Steve133

I don't think that there are too many "gotchas" aside from being generally unwieldy and cumbersome. Like you said, you're probably going to have to take any extension off to fit the thing in a case. That said, there's not really much reason to go any longer than the +2. I bought an extension that gave me a total capacity of 9, just because that was division capacity, and immediately realized that it would be useful to be able to load more than that on the clock. I bought a +4 extension to that extension (13 total) so that I could load 4 on the buzzer in a cruiser-ready start. Not only have I never done that, but I have never actually loaded that tube all the way up to capacity ever. My next shotgun was a 10-round monotube with a +2, but was otherwise identical to the first one; even the relatively minor difference between a 12 round tube and a 13 round tube is noticeable. The 13-rounder is just a little harder to get in and out of barrels or around barricades. Put another way, you asked if there's much reason not to have those two extra rounds, and the answer there is a very soft "no", since being a little more cumbersome isn't exactly the end of the world. However, if you ask the same thing from the opposite direction - i.e., "is there any strong reason to have a +4 instead of a +2" - then the answer is also "no".

Exactly the information I was looking for, thanks. I agree that it sounds like there's some general funkiness going on with the geometry of using the stocks on different platforms, but knowing that it can be fixed with shims is a good data point. And that's VERY useful information. Part of why I was hesitant to cut the longer stock off was having to deal with the hassle of adding in some kind of mounting point that an aftermarket grind-to-fit pad could screw into, but using the factory pad simplifies things greatly. Lopping off 7/16" and swapping to the thinner Benelli gel pad would actually get me pretty darn close to the same LOP as the compact stock for substantially less money, so that might be the way to go....

Apologies if this is already answered elsewhere - I did a search, and found this question asked a couple of times, but couldn't find an answer for the life of me... I recently picked up a Supernova for the remaining matches/rulesets that require a pump gun in Heavy. I didn't quite do all of the research that I'd normally do, because this was kind of a spur-of-the-moment thing (a Gunbroker auction that was running lower than usual that I unexpectedly won). So, now that it's on the way, I have some questions about how to get it set for competition. My arms being a little on the short side, I typically run a shorter LOP on shotgun stocks than is common on stock guns. I've found that the LOP on the "compact" versions of Benelli and Stoeger models (both have the same LOP) is just about perfect for me. As near as I can tell, Benelli does not produce a compact 12 ga. version of the Supernova. They make a compact 20 ga. Supernova and a compact 12 ga. M2, but that's about it. That goes for aftermarket stocks as well - I can find compact stocks for a 12 ga. M2 or a 20 ga. Supernova, but that's the closest I can find to what I'd need. I could always just hack off a bit of the stock... uh, stock... and honestly might just wind up doing that anyway, given how pricey the Benelli replacement parts tend to be, but before committing to that, I might as well make sure I know what my options are. So... will an M2 stock fit on a Supernova? And/or will a 20 ga. Supernova stock fit on a 12 ga. Supernova?

Unfortunately, I think you're kind of stuck waiting on a holster. The TSO isn't a terribly common platform outside of the competition community, and even there, the raw numbers aren't terribly high. There aren't many off-the-shelf holsters that will fit. There may be some "universal" holsters out there that will work - the only one I've tried is the Safariland 579, which is a mixed bag. The gun fits in the holster fine, but drawing will almost always press the magazine release against part of the holster, which unseats the mag. So, you're probably stuck buying a custom holster of some sort. You might want to check some of the competition-oriented shops (Ben Stoeger Pro Shop, Shooter's Connection, etc.); some of them might have a few pre-made TSO holsters from the major custom dealers in stock. Holsters have gotten complicated enough that it's really difficult to try to explain everything about them in a succinct manner. But I can try to take a stab at some of your specific questions: Attachment options: There are a ton of different attachment methods for tactical and competition holsters these days. Basically, instead of having belt loops or what have you directly molded into the holster, the holster has holes drilled into it to accept a certain type of mounting system. Some of the options that you listed really are complicated "systems" in and of themselves - without getting too far into the weeds here, there's a piece that you bolt on to a holster, and a corresponding piece that is mounted to a belt; the idea is that you can use a single "receptacle" mounted on a single belt to accommodate different holsters, which is a nice feature if you plan to ever shoot different sports or divisions. Google "Safariland QLS" or "G-Code RTI" for some examples that will show what those are. Because nothing can be simple, most of those attachment systems have different patterns of screws that they use for the mount, so you have to specify which pattern you want to use if you're planning to use a specific attachment system. If you don't think that you'd need to swap which holster you have on your belt regularly, you can just order belt loops or a drop/offset adapter that will come pre-installed on the holster. You've probably seen the "retention options" if you've used a kydex EDC holster - usually, this will be a couple of screws just below the molded outline of the barrel that you can tighten or loosen to adjust the degree of retention (i.e., how tightly the holster "grips" the gun). The options on the RHT order form are to leave those as standard phillips-head screws that you need a screw driver to adjust or thumb screws that you can adjust by hand. Beyond that, the options are mostly for different materials/finishes of the thumb screw, mostly for aesthetic purposes. The "nitrofin" is a brand of thumb rest that is mounted on the frame of the gun. Obviously, since it's a thing sticking off the side of the gun, it needs to be accounted for in the design of a holster, so... yeah. Select that if you use that type of thumb rest.

