homeinvader

Not sure when Mossberg went to the thicker walled barrels, but it's been several years now, maybe 10. Your older Mossberg barrel is going to be too thin to thread, I think you'll find. When threading a barrel for chokes, the end of the barrel must be reamed out to accommodate the wall thickness of the choke itself (so there is a smooth transition from barrel to choke), then it needs to be threaded to secure that choke. These 2 procedures remove quite a bit of thickness. The commonly agreed minimum wall thickness is .016" after threading. This means that the barrel wall thickness where the choke would be screwed in must be at least .016" thick AFTER reaming and threading. The older Mossberg barrels are not going to give you that sort of room to ream and thread and have enough material left over to safely hold the choke in place when the shot column hits it during firing. Another variation that further makes this difficult is the concentricity of the bore, especially when it is this thin to begin with. Get some calipers and measure the wall thickness of your barrel at the muzzle. You'll see that the wall thickness varies quite a bit from side to side. This is because the bore is not centered perfectly due to manufacturing variances. When you ream and thread for chokes, you may be just over the safe thickness on one side of the barrel while being just under on the other. Basically, the wall thickness post reaming/threading must be a minimum of .016" thick ON ALL SIDES OF THE BARREL and this will be tough to pull off on a thin Mossberg barrel. Find the part of the muzzle where it is thinnest and subtract the choke wall thickness (of the chokes you want to use) and choke thread depth. Whatever is left will be what keeps the choke safely in place and that's what should be at least .016". The thicker the barrel wall at the choked muzzle, the stronger it will be and the longer it will last. The closer the wall is to .016" after threading, the faster the metal will fatigue and the sooner and more likely you will be to shot the choke off the gun.

The only compelling reason is product availablity. More companies make more products for Rem-Choke than anything else. Check out Briley's site as an example, you'll see how the market is skewed based on thread pattern.

You'll be changing out less on a Field model to get it to USPSA standards. it comes with the VR barrel you want and the recoil spring you want. Tacticals will need a lot more work and money to get competitive. Either will work though. The Field and Tactical models are the same internally except for the recoil spring. Tacticals use a stiffer spring than the Fields, that's why Tacticals don't cycle well with loads on the low end of the scale. Fields use the "standard" spring. There's also a "light" spring, but I don't think Benelli actually uses it in any model, but they do make it available as a spare part. My Benelli started as an M1 Tactical and I shot it like that for awhile until I could see the limitations of the set-up. I then bought a 21" VR barrel, changed out the recoil spring, added a 10 round mag tube, effectively turning it into an M1 Field with added capacity (but I did have a lot of internal work done to the trigger, carrier, lift gate, etc).

This is true. 590 barrels have lugs located in a different position than the 500 or other Mossbergs. You'll spend far less having your current barrel threaded for chokes than you will on a whole new barrel that is already threaded.

You don't really "install" a choke tube system, you simply have the barrel threaded for chokes. If it's a newer Mossberg that you have, then you're good to go. They have very think barrel walls and there's plenty of room to thread it. But the older Mossberg 590s have thin sheet steel barrels that will not take a thread. Any good gunsmith can do this, the only issue is what type of threads: There's Rem-Choke, Invector, Benelli uses the Crio threading, etc. I would have them cut for Rem-Chokes. That thread pattern is more compatible with a wide-array of aftermarket chokes.

There's no magical number. What's the surrounding property like? 4 acres, assuming it's 4 acres square, is not enough though. That's only 2 acres distance from any point and I'm sure his cabin is somewhere in the center. While shot doesn't travel very far, even elevated to 45 degrees, it will travel passed his property line. He cannot control who is beyond the property line and while it may be a desolate area, there's always the chance someone might be legally walking back there. Is it hunting land beyond? That would help as there is a legal assumption of risk when traveling through known hunting areas, but if it is not, then throwing rounds "over the fence" into an area where people might be present and where there is no "reasonable expectation" of being shot would be legally risky. If the land beyond is private property, the consequences would be much worse and I would drop the idea completely. He could do it for a lifetime and never have a problem, but as long as rounds are traveling beyond his property line and as long as people have a right to be back there (beyond the 2 acre length), there is a safety risk. While there is always a saftey risk with shooting, yes, here it would be accompanied by a substantial legal risk.

