Benelli M3

[westberg]

I have been trying to research if a Benelli M3 with pistol grip, can it have a magazine extension? Any experts, so far I think it was in the assault weapons ban, but with that expired then it should be OK.

[David]

You have it exactly right. The '94 (Federal) ban limited semi-auto shotguns to either a pistol grip OR a capacity over five rounds. When the law expired in '04, its restrictions no longer applied. I was happy to learn back when I was setting up my 870 that it did not apply to pump-action shotguns!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_As ... eapons_Ban

[westberg]

Thank you David for the link.

[cobb]

Just food for thought....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_As ... eapons_Ban

I think wikipedia can contain any information that the author wants, so maybe do a more comprehensive search to verify.

Maybe wrong, won't be the first time, but I am just not all that impressed with the wikipedia info, can be good info, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

[westberg]

Just food for thought....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_As ... eapons_Ban

I think wikipedia can contain any information that the author wants, so please do a more comprehensive search to verify.

Oh believe me I am, I found this on a Benelli Forum about a M4. Cobb, you don't think it work for me just to carry copies of forum gun guy's replies to make it legal.
It appears like the problem is the imported part. Anyway the gun stays stock for now.

I'd hate to ruin the mood here, but there are federal restrictions on semi-automatic shotguns imported after 1989. They cannot be imported or assembled in such configurations set forth by the Gun Control Act. This pre-dates the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 and is still in effect throughout the country.

The GCA prohibits:
(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of --

(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of
the weapon;

(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and

(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.


That's 3 for your dream 11707.

In order to assemble such a shotgun, it cannot consist of more than 10 imported parts, the the 11707 consists of 15.

These are:

1. Receiver/frame
2. Barrel
3. Bolt
4. Bolt carrier
5. Trigger housing
6. Trigger
7. Disconnector
8. Hammer
9. Buttstock
10. Pistol grip
11. Forearm/handguard
12. Magazine tube
13. Follower
14. Gas Piston 1
15. Gas Piston 2


Replace any 5 imported parts with US made and it will no longer be considered imported. SOCOMGuy's mag tube will count as 1 US made part. A Sure Cycle magazine follower would count as another. More US made parts just don't yet exist unless you go about having them made.

Or you can register your M4 as a short barreled shotgun under the National Firearms Act. You don't actually have to shorten the barrel, but this will remove any restrictions set by the GCA. It will set you back $200 for a federal tax stamp, which may be cheaper in the long run since you won't have to pay to fabricate the remaining imported parts. This could be a problem if you wish to sell the shotgun in the future though.

Sorry.

[cobb]

Just checking...

[Squib Joe]

Actually you would have more of a problem remaining 922(r) compliant.

922(r) prohibits assembling from imported parts any semi-automatic rifle or any shotgun which is identical to any rifle or shotgun prohibited from importation.

Taking the "sporter" version of the M3 (short magazine), imported from Italy, and adding an extended magazine - without also adding the required number of US-made parts - and you've just, technically, broken the law.

This is the main reason why Benelli no longer sells extended mag tubes and collapsible stocks for the M4.

Chances of being prosecuted for this are slim, or so I've heard, but it could happen.

[cobb]

Actually you would have more of a problem remaining 922(r) compliant.

922(r) prohibits