Can you elaborate a bit on what you're seeing? Does "ejecting the first shell" mean problems extracting the spent hull or problems getting the next round out of the tube? If the former, exactly what is happening - a stovepipe-style stoppage where the bolt tries to close on the empty hull, or a complete failure to extract where the spent hull stays in the chamber and you have to manually rack the charging handle to pull it out? I've encountered both.

Except when it isn't. The one time I had an issue with one of these, I started just trying to knock the stock bushing out of a room-temperature slide, then started heating up the front of the slide with a heat gun, escalated to a torch, and finally put the slide with the stock bushing in the freezer overnight, working on the assumption that both the slide and the bushing would contract, and that if I started applying heat to the slide again, it would expand before the stock bushing would. Don't know how big of a role that played, but that's when I finally got the stupid thing out.

I've done this change in 3 different guns (2 TSOs and a Shadow 1). Installing the new bushing is easy (especially if you put it in the freezer overnight before you swap it in), but removing the old bushing can be problematic. In 2 out of my 3 attempts (the Shadow and one of the TSOs), it was super easy... the third was an absolute bear, even with all of the normal hints and tricks like putting the slide in the freezer to contract. Took several different attempts before I finally just started using bigger and bigger hammers until the stupid thing turned loose. Not only did I gouge the heck out of the inside of the stock bushing, but something got jammed or peened or something, and the socket that I used as a punch is now permanently affixed to the extension I had it on. By the end, I would have gladly paid someone $40 to deal with it. My 2 cents is to give it a try, and if the stock bushing doesn't seem to be coming loose, then call it a day and turn it over to the local smith.

I have a 5-gallon bucket with industrial hoop-side velcro running around the circumference at the top. I keep the outer belt attached to that, and mag pouches, shell caddies, etc. go in the bucket. Bucket sits in the closet when not in use, gets taken out for dry-fire, and rides in my cart during matches. It could probably stand to be more organized... but given that I mostly shoot 3-gun and all that stuff is on ELS mounts and gets swapped around frequently over the course of a match, good organization is probably not going to happen.

I'm in the 18" camp. The main reason is the ability to run a rifle-length gas system, which will result in just a little bit softer of a recoil impulse, all other things being equal. It's a fairly minor advantage, admittedly, but I've found that there aren't many drawbacks to it. Length hasn't ever been an issue; there's a bit of extra weight, but I've always prioritized balance over minimizing total weight - an 18" barrel with a light handguard balances pretty well with the weight of an adjustable/customizable stock (XLR, Luth-AR, Tacmod, etc.), since those tend to be pretty chunky. The little bit of extra velocity isn't a deciding factor, but it doesn't hurt. I'll note that there are some regional variations in play here. In some regions, rifle targets beyond 200 yards are rare, and almost everything is fast, close-in hoser-style targets in a smaller bay. This kind of thing really doesn't matter that much there. I'm in Texas, so even our local club matches have shots out to 500 yards, and every major seems to have multiple stages with targets between 300 and 600 yards. Lighter recoil that doesn't disturb a sight picture as much, a little bit of extra velocity, and a fancy adjustable stock that helps ensure consistent cheek weld and head positioning in awkward shooting positions are all assets in a region that emphasizes long-range rifle... it adds up to a few different very soft preferences in favor of an 18"/rifle gas setup, and I haven't noticed any major downsides, so I tend to stick with that. Since OP also asked about manufactures, I've got a Rainier ultramatch barrel in my current build, and it's been pretty good. I don't frequently dedicate time to benchrest-style group shooting to measure accuracy, but I've noticed during optic zeroing that it's a shade under 1 MOA with good match ammo. A buddy has a Criterion that seems to shoot really well, and some top-level shooters seem to like those. I think that the "MOA Challenge" or whatever it is over on ARFCOM is kind of silly, and is mostly a publicity gimmick for LaRue, but that might be a good resource to see which manufacturers have good reputations for inherent accuracy.