This may be old, but... Flint & Frizzen Gun Shop Bruce McArthur 8735 Dixie Highway Clarkston, MI 48348 248-625-3333

I have that set-up with an 9-round DMW extension (11 total in gun). The mag tube extends beyond the muzzle about 2 inches with the 21" barrel. I use a Briley Comp-Choke and the mag tube extends beyond that about 1/2". The 10 round tube from DMW would be quite a bit longer than the 21" barrel, even with an extended choke.

Not sure which product you are referring to with "Comp Choke," but you should have no problem with it working. It doesn't reduce recoil per se, but it does keep the muzzle down. There is no detrimental effect on cycling. Briley's Comp Choke works really well, but you have to call Briley and get the right guy on the phone or you'll hear "We discontinued that product." They did discontinue it, but they have a lot of stock on the shelves and they can put one together for you. This is the 2-port model that screws on to the extended choke tube, not the ported choke tube itself.

Factory Benelli extensions are slightly shorter than the 18.5" barrel. But there is no functional reason to trim it, you're asking for trouble. Mag extensions can be 4-5 inches or so longer than the barrel before there might be contact problems. If you don't like the look, get a factory 7-round extension (allows 7 rounds total in the mag tube).

I think a lightened bolt would transcend 3-gun or even shotgun competition in general if you could describe the benefits to all Benelli owners, not just 3-gun guys. Less felt recoil, better reliablity with lighter loads, etc. These are things that all Benelli owners would want if they only knew about it. I would buy one.

Heated it with a propane torch until it smoked and it came right off, thanks guys. But you didn't mention not using your bare hands to unscrew it after heating. Now how do I remove the comp after it is grafted to my hand...?

I'm trying to remove my shotgun comp from the choke to index it to a new barrel. It's loctited on with the red stuff. What's the best way to remove it?

Anyone have a source for one? Tough to find these days.

Would it be possible to reamer out the hole in the slide to fit a newer diameter barrel?

I have a 1985 Glock 17 and have put LOTS of rounds through it. I need a new barrel, but the trouble is that this is the old pencil barrel inside a slide cut for the same, thin pencil barrel at the "bushing." New Glock barrels will not fit. Any ideas?

Beven, How much did you lengthen it? What reamer did you use?

Looking more as a spectator for ther moment...

You are probably better off just dry-firing it with no snap-cap, you'll get more out of the excercise that way. If a firing pin breaks or other damage occurs over time, those are not expensive parts to replace. Maybe buy a new bolt and a couple firing pins just in case, but it will be a LOT of dry firing before you do any damage. The snap-cap will really get in the way of actually practicing the trigger pull as the 870 will want to eject the snap-cap every time you cycle the action to reset the trigger. That will slow down your practice ridiculously. Snap-caps are great for testing function, but not for repetitive practice drills.

A way around 922r and the imported parts count is creating an NFA firearm. If you take an unmodified Saiga and Form 1 it into a Short Barrelled Shotgun, you may then build that Saiga into any configuration you want without adjusting the imported parts count. You may use all imported parts if you like. You may also cut the barrel down to any length you wish. 922r only applies to Title 1 guns. Title II (machine guns, suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, etc) by their very nature are "non-sporting" and are not burdened by 922r. The side-benefit of the USAS-12, Striker and Street-Sweepers being reclassified as Destructive Devices, their owners, upon receiving their approved Form 1 registrations could cut the barrels down to any length they wanted with no further paperwork or legal hassles. A Destructive Device classification supercedes all other classifications other than Machine Gun, so there is no 16" rifle barrel/ 18" shotgun barrel minimum requirement. Kinds cool.

