Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
4/25/2017 7:42:44 PM
Posted: 6/12/2002 5:36:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/12/2002 5:49:38 AM EDT by Yojimbo]
Did anyone read the new SWAT mag review of the Benelli M4 by Navy SEAL Jeff Gonzales?

He basically ripped the M4 and said it had a lot of worthless crap on it and it was a fix for a non-problem.

Has anyone actually tried one out?

I was thinking of selling my M3 to buy one when the M4 comes out for the civilian market but now I'm not so sure about it.

Later...
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 5:43:22 AM EDT
It's good to see the TRUTH about a firearms evaluation and judging by the caliber of writers they have (Awerbuck,Rogers,etc.)we will continue to.KISS!
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 6:08:46 AM EDT
someone didn't like a weapon???
i have to get and read this magazine!
usually their just giggly happy about every gun they pickup regardless of how useless or worthless it is
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 6:11:57 AM EDT
I don't know what the problem was I have not seen the review, but I never seen a bad Benelli anything.
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 6:23:32 AM EDT
I think Benelli was trying to make too many people happy and ended up with a product that few care for. I will keep my M-1 S-90.
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 9:35:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/12/2002 9:37:32 AM EDT by Yojimbo]
*** CORRECTION ***

The article was NOT by Jeff Gonzales it was by Louis Awerbuck (SP). Jeff was pictured using the M4 so I ASSumed he wrote it.

It was very brutal indeed. I was quite shocked to see a review that didn't say how it was the ultimate CQB weapon that can shoot sub-MOA at 500 meters and can sink a battleship with two shots, yadaa, yadaa, yadaa.
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 9:42:40 AM EDT
From what I've heard the m4 is mor likely to go bang every single time then a m1, but does eveything else less well
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 9:55:36 AM EDT
From what I understand Benelli designed the M4 to the military spec because the Army would not accept the current Benelli designs. Everything I have seen indicates the M4 is a good weapon but overly heavy and complicated because of the military requirements.

What were the specific complaints against the M4.
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 10:01:04 AM EDT
I can likely geuss, The M1 wasnt accepted by the military becuase it would not fire with the but of the weapon placed up against a solid object.. the crux of thier complaint was the recoil operation.

So the M4 uses a Gas system thats slower and bulkier but more reliable and less finicky.
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 10:11:30 AM EDT
Since i have not read the issue yet, what exactly was wrong with the M4.

My shooting experience has been very positive with the M4, very reliable and recoil is a bit softer than on inertia action Benellis.
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 10:41:02 AM EDT
From what I recall the problems with the M4 were as follows. I'm just repeating what I read since I've not handled an M4 personally, but from what I've heard Louis Awerbuck knows shotguns.

1. Weight
2. Collapsable Stock not adjustable.
3. Stock had too long LOP for proper mounting and shooting.
4. Stock button placement can be accidentally activated by shooter jaw while firing.
5. Gas operating system was a fix for a non-problem.
6. Overall the design did not seem to fit what it would be used for.

The author did say it was reliable and and had OK sights.

It seems to me the problems were mostly ergnomic, I guess I'll just wait and see.

Link Posted: 6/12/2002 10:58:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Yojimbo:
From what I recall the problems with the M4 were as follows. I'm just repeating what I read since I've not handled an M4 personally, but from what I've heard Louis Awerbuck knows shotguns.

1. Weight
2. Collapsable Stock not adjustable.
3. Stock had too long LOP for proper mounting and shooting.
4. Stock button placement can be accidentally activated by shooter jaw while firing.
5. Gas operating system was a fix for a non-problem.
6. Overall the design did not seem to fit what it would be used for.

The author did say it was reliable and and had OK sights.

It seems to me the problems were mostly ergnomic, I guess I'll just wait and see.




The lack of adjustment in the stock can be fixed, if wanted, very easily.
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 1:27:40 PM EDT
This coming from a magazine that gave a positive review of a Special Weapons SW3??? I don't think they even fired a shot through the SW3 in the article, yet they still gave it high marks.

Now I don't have first-hand knowledge of the M4, it could be a crap-bucket, BUT I'd rather get my gun advise from Cosmo than from that piece of crap publication...
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 1:56:47 PM EDT
New owner, new direction. SWAT now pays a lot better than it used to--in fact, better than most publications out there, and not just gun rags. The idea is to be more like an internet forum, which means letting the experts loose with their real opinions.

Mr. Awerbuck did note that the M4 was very reliable--no malfunctions whatsoever. But the adjustable stock had only two positions--full open, which was about 19", or fully closed, which was too short for him to use. What's the point? Also, as mentioned above, he found that several shooters had the stock collapse unexpectedly when their cheeks depressed the button. Why place it there?

Above all, he asked what the gun was for and found no real answer. As he put it, the weapon doesn't do anything that previous designs didn't do, so what's the point? If, as you say, it was designed the way it was so as to win a military contract, so be it, but that doesn't make it a good weapon. The military has been known to make mistakes with weapons before.

I didn't read the article on the SW3, which means it happened before Rich bought the magazine, so I can't really comment on that. It's always possible the author just got a good example. I understand a lot of people hate Special Weapons, but surely at least a few of the guns work.
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 2:16:42 PM EDT
Don_Gwinn,

Well, it's good to see that SWAT has a new owner and a new attitude, I will check it out again due to your words.

I should add that I have not read SWAT in over a year, so no offense was intended to the new owners, if in deed they have their act together. The old mag turned me off with it's poor articles with lack off useful info. Plus, the action pics of 'users' in mall ninja type gettups (various tac gear and mismatched camo)and poor shooting stances made me giggle...

Again, I have not had any trigger time behind an M4 so I will not defend it, except to say that AFAIK it was built according to USMC requirements. So if it indeed is a poor design or an 'answer to a non-existent problem' the fault (in my mind) would be with the guys setting the standards.

Regarding the Special Weapons article, I dug out the old issue, and I will take back my words, as it was a preview, not a review. In fact the writer states in the article "due to time constraints, I did not actually fire the new guns." But contrary to my previous post, he did not praise the gun, he simply wrote discussed the SW product line. I like to take a shot at SW every chance I get, so I jumped the gun here.

So I take back my earlier rant, sorry.
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 2:26:58 PM EDT
benelli must not have taken out much ad space in swat latley.
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 6:08:14 PM EDT
SWAT is now owned by the same guy that owns www.thefiringline.com and there are forums there to discuss the magazine.

When the editorial staff is directly available to comment from the internet community, I suspect they have a little more incintive to do things right.

Actaully, SWAT was a very good magazine for a while and seemed to do a good job of telling it like it is. The problem was that they were bought out by Larry Flynt's group who ran it like shit. Now that the magazine is again under the control of responsible people it should continue to do well.
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 5:20:05 PM EDT
FYI, SWAT has defintiely gotten their act together lately. I'm in the mag industry, and came across the issue mentioned in my warehouse. I was vrey impressed by editorial. Ad pages are still low, but mag should not be considered a rag. ZT
Link Posted: 6/14/2002 1:55:26 PM EDT
Im sure nobody is questioning the knowledge and experience of Louis Awerbuck, but it seems to me that these faults are mainly minor and can be fixed easily.

Comparing the M4 to previous M1s and M3s, it is significantly more robust in build and i have only had positive experiences with the weapons.

And for SWAT magazine, i have read it thru my collegue, who is a subscriber, to me it seems it always has had good articles and with the recent changes, is much better. Keep up the good work.
Link Posted: 6/14/2002 2:03:17 PM EDT
I thought so, the complaints do not indicate that the M4 is a POS but SWAT does not like it. Not one of their complaints has anything to do with reliability and performance.

“5. Gas operating system was a fix for a non-problem.”
So what does that have to do with anything?

Sounds like they had their mind made up before they tested the shotgun.
Link Posted: 6/14/2002 6:18:47 PM EDT
im ADSW at my reserve unit for the whole summer and we spent 3 days last week shooting the M4.

1. it isnt heavy

2. the sights are impeccable

3. it is nearly impossible to hit the button with your jaw and even if you could the stock must be twisted 45degrees clockwise in order to collapse.

4. overall i found it to be the closest thing to ergonomic perfection imaginable in a shotgun. and im trying like hell to get a hand reciept for one.
Top Top