Arbuckle didn't like the collapsible stock because it only had 2 adjustments, was too long in the full open setting, & its release/engagement button was poorly positioned, such that the shooter's cheek could unintentionally touch it. He also disliked the location of the safety switch (on the rear portion of the trigger guard), claiming he could hit it w/ his shooting finger. He did like its reliability, though he opined that the shot pattern was somewhat tight, & he thought that the gas system was a solutiuon in need of a problem. Though I have yet to sample a M4 Super 90, I have some reservations about Arbuckle's critique.
For one, a fixed pattern stock (an option for the M4) would eliminate the problems associated w/ the sliding unit. The non-pistol grip type is preferrable, as it's better suited to "alternative" force methods, KWIM?
I'm a little perplexed as to his quibble w/ the trigger safety button, since he said he favors the M1 Super 90, which utilizes the
same trigger safety as the M4, on which he says he doesn't like - ??? As for the gas system: it was designed to accommodate functioning w/ heavy NV devices mounted on the receiver rail, where the std. Benelli inertia recoil system would fail. It works, & does so rather well.
********
In sum, I find only his criticism of the collapsible stock unit to be valid - just replace it w/ a fixed unit. I don't understand how he can prefer an M1 over the M4 when both feature the
same trigger safety design, & the M4 gas system's utter reliability seems only worthy of praise. As for the tight shooting pattern, customers pay Hans Vang sizeable change to modify their stock SG bbls. to produce similar tight patterns. Now Benelli comes along & makes it a factory feature. I guess I just don't understand.