Just an FYI for anyone who breaks or like me, gouges the hell out of their rear sight, this model of the LPA sight is a 1:1 replacement. https://www.opticsplanet.com/lpa-adjustable-rear-shotgun-sights-screw-down.html?_iv_code=3QP-SHS-FUS201-BAR11R-D2

I know its optics planet but it seems as long as they have it in stock it ships pretty quick. My rear sight was probably fine but I noticed that it was getting scratched and scuffed up as it was rubbing across my gear while slung. There were some pretty deep grooves being dug into the plastic. The polymer sight was used to save weight and reduce cost. The metal one will get scratched up to but I’m sure it will hold up better in the long run and won’t get deep gouges in it like my polymer one did. I did swap out my rear ring for a meprolight tritium rear as I am also using an XS tritium standard dot with a yellow ring up front.

Attached File
Attached File
Attached File

I agree.  Militaries aren't dumping their M4s for the 1301.  The 1301 is no doubt a good shotgun, but if I want shotgun for SHTF I want the one with a well proven track record of reliability which the M4 has and then some.  The 1301 just doesn't have that - it's a shotgun with great word of mouth from people who use it as a range toy or in competition, not guys kicking in doors in harsh combat environments.  People can talk up and down about it, but reliability is one thing you cannot say the 1301 has over the M4.  The M4 has seen extensive combat use since the late 90s.

A buddy of mine just returned his 1301. Said the money just isn’t there despite it being a good gun. Can’t say I blame him. Beretta has gone off the rails with this platform.

That is a neat story but not accurate to describe the 1301. The M4 has been around for a long time you’re right, but the 1301 was one of the first gas driven semi auto shotguns to be endorsed and used by some of the best shotgun instructors in the industry. I wonder why that is? Could it be that they see dozens of students a month come through and see shotguns run hundreds of shells at a time and as a result see all kinds of failures, breakages, and malfunctions. The 1301s started showing up and performing well. The price was better at the time and at the time the M4s price was $2,000+. Since then the price of the M4 has come down to $1,700 and the price for the 1301 has gone up to be inline with the M4. Beretta owns Benelli, the systems both guns use are similar except the 1301 is more refined and updated. This idea that the M4 is seeing harsh combat is laughable. It gets drawn from the arms room to be used at roadblocks and for force protection and then put back. The M4 isn’t even the most common shotgun you’ll see issued either, try the cheap Mossberg 500. You’ll see those more than just about any other shotgun. So this idea that militaries have chosen the M4 over the 1301 is nonsense as there isn’t any such choice being made. I image the users who bought the M4 will continue to use them, as they should. It is an excellent shotgun. I own two 1301s and an M4, I can say reliability on my 1301s is better because my 1301 will cycle everything while my M4 won’t cycle cheap target loads. However when it comes to defensive ammo both guns are outstanding. The M4 is the flagship of Benelli, Beretta knows not to screw with the flagship gun by offering something new, lighter, more refined under the Benelli name. The 1301 is completely on par with the M4 in terms of performance and in some areas better. The 1301 is lighter, has better controls, and more modern. The M4 has design and material choices made to win a contract, the 1301 doesn’t have that restraint. The 1301 is showing off what Beretta/Benelli can do when it isn’t held back by contract restrictions. Personally, I’d like to see them offer an updated M4 with bigger controls, opened up loading port and some furniture changes to bring it up to date but I think that ship has passed now that the Turknelli clones are flooding the market.

I mean why do competition shooters use the M2 and 1301 over the M4?  Better at different roles for sure.

You also wrote that big wall of text but it was just why you personally like the 1301 more, which is fine.  But nothing refuted my statement that the M4 is better built and more reliable.



It's a good shotgun and was a great option when it was around $1,200.  Now with it being priced inline with the M4 I just don't get the appeal.  The 1301 feels cheap to me - almost like how the Beretta ARX100 feels cheap.  I don't know if it's the polymer molds Beretta uses but I just don't like how they feel compared to stuff made by HK or IWI, for instance.

The 1301 is more reliable with light loads for most people who have shot both. I'm not aware of any significant parts breakage areas with the 1301, but the M4 breaks carrier tails with heavy use.

The 1301 is lighter, I don't know that I'd conflate that with "cheap" but if they are the same price I'd buy the 1301 over the M4.

He clearly has no experience with either platform but the M4 is in call of duty and the military uses them and it’s heavier than the 1301 so by default it’s mo better. Never mind the 1301 has been around for 10 years now and in that time has easily proven all of his claims and assumptions about reliability and ruggedness completely wrong.

Like I said my M1014 cycles light loads fine, but I guess every gun is different.  I know some people had issues with their Tavor 7s not being able to set off hard primer ammo, where-as mine did fine with it.  Never heard of the issue with carrier tails, but I have probably 1,000 rounds through an M4 so definitely not enough to say myself.

And definitely don't conflate being light with cheap.  My CZ Brens were light but felt sturdy, as did my SCAR 17.  It must just be a thing with Beretta's polymer for me because the ARX-100s I have owned felt cheap, but the guns shoot really nice despite that.




I have an M1014, and have shot a friend's 1301 (and owned a Beretta A400 which uses the same gas system) but assume what you want haha.  No need to attack me with goofy assumptions because you're offended I don't think your favorite shotgun is better than the M4.  That said I'm done arguing over it as I don't want to derail the thread and get it locked.

The carrier tail issue was something I have personally seen, but those were issue weapons that saw nothing but buckshot, so I can't personally comment on the light load performance of the M4.

I did get the 1301 when it came to my money though. A lot of that was also due to ergonomics.

Attached File

You may find it "laughable" but Battlefield Vegas has had hundreds of thousands of shells through them without breaking anything.  I call that very hard use.

The 1301 is a nice shotgun, and definitely has advantages to the M4 (mainly weight) but the M4 also has advantages over the 1301.  I have also heard of people having plenty of issues with the 1301, and the gun does seem / feel "cheaper" (whether perceived or not).  I don't know if it could hold up to the same punishing round count that battlefield Vegas has put the M4 through.  The M4 does seem a lot more "tanky" and like it can stand up to more hard use and abuse than the lighter shotgun built with lighter materials.  At the same price, I would be hard pressed to take the 1301 over the M4 unless it was for a specific application where the weight savings would be a huge concern (a female using it for home defense, maybe).  

Right out of the box, my M4 has cycled every shell I have tried in it thus far, even lower powered birdshot that my M2 won't cycle (and my M2 can cycle cheap walmart bulk pack loads all day).  Maybe the 1301 can cycle a lighter power shell than the M4, but I'd have to search to even find a shell that weak to run through both of them to test!  It's all a moot point anyway, as how a combat shotgun performs with cheap low powered birdshot is not a priority.

Until Battlefield Vegas says that they have run hundreds of thousands of shells through their 1301s without a single parts breakage, I'm going to have to continue to give the nod to the M4.  Everyone is free to choose what they like though.  

 

I also have an M4 and two 1301s.

I purchased the M4 first after struggling between choosing which to buy. While the M4 is nice it just didn't scratch the itch. So I bought a gen2 1301. I liked it so much I got the Mod 2 when that was released.

I replaced the stock/forend on the Gen 2 with Magpul stuff.
The mod 2 definitely has a nicer, less "cheap" feel with the new forend.

So yea while the M4 definitely has the military history, there's a reason why the 1301 has become so popular.

Do the 1301’competition shotguns have all the new upgrades?

The comp Pro has all the upgrades plus the loading port has been opened up. The standard comp has the opened up loading port but doesn’t come with the pro-lifter. The Mod 2 upgrades are the pro lifter and the new handguard. I wish the Tactical model came with the loading port opened up, that is something that would be nice IMO. I’ve decided my next 1301 is going to be the 21” comp and I’ll just add the pro-lifter. I like the Magpul furniture so I don’t really care about the factory option. A Nordic comp +3 extension to round it out. The way the 1301 handles it feels like a much shorter shotgun, the 21” gun feels like an 18.5”. It is still very handy plus you get the added benefit of 8+1+1 capacity.

Are there recoil
Pad upgrades for the 1301 Comp and comp pro? They look really thin

The comp pro has the kickoff system which mitigates what little recoil there is already to almost nothing. It is insanely soft shooting. For both the comp and the tactical there are various recoil pads you can add to both the standard stock and the Magpul SGA. I am using limbsaver airtech on my SGA stock which is really nice but on my Gen 1 I never used a recoil pad. Even with full power buck and slugs recoil is not hard at all and very manageable.