Benelli M4

The M2 seems to me to be the better shotgun but the M4 strikes me as a much nicer machine, if that makes sense.
 
'Been shooting my m4 for a few years now in 3/gun matches both here and in the US...

While it may not be the ideal piece of gear for such shooting it has served me well enough...

Has never failed mechanically and cycles every type of ammo I've ever fed it.
 
tjhaile said:
Pass. Louis Awerbuck's panning of the Benelli M4 in the July 2002 issue of SWAT is a classic.

http://www.swatmag.com/content/issues/view/july_2002
Click to expand...

Couple observations on that.

First is the date. Its a 10 year old article on a weapon system that was relatively unaccepted in the world of tactical shooting at that time. Pump action shotguns. Good enough for your grandfather. They're good enough for you.

Yes. Louis Awerbuck is a respected trainer. Yes. He has loads of shotgun experience.

But bear in mind that 10-15 years ago, the very same magazine was printing articles from the very same authors rebuking the use of those newfangled dot sights. Iron sights. Good enough for your grandfather. They're good enough for you.

Fast forward 10 years and much has been learned in that time. Not the least of which is having the M4 system in the hands of many reputable trainers for about a decade now.

Rather than rehash a ten year old argument that went nowhere in the way-back machine, I'd suggest that prospective buyers do some Google searching on the gun with a mind to credibility from the latter half of the decade. Better yet, see if you can get some locals at your range to let you try one alongside other semi's with a variety of loads. You really can't understand how the M4 ARGO system shines unless you compare it to other guns with something other than bird shot.

But test it yourself. Because even within the 2002 timeframe, not all was quite settled on that review. Case in point, here's a link to 2002 on ar15.com.

http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=6&f=2&t=124940

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

I'll tell you a couple of things it does. The first is that it cycles reliably with a variety of ammunition when you mount other crap on the gun. Its kind of a comforting feeling. Try that on an M2. Best of luck.

Another thing it does really well is positional shooting. Behind barriers. Inside mouse traps. Etc. Where positional shooting just wasn't as popular (or even common) in coursework 10-15 years ago, there is a renewed focus on the ability to engage targets from any position.

Some of those other points are pretty thin. Like the stock positions. Don't like the factory options? There's more than one option to change that.

His review was refreshing for an era well known for mindlessly fawning over new product. For sure.

But as a reason not to buy an M4? Pretty thin.
 
Last edited:
I'll tell you a couple of things it does. The first is that it cycles reliably with a variety of ammunition when you mount other crap on the gun. Its kind of a comforting feeling. Try that on an M2. Best of luck.
Click to expand...

You can do the same thing with an 870 for less than half the price. One of the principle virtues of a shotgun is cost compared with other weapons, such as a good AR. The Benelli goes beyond nullifying that advantage. I'm not convinced that the M4 brings anything to the table that is sufficient to offset its disadvantages.
 
tjhaile said:
You can do the same thing with an 870 for less than half the price. One of the principle virtues of a shotgun is cost compared with other weapons, such as a good AR. The Benelli goes beyond nullifying that advantage. I'm not convinced that the M4 brings anything to the table that is sufficient to offset its disadvantages.
Click to expand...

A pump just isn't in the same class when it comes down to it though, both in performance and these days usually in build quality as well.
 
Id give $5000 for an M2 before I'd pay $500 for an M4. Both are good guns, the M2 is just that much better. There would be no contest between the two if given a torture test, but then again what do I know? For a range gun and fun? The M4 is fine.
 
dizzy said:
Id give $5000 for an M2 before I'd pay $500 for an M4. Both are good guns, the M2 is just that much better. There would be no contest between the two if given a torture test, but then again what do I know? For a range gun and fun? The M4 is fine.
Click to expand...

Just did a shoot out between the two.

[youtube]V5kXN2_jdSk[/youtube]

Not a torture test. Just a friendly ~500+ shell comparison in an odd real world parallel of this thread.

I think we used up a case of lightweight #7.5 target loads each, and a variety of other premium loads for testing on top of that.


Dead honest? I've never owned an M2 myself and this is the first one I've seen run any harder than an average 3-gun stage.

That said, from the stoppages the M2 encountered when configured as anything other than bone stock (no light, no rail - nada - consistent across 2 /34 dram, 3 dram eq, 00 Buck, 000 Buck, run it wetter or run it dryer) I'm not real motivated to look a lot harder at it as a viable option.

I'm still not convinced that there isn't something specifically off with just that gun. some necessary break in maybe. But it gets my first 'pass'.


Mike's a very competent shooter and still makes the M2 look great, but the fact remains that he was dealing with the frustration of a stoppage on nearly every single application.

Removing the extra crap restored function every time.



ETA:
Next run out I want to look more at alternate shooting positions where the shoulder is not firmly behind the shotgun. Does the 'limp-wrist' equivalent on an M2 or M4 shotgun cause a greater incidence of stoppages? And if so, in what loads?

We did find through limited experimentation that the M2 benefited from a much more aggressive shooting stance to facilitate stoppage free shooting. With its inertia based recoil operating system, this makes a certain mechanical-dummy sense to me.

Not making comment on whether this is an accurate assessment or not. Just an idea for testing based on some last minute observations from that day.
 
Last edited:
It boils down to what you want to use it for. I've had both and currently only the M2. I have a 24" rifled slug bbl, removable choke 28" smoothbore for birds and an 18.5" smoothbore for quick handling.
The M4's current options are as a ghost ring sighted 18.5" smoothbore or a restricted, range only 14" ghost ring sighted smoothbore.

Both of mine cycled and functioned flawlessly. The M4 is quite a bit heavier.
 
870P said:
A pump just isn't in the same class when it comes down to it though, both in performance and these days usually in build quality as well.
Click to expand...

Oh, really? Have a look at this thread and note especially what Pat Rogers and DocGKR (aka Dr. Gary Roberts) have to say:

http://tacticalforums.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001022.html

A search on m4carbine.net indicates mixed results with the M4:

http://www.m4carbine.net/archive/index.php/t-2541.html

http://www.m4carbine.net/archive/index.php/t-30469.html

Semi-auto shotguns can work very well for hunting or playing games, but they still come up a bit short as combat weapons (this is the black and green shotguns forum, right?).
 
tjhaile said:
Oh, really? Have a look at this thread and note especially what Pat Rogers and DocGKR (aka Dr. Gary Roberts) have to say:
Click to expand...

While its for sure that there are people on either side of the debate, lets allow those gentlemen speak for themselves and have the clarity to do the same. Where have you been used the M1014 in 'combat' that it has come up short?

To the best of anyone's understanding outside of anecdotal opinions the JSCS continues in use after a decade of the most significant combat actions in the later half of the last century. Not to mention service in specialized organizations like LAPD SWAT. I could be way wrong, but I seriously doubt that door kicker #3 is squirming because the bean counters lined him up with a dud for service use.

There are some guys who are great shooters and trainers who at least until recently still advocate iron sights. Others who would tell you that the only pistol you can 100% rely on with your life is a Glock. Who cares?
 
bearkilr said:
:confused:

FWIW, I'm guessing the OP is not considering purchasing either for use in combat. ;)
Click to expand...

Me neither. If I do, my wife's gonna be pissed. And probably submit me for psychiatric testing.


More important switch Bearkilr. Bagged anything with a rifled slug out of your shotty? Where do you hunt with it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom