Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 40

Thread: Benelli M4 love (SAS)

  1. #11
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Quote Originally Posted by RevolverRob View Post
    With Aridus accessories it would have been three times as many.

    Serious Q - I wonder if SAS runs optics on their M4s?
    The Brits usually run EoTechs on the Benelli M4’s.

  2. #12
    Member JHC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    North Georgia
    Quote Originally Posted by HCM View Post
    The Brits usually run EoTechs on the Benelli M4’s.
    Any guess if they breech with specialized loads or just say F' it and load slugs?
    “Remember, being healthy is basically just dying as slowly as possible,” Ricky Gervais

  3. #13
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Quote Originally Posted by JHC View Post
    Any guess if they breech with specialized loads or just say F' it and load slugs?
    I don’t know. I do know the Brits will sometimes run the Benellis in CQB and from helicopters for security operations.

    I was thinking a flight control type 00 load nut that is speculation.

    Pic with the EoTech:

    Name:  9D290D05-79C2-4562-883F-E3FD21C74266.jpeg
Views: 5098
Size:  32.1 KB
    Last edited by HCM; 09-17-2019 at 08:05 AM.

  4. #14
    The R in F.A.R.T RevolverRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Gotham Adjacent
    Quote Originally Posted by JHC View Post
    Any guess if they breech with specialized loads or just say F' it and load slugs?
    I'm gonna guess they breach with breaching charges.

    As near as I can tell from reviewing British Army shotgun doctrine they use buckshot. They may be issued slugs but it's not clear that they use them often. Breaching rounds are specialized and probably aren't actually used by the pointman. Strictly from what I've read, the Brits use a shotgun armed pointman when doing urban work like this. It's pretty standard CQB for the breacher to not also be the pointman, though that's obviously not always the case. (see vid below).

    The efficacy of 12-gauge buckshot at close range as superior to basically any other small-arms munition is virtually unquestioned by western militaries at this point. That shit works. Flite-Control isn't relevant for these guys in many respects, because they typically aren't worried about a pellet that misses a target in the middle of a war-zone. From a military perspective, flite-control is more expensive and may affect function of gas systems, due to the most common version of it being low-recoil stuff.

    If I were to guess, I'd guess the British use some version of the same load the Americans do, which is the Winchester Q144 load. 9-pellets of buffered and hardened 00 buckshot at 1345 fps. According to both the Brits and the Americans, combat effective range is 40m with this load*.

    *Combat-effective range is distinct and different from how civilians or even law enforcement employ a shotgun. For us, we'd consider 25-30m the maximum effective range, because that's when we get fliers that miss the target. Combat-effective range is basically where the shot is too spread out for multiple pellets to reliably hit the area aimed for. In a war-zone you tend to not care as much about a pellet missing the target.

    BTW: I'm hardly an expert in this. I would say we ask @03RN to give us a rundown of how the M1014 is commonly deployed in close-range fighting.

    Last edited by RevolverRob; 09-17-2019 at 09:35 AM.

  5. #15
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    TEXAS !
    Quote Originally Posted by RevolverRob View Post
    I'm gonna guess they breach with breaching charges.

    As near as I can tell from reviewing British Army shotgun doctrine they use buckshot. They may be issued slugs but it's not clear that they use them often. Breaching rounds are specialized and probably aren't actually used by the pointman. Strictly from what I've read, the Brits use a shotgun armed pointman when doing urban work like this. It's pretty standard CQB for the breacher to not also be the pointman, though that's obviously not always the case. (see vid below).

    The efficacy of 12-gauge buckshot at close range as superior to basically any other small-arms munition is virtually unquestioned by western militaries at this point. That shit works. Flite-Control isn't relevant for these guys in many respects, because they typically aren't worried about a pellet that misses a target in the middle of a war-zone. From a military perspective, flite-control is more expensive and may affect function of gas systems, due to the most common version of it being low-recoil stuff.

    If I were to guess, I'd guess the British use some version of the same load the Americans do, which is the Winchester Q144 load. 9-pellets of buffered and hardened 00 buckshot at 1345 fps. According to both the Brits and the Americans, combat effective range is 40m with this load*.