Benny, I just sent you an e-mail regarding Benelli work.

On the subject of 922r (imported parts), this is also highly misunderstood. For 922r to apply, there are 2 tests: 1) Is the firearm imported? 2) Has that firearm ever been denied importation in a different configuration? (Or is the approved firearm a reconfiguration of a disapproved firearm?) Yes has to be answered to both questions or that firearm is exempt. The only test of "unimportability" is Import Branch's denial or disapproval of a Form 6. There is no list of features that are banned from importation, only general guidelines because there are so many factoring criteria above and beyond configuration that are used in determining whether or not to approve a Form 6. For instance, the DoD itself plays an enormous role in helping smooth out the importation process for vendors like Benelli, HK, Sig, Beretta, etc. Well known that gov't contractors get their Form 6s approved faster with less stringency than all others. Saigas are in fact unimportable with pistol grips, folding stocks, flash hiders, etc, so 922r absolutely applies. 922r, however, DOES NOT apply to any current Benelli product. All Benelli shotguns, even the discontinued M1 and M3, exist in the US without ever having been denied a Form 6 Import Permit in any configuration submitted or sold by Benelli. Benelli shotguns have come in with pistol grips, extended mag tubes and in the case of the M1014, collapsible stocks, all permitted for civilian sale. In fact, while untested, there is a strong legal argument that suggests the assembly of an imported firearm into any non-factory configuration ("non-sporting") would NOT be a violation of 922r. Meaning, if the factory in Country X doesn't even make that model with a folding stock or pistol grip, how can it have ever been submitted and disapproved by Import Branch in order to be "unimportable" for purposes of 922r?

Couple things: According to the GCA or 1934 and NFA 1968, all shotguns are considered "sporting" unless specifically the Attorney General finds a particular shotgun "non-sporting" at which time it becomes a Destructive Device. It is not an ATF ruling or determination, it is soley by AG decree. ATF does not have this power. Because this can only come from the top by a Presidential appointee, it is highly political, so you are unlikely to see another such ruling under a Republican administration. No other AG in history has used this power. We are safe from any ATF opinion on this as it is beyond their power to make such a determination. Also, the more popular a shotgun is, the LESS likely it would be determined "non-sporting." If a major city's police force or the military use it, then 10x as many are sold to civvies. Saigas are not used by any LE or gov't agency, so that could happen someday. But Benellis, Remingtons, Mossbergs in any configuration, no way. The "Non-Sporting" Clause works by make and model, not by configuration, so the AG would have to declare the Benelli M1014 specifically to be non-sporting. The gov't buys these too and if Benelli is forced to change their permit structure and cannot sell to civvies (imported DDs are not transferable and can only be owned by LE, gov't or licensees), the gov't will be paying exponentially more for the very shotgun they declared a DD. The DoD is a wonderful lobbyist when they buy your products. AS long as the USMC uses the M1014, it will be imported and sold to civvies with no hassles. The USAS-12, Street-Sweepr and Striker were singled out because they were not that popular, were not used by any state or federal LEA or the DoD, so they were easy targets with little possible backlash. They were also radically different from the mainstream American view of a shotgun. Add a collapsible stock to a Benelli M4 or Remington 1100 semi-auto and modify the receiver to accept a detachable drum magazine, it is STILL a Remington 1100 or Benelli M4 and that is the make and model that would be reclassified. The American duck hunting crowd (numbering in the 10s of millions) will go berserk because they buy those makes and models too. See my point? This is a card that has ever been played until 1994 for good reason. Probably won't happen again either.

At the risk of sounding idiotic, why not? Wouldn't reaming it just remove the chrome where the forcing cone is being cut?

Sorry to clog the posts, I thought of another question after I posted the last one... Is it advisable to lengthen the forcing cone on a Benelli M1 Tactical barrel? I know they have thin barrel walls, but at the forcing cone there seems to be a lot of material.