So... this is probably going to sound confrontational, and I'm honestly not trying to be. This is an actual, legitimate question, with no veiled or implicit criticism of anyone. But I've seen this happen a lot recently, and I'm genuinely curious. What's the appropriate context, if any, for criticizing vendors or gear in this forum? I'm not the type of person to start or derail a thread just to complain, but I have had a couple of bad experiences with some popular vendors (including RHT). Normally, I'm content to just vote with my wallet and not stir anything up online, but if someone asks a direct question about a specific item from a specific vendor that I had issues with, I feel like it's fair to mention negative first-hand experience, and that I'd actually be doing the questioner a disservice by not bringing up. Again, I can totally understand trying to keep things civil if there are questionably-relevant screeds being posted, and people start arguing just to argue. But I'm a little unclear as to where that bar is, based on some recent observations.

I've also kind of been feeling the itch to branch out into single stack recently... I should probably shoot one of the .45s that I already own before jumping into a new purchase, but it's still something I've considered. I recently discovered that even though Dan Wesson doesn't regularly stock any single-stack guns in .40, CZ Custom has an arrangement with them to build the occasional USPSA-optimized gun in .40. Seems like a good "semi-custom" option that won't break the bank as much as a complete custom build, so might go that route, eventually.

Ask and ye shall receive: https://moaprecisionllc.com/product/lightning-load-lifter-stoeger-version-pre-order/

Regarding the first issue with the lip of the shell getting hung up, it's kind of hard to tell if it's "file down more" issue or a "practice more" issue without actually looking at it. On the other hand, I have run into issues with excessive resistance in the last little bit of motion into the tube. The shell catch is basically an articulating tab at the end of the larger bolt carrier latch, and is connected to the bolt release button. At one point, I installed an enlarged bolt release button with a small rubber o-ring to keep it in place, and it turned out that this would interfere with the pivoting of the carrier latch and would keep the shell catch from moving freely. I could still get shells into the tube, but it was MUCH more difficult than usual. Removing that o-ring fixed the issue - you might want to make sure that the whole assembly is moving freely (i.e., that you can push the big carrier latch arm all the way into the groove in the receiver; and once the whole carrier latch is at the end of its range of travel, that the shell catch pivots freely as well). MOA Precision sells a tuned and polished version of the shell catch (or "carrier latch extractor", as the owner's manual calls it) that might help; I've used them, and while I didn't find that they caused a dramatic improvement, the fit and finish on your particular gun might be a little rougher, and you might notice a bigger difference. The low-drag follower will also help some, but I wouldn't expect dramatic results from that, either.

I didn't say it was a big deal, and you're absolutely correct that it is not. But $15 is $15, and if someone is scratching their head just trying to identify all the differences between this platform and the Tac Sport (which was the context of that comment), then it still bears pointing out. It is still a difference, however slight. The mags are cheaper, not to mention more common, which means that you stand a much better chance of catching them at a theoretical "street price" instead of full MSRP. Though your observation does add some much-needed mathematical context - thanks for adding that. Cross-compatibility with different platforms is still a thing if 9mm is your jam... which it admittedly probably isn't, since it sounds like most people are looking at this solely as a Limited gun....

It'll definitely be a little different, but how much depends on how your specific rifle shoots your specific ammo under your specific local conditions. By and large, 5.56 and 7.62 actually aren't hugely different in terms of ballistics, but you're still definitely going to want to confirm that against your specific setup. For the sake of reference, it's not a direct apples-to-apples comparison, but just looking at reticle holds in Strelok, if I take the same reticle and zero distance that I use for 77 grain 5.56 and plug in a typical 7.62 loading, my 200, 300, 400, 500, and 600 yard holds become 200, 290, 390, 400, and 620 yard holds, so... it'll probably be fairly close. You'll probably be a couple of clicks off from what the BDC dial says (but given differences in ammunition, barrel length, etc., that'd probably still happen with 5.56), and you'll want to verify by how much yourself, but it probably won't be totally and completely off. Probably.

To bring it back to budget: we can quibble about M3000 vs. M3k vs. M3k Freedom Edition, but by and large, in my personal experience, the Stoegers represent a very, very solid price/performance ratio. The 1301 or basically any Benelli model will indeed be better than a Stoeger in terms of fit and finish, but I'd say that none of the M3k models would hold you back - I've been running them for a few years now, and while I'm mediocre at best, they certainly don't seem to slow Pat Kelley and Tim Yackley down any.... Take it with a grain of salt, because I've got a couple of them, and we're always going to want to defend the choices that we make. Not sure if this counts as "justifying the price difference", but I will freely admit that the rough fit and finish on the Stoegers makes them a little finicky at first. There's a little bit of a break-in period, and you might have to do some polishing and filing at a couple of points to get them to run reliably. Nothing huge, it's probably an afternoon's worth of work at the very most, but if it's worth $500 to you to not have to do anything, then yes, you might want to save a while longer for a more expensive model. For what it's worth, I had to do a bit of that with my first shotgun, and it was benign enough that I still bought another M3k a couple of years later. That said... to echo what others have said, you're probably never going to find a shotgun that's perfect for competition use right out of the box, even the models designed and marketed for 3 gun. Mag extensions are almost always going to be required, and basically no one makes an OEM gun with them. The M3k Freedom definitely has an edge over most of the other competition models... but you're probably still going to eventually want to add a +2 (12 rounds has become the de facto standard, since it'll let you load a quad on top of a full tube on the start buzzer). This is where the quibbling starts: if you're going to want to add an extension eventually, and a non-Freedom M3k and a +8 extension is cheaper than an M3k Freedom and a +2, that might be the way to go; or maybe you can accept a slightly less open port and go with an M3000 and a mag extension; etc. Speaking of loading ports, even the models with "competition loading ports" are probably going to need to be opened up a bit more, but that's relatively cheap for most smiths to do, or something that you can do yourself in an afternoon with a set of files (or a couple of hours with a Dremel if you're feeling confident). So, maybe since you're accepting that, you can go with a standard M3000 and just be really careful about the serial number, etc. Anyway, since it's what you asked about by name, the M3k Freedom plus a few hours of loading port work and maybe some judicious action polishing will almost certainly "good enough", though you might still want to pick up some aftermarket parts in the future. Like Tortoise said, they're pretty cheap.

I think the only other thing is the magazine situation - the P-09/P-10 mags that the DWX uses are going to be MUCH cheaper than TS mags. There's also going to be some cross-compatibility with different platforms. If you're going to be mostly shooting Limited, there's not much use case in being able to share .40 mags across platforms, but for 9mm, it could theoretically let you use a common pool of mags for a 3 gun/Limited Minor pistol, Production, and Carry Optics. I don't really think that's significant enough to be a deciding factor, but it's a thing. I kind of agree that the most important impact this thing will have is filling the void that's appeared in the market between production guns and full custom builds, and maybe providing enough competition to start driving prices down.

A little bit of clarification: My understanding is that Stoeger has 3 models of inertia gun that fit the bill of "budget 3 gun shotgun": M3000 - the "standard" model with no competition mods at all M3k - the initial competition model, with an opened loading port and oversized controls, but the stock magazine tube M3k Freedom - all the mods of the M3k, with the addition of the 10-round mag tube. Those are listed in order of increasing cost. I'd agree with the general sentiment that you might not want to bother with the Freedom edition, but unless there have been some changes recently, there's one more critical difference between the "standard" M3000 and the M3k models - the location of the serial number. On the M3000, the serial number is located right next to the loading port, which limits the amount that you can open the port up. It's not the end of the world, but you do need to be really careful if you're doing that work yourself, since you can accidentally commit a felony if you remove too much material. Also, if you think that you might eventually send it in to someone for them to cut up, some custom shops will only work on the M3k models and not the standard M3000, due to the serial number issue. I've found some pretty good sale prices on the non-Freedom M3k now and then, so that might be a good budget option to consider as well.

I've got a reasonably bad astigmatism and a little bit of experience with a few different optic types, so some thoughts: Southpaw is correct. An actual holographic sight uses a laser emitter system to project a virtual image of the reticle that appears to be at a set distance in front of the actual location of the sight; the various and sundry EOTechs and the Vortex UH-1 are the only actual examples of holographic sights currently on the market. Unfortunately, while the newer EOTechs and the UH-1 are probably better in terms of weight and battery life than the older models, they're still not going to be as light or have the long battery life as a traditional red dot. They use a more advanced optical system (fricken' laser beams!), so they're always going to be a little clunkier and draw more power. That said, in my personal experience, not all red dots are created equal, and some of them starburst much worse than others. I've got a Holosun 510 on my PCC, and it's definitely been one of the better ones. But... ... if you've tried a bunch of different red dots, and they all do that, then you might still have some issues with it. Everyone's eyes are a little different. YMMV. I've also noticed I tend to have less distortion with bigger dots (e.g., the 4-6 MOA dots popular on Open pistols). The corresponding loss of precision means that you don't see them in rifle optics very often, but that's something else to consider if you're not anticipating doing a lot of long-range shooting. And as annoying as it can sometimes be to reply with "C" when someone asks if they should use A or B, this probably also bears emphasizing. 1x prismatic optics aren't quite as fast or distortion-free as a red dot or holographic, but the etched reticle does manage to completely side-step any issues with astigmatism. I have first-hand experience with the Spitfire and the Primary Arms Cyclops, and haven't had any issues with either. Both are illuminated - not exactly daylight bright, but enough for low-light use, which I assume is a concern on a home-defense gun.

I personally have dived face-first into a muddy creek bed with one loaded into my rifle, and it still ran for the rest of the weekend. After the mud started to dry and flake off on the inside, it got a little finicky about feeding when I loaded more than 50 rounds or so, but that cleared up when I broke it down and cleaned it. I've also seen people drop loaded D60s in the mud, pick them up, and have them run fine after just shaking them off a little bit. They're pretty reliable overall.

Both are perfectly valid opinions, but I'll throw one out there that's somewhere between the two of them: I wouldn't really see much of a point on a .40 that's only going be used for USPSA Limited, but for a 9 mm that's going to be used in 3 gun, I am violently pro-rail. They're not super-common, but night matches happen often enough that I'm a fan of being able to mount a light. It's kind of pain right now, because I shoot a TSO for everything except those night matches, and I have to switch to something else. Especially since the night-time stuff tends to show up as a side event, I'd have to bring two sets of pistols, mags, holsters, etc. to a match, which is a pain. I'll gladly accept the janky aesthetics on a USPSA gun in exchange for that flexibility. Between that and the cheaper magazines, it doesn't quite bring enough to the table for me to dump my TSO for this, but it is enough that that I'd probably have bought one of these instead if they'd existed a couple of years ago.

Nothing there that makes me want to dump any of my current guns in favor of this one, but it makes me really, really wish that this had been out there a few years ago when I was first getting started. The more I think about it, the more I hone in on the magazines, which I wouldn't originally have expected. Making the assumptions that this will be roughly on-par with a TSO in terms of quality (which I think is a pretty safe one), and that the magazines "based on" the P-09/P-10 pattern mags are in fact interchangeable, then a newer shooter has a clear path to pick up a relatively inexpensive polymer-framed CZ to ease into the game, then gradually upgrade to some high-end options like the CZC A01 and this thing while sharing the same magazines for basically everything.

That works great, thanks again man! Looks like the ~14" that's pretty standard for the Benelli-like guns... Yeah, it's definitely going to be food for thought.

It's not so much that there was anything wrong with the SWFA (I still think that they're underappreciated in general, and I still have that one to use as a spare), just that I made the mistake of looking through a buddy's Razor during a match and realized that it's a little bit better in most regards. The image is a little clearer and brighter, and there's a tad less distortion around the edges of the field of view on 1x. I also realized that the FFP capability - a big part of the reason why I'd gravitated towards the SWFA in the first place - isn't all that significant in 3 gun, and I've gradually come to prefer the less cluttered reticle on the Razor, especially on 1x. Even after I decided on upgrading, it's not like the difference was so extreme that I rushed out and bought a Razor immediately. I set aside my pennies and watched for good sale prices for a year or so before pulling the trigger on it.

I can't answer question 1., since I've looked through a few Vipers, but never spent much time messing with the adjustment turrets. Sorry. But 2 out of 3 isn't that bad, right? 2. No, the adjustment turrets on the Razor 1-6 are pretty easy to move. Clicks are maybe a little bit mushier than a top-of-the-line, high-magnification optic with exposed turrets that are intended to be adjusted regularly, but they're distinct enough that you're not going to turn straight through them or anything. 3. Some people like the Strike Eagle, and I'm not trying to throw them under the bus or anything, but... in my opinion, yeah, it is. I have heard it referred to as the most expensive optic in 3 gun, because it just adds $200-$300 to the cost of the better optic that you'll eventually buy anyway. All of that is driven by the generally low optical quality of the glass. The Razor has some great glass, and the Viper isn't too far behind it... but the Strike Eagle is much worse than either of them. This is just me, but even if the turrets on every single Viper were so stiff that I needed a wrench to turn them, I'd probably still prefer it. Bad turrets are bad when you're zeroing... but bad glass is bad every time you look through it. I currently use a Razor, but started out with an SWFA 1-6x; based on that and some intermittent experience with a buddy's Strike Eagle, I'd say that the glass in your current 1-4x is much better. Even with the higher magnification, I'd call a Strike Eagle a downgrade.