    *Combat-effective range is distinct and different from how civilians or even law enforcement employ a shotgun. For us, we'd consider 25-30m the maximum effective range, because that's when we get fliers that miss the target. Combat-effective range is basically where the shot is too spread out for multiple pellets to reliably hit the area aimed for. In a war-zone you tend to not care as much about a pellet missing the target.

    BTW: I'm hardly an expert in this. I would say we ask @03RN to give us a rundown of how the M1014 is commonly deployed in close-range fighting.

    You are missing the point.

    Flight control is not just about stray pellets.

    It’s about hitting your opponent with all the pellets as well as extending the effective range at which a useful number of pellets actually strike an opponent.

    Any GOV/mil organization not using flight control is doing it for costs “because that’s what we have always used.” Do not underestimate the power of “its in the system.”

  6. #16
    Murder Machine, Harmless Fuzzball TCinVA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Virginia
    The military uses a lot more slug than people realize. 1 ounce projectiles hit pretty hard and given that the pattern of military buckshot can be spread out considerably it doesn't have quite the same effect beyond 7-10 yards that a tight pattern we see from FFC or similar has on target. The typical military buckshot load is bad about displaying the donut-hole pattern in a lot of guns.
    Last edited by TCinVA; 09-17-2019 at 10:06 AM.
    3/15/2016

  7. #17
    The R in F.A.R.T RevolverRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Gotham Adjacent
    Quote Originally Posted by HCM View Post
    You are missing the point.

    Flight control is not just about stray pellets.

    It’s about hitting your opponent with all the pellets as well as extending the effective range at which a useful number of pellets actually strike an opponent.

    Any GOV/mil organization not using flight control is doing it for costs “because that’s what we have always used.” Do not underestimate the power of “its in the system.”
    No, I am not missing "the point", because there wasn't a point being made in the context that you seem to think there was.

    I said that military combat shotgun use - uses different criteria for determining combat effectiveness than civilians or law enforcement. They may well be concerned with terminal efficacy of the munition, but they also don't care about things that we care about (e.g., fliers). Whether or not a military uses Flite-Control or not, doesn't change that context.

    I use flite-control/versatite in my guns, because my contexts are different than a military.

    And I'm sure "that's what we've always used" is in play. I don't know when the last time any military tested buckshot munitions was. But I'm gonna guess I wasn't alive when it happened. If a military (in particular the US) had tested modern shotgun loads, they likely would have concluded what most of us have, that Flite-Control #1 is the superior load currently produced. I'd love for that to happen, because then maybe we could get some fucking F-C #1 regularly.

  8. #18
    Site Supporter Jay Cunningham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    I don't know if the Brit guns use cylinder bores or screw-in chokes.

    My M4 came with a screw-in modified choke which delivers 8 pellet buck magnificently, but is tight enough to pinch the Flite Control wad and downgrade the magic.

  9. #19
    Site Supporter JodyH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    New Mexico
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Cunningham View Post
    I don't know if the Brit guns use cylinder bores or screw-in chokes.

    My M4 came with a screw-in modified choke which delivers 8 pellet buck magnificently, but is tight enough to pinch the Flite Control wad and downgrade the magic.
    That's why my M4 has one of these screwed in the end.

    Attachment 42661
    "For a moment he felt good about this. A moment or two later he felt bad about feeling good about it. Then he felt good about feeling bad about feeling good about it and, satisfied, drove on into the night."
    -- Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy --

  10. #20
    The R in F.A.R.T RevolverRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Gotham Adjacent
    Modified or Light-Modified choke + Non-FC buckshot = FC like shot patterns out to ~20y or so.

    Sometimes I think we need to remember, that a lot of bad guys were killed with plain old buckshot fired from shotguns long-before Flitecontrol existed.

    Flite-Control is really good at making cylinder-bore barrels perform with buckshot like a choked barrel does with buckshot. A choked barrel is really good at doing the same thing...

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •