maybe I'm missing something, so I figured I'd ask around. So far all I'm hearing is, "It's better! Why? I don't know! But it's cool!" Not one person has been able to tell me why the M4 is concretely better than the M2, but there are obvious reasons why the M2 is better than the M4...lighter, cleaner, more flexible (in terms of aftermarket parts and configurations). "It can even cycle low power loads with 10lbs hanging off of it" doesn't count...sure, that's "better," but then that's like saying, "The XX is better than the YY because it can do [some useless thing no one in the real world is ever going to do with their shotgun]." Help me out here...give me some concrete reasons that apply to the real world, if you can. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 1:40:30 AM EDT
[#38]
I have never shot an m2, but I owned an M1 for a while and my brother in law has an M4. To me, the M4 seemed easier to recover shot to shot. My M1 bucked pretty good with buckshot and slugs. It did not like low recoil slugs or buck at all.
I sold it with the intention of buying an M4 H20 when they were first announced, but they never materialized. I have flirted with buying a regular M4, but really I don't think I need anymore shotguns unless they are SBS |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 2:01:51 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm trying to decide which to buy. The money doesn't matter, I want the better shotgun. Not the cooler shotgun, not the one that will impress Chairborne Rangers the most, but the better tactical/defense gun. It seems to me that the M2 is the better shotgun, and I'd like to confirm that before buying. I figure maybe I'm missing something, so I figured I'd ask around. So far all I'm hearing is, "It's better! Why? I don't know! But it's cool!" Not one person has been able to tell me why the M4 is concretely better than the M2, but there are obvious reasons why the M2 is better than the M4...lighter, cleaner, more flexible (in terms of aftermarket parts and configurations). "It can even cycle low power loads with 10lbs hanging off of it" doesn't count...sure, that's "better," but then that's like saying, "The XX is better than the YY because it can do [some useless thing no one in the real world is ever going to do with their shotgun]." Help me out here...give me some concrete reasons that apply to the real world, if you can. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm kind of curious why it matters so much to you? It seems there are lots of people that are more than happy to pay the extra to get the M4 instead of the M2. I'm trying to decide which to buy. The money doesn't matter, I want the better shotgun. Not the cooler shotgun, not the one that will impress Chairborne Rangers the most, but the better tactical/defense gun. It seems to me that the M2 is the better shotgun, and I'd like to confirm that before buying. I figure maybe I'm missing something, so I figured I'd ask around. So far all I'm hearing is, "It's better! Why? I don't know! But it's cool!" Not one person has been able to tell me why the M4 is concretely better than the M2, but there are obvious reasons why the M2 is better than the M4...lighter, cleaner, more flexible (in terms of aftermarket parts and configurations). "It can even cycle low power loads with 10lbs hanging off of it" doesn't count...sure, that's "better," but then that's like saying, "The XX is better than the YY because it can do [some useless thing no one in the real world is ever going to do with their shotgun]." Help me out here...give me some concrete reasons that apply to the real world, if you can. In the real world, one is unlikely going to perform better than the other regardless of your training or the application. 
How low power loads are you considering? They are both excellent. The M4 meets certain military requirements. But so do a lot of other things. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 2:27:29 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have never shot an m2, but I owned an M1 for a while and my brother in law has an M4. To me, the M4 seemed easier to recover shot to shot. My M1 bucked pretty good with buckshot and slugs. It did not like low recoil slugs or buck at all. I sold it with the intention of buying an M4 H20 when they were first announced, but they never materialized. I have flirted with buying a regular M4, but really I don't think I need anymore shotguns unless they are SBS The 3 gun crowd is getting amazing splits (time between shots) with the M2...better than I could ever dream of achieving, so I doubt this is a concrete reason. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 2:28:06 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In the real world, one is unlikely going to perform better than the other regardless of your training or the application.
How low power loads are you considering? They are both excellent. The M4 meets certain military requirements. But so do a lot of other things. So then why should anyone want a more expensive shotgun that performs the same but weighs more and has less options for customization? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 3:17:20 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So then why should anyone want a more expensive shotgun that performs the same but weighs more and has less options for customization? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
In the real world, one is unlikely going to perform better than the other regardless of your training or the application.
How low power loads are you considering? They are both excellent. The M4 meets certain military requirements. But so do a lot of other things. So then why should anyone want a more expensive shotgun that performs the same but weighs more and has less options for customization? Because people like different things? Just go get an M2, you already said it was a no brainer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 8:18:32 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because people like different things? Just go get an M2, you already said it was a no brainer. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In the real world, one is unlikely going to perform better than the other regardless of your training or the application.
How low power loads are you considering? They are both excellent. The M4 meets certain military requirements. But so do a lot of other things. So then why should anyone want a more expensive shotgun that performs the same but weighs more and has less options for customization? Because people like different things? Just go get an M2, you already said it was a no brainer. +1 You seem like you made your mind up. Have you shot both? If the features and extra cost of the M4 don't work for you then the choice is obvious. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 9:28:47 AM EDT
[#44]
I haven't made up my mind...part of me keeps thinking, "No, it can't be just the military cachet, there has to be something about the M4 that you're missing." You're all telling me there isn't? Objectively the M2 is the better shotgun for defense/tactical purposes? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 9:34:56 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
+1 You seem like you made your mind up. Have you shot both? If the features and extra cost of the M4 don't work for you then the choice is obvious. What extra features? You mean the collapsible stock? Yes, I have shot both. The M2 I shot had an extension, side saddle, rail and burris fastfire. It cycled 1 1/8th oz target loads (the cheap federal stuff) without a hitch, the heavier stuff was also obviously no problem. The M4 was stock except for a longer tube and felt the same as the M2, a little less recoil but it pushed harder because it didn't have the gel recoil pad or the comfortech stock. It was also noticeably heavier. Both seemed fine to me, great in fact. The only noticeable difference being weight, and that one had a pistol grip stock and one didn't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 9:36:21 AM EDT
[#46]
I'm not trying to be difficult, I genuinely want to know why people pay more money for the M4. If it's just "I dunno, because I like it" then that's my answer. I'm just holding out for someone to come along and say, "No, no, there is this one actual advantage of the M4, and it's XXXX."
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 11:11:05 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So then why should anyone want a more expensive shotgun that performs the same but weighs more and has less options for customization? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
In the real world, one is unlikely going to perform better than the other regardless of your training or the application.
How low power loads are you considering? They are both excellent. The M4 meets certain military requirements. But so do a lot of other things. So then why should anyone want a more expensive shotgun that performs the same but weighs more and has less options for customization? Because they can I assume most interest in the M4 is due to it's military association and nothing more This whole conversation is getting a little silly and it seems like you are trying to corner people into admitting they bought the M4 because it makes them look cool at the range because it's known in the videoge me world. I think that easily accounts for half of M4 purchases (and a number of guns in general). But if you are asking for advice for which shotgun to buy, the answer is simple and already said multiple times.....both excel beyond the use profile and training that the purchasing market possesses. Buy the one that makes you happy. They are both fairly expensive, so it's not like the difference between the two is that big of a deal of you are committed to buy one or the other. Personally, to me, Benilli means inertia gun. It's what they excel at and are known for. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 11:16:33 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not trying to be difficult, I genuinely want to know why people pay more money for the M4. If it's just "I dunno, because I like it" then that's my answer. I'm just holding out for someone to come along and say, "No, no, there is this one actual advantage of the M4, and it's XXXX." That's probably it. There are some advantages and additional capabilities . And there are some compromises. Both have been laid out and detailed quite well in this thread . For the purposes of the end user, neither the advantages, additional capabilities, or compromises make much difference. The "cool guy" factor is playing a role and there is nothing wrong with that. (I've never met a guy with an M4 that didn't have a PS90 and a SCAR-H and some tactical pants too) I don't know what else to tell you. We have gone through technical aspects, actual use age and employment, to a psychological profile and even collector Interest. If you don't "get" which one to buy now , you likely never will.... I hope this helps. It hasn't been a terrible discussion. But it's time to start re-reading instead of asking more questions. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 12:59:21 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's probably it. There are some advantages and additional capabilities . And there are some compromises. Both have been laid out and detailed quite well in this thread . For the purposes of the end user, neither the advantages, additional capabilities, or compromises make much difference. The "cool guy" factor is playing a role and there is nothing wrong with that. (I've never met a guy with an M4 that didn't have a PS90 and a SCAR-H and some tactical pants too) I don't know what else to tell you. We have gone through technical aspects, actual use age and employment, to a psychological profile and even collector Interest. If you don't "get" which one to buy now , you likely never will.... I hope this helps. It hasn't been a terrible discussion. But it's time to start re-reading instead of asking more questions. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm not trying to be difficult, I genuinely want to know why people pay more money for the M4. If it's just "I dunno, because I like it" then that's my answer. I'm just holding out for someone to come along and say, "No, no, there is this one actual advantage of the M4, and it's XXXX." That's probably it. There are some advantages and additional capabilities . And there are some compromises. Both have been laid out and detailed quite well in this thread . For the purposes of the end user, neither the advantages, additional capabilities, or compromises make much difference. The "cool guy" factor is playing a role and there is nothing wrong with that. (I've never met a guy with an M4 that didn't have a PS90 and a SCAR-H and some tactical pants too) I don't know what else to tell you. We have gone through technical aspects, actual use age and employment, to a psychological profile and even collector Interest. If you don't "get" which one to buy now , you likely never will.... I hope this helps. It hasn't been a terrible discussion. But it's time to start re-reading instead of asking more questions. I guess I need to go get a PS90 and SCAR to go with my tac panties. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2014 1:03:00 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:There are some advantages and additional capabilities . And there are some compromises. Both have been laid out and detailed quite well in this thread . For the purposes of the end user, neither the advantages, additional capabilities, or compromises make much difference. The "cool guy" factor is playing a role and there is nothing wrong with that. (I've never met a guy with an M4 that didn't have a PS90 and a SCAR-H and some tactical pants too)
I don't know what else to tell you. We have gone through technical aspects, actual use age and employment, to a psychological profile and even collector Interest. If you don't "get" which one to buy now , you likely never will.... I hope this helps. It hasn't been a terrible discussion. But it's time to start re-reading instead of asking more questions. This has been helpful. I'm basically back to where I started. The M2 does indeed seem to be the better shotgun...same practical performance, lighter weight, more flexibility, and so I will be buying one this weekend. I already have four 922r parts from FFT (the trigger set is identical for both guns, ditto follower). Time to order an extension tube and go looking for a gun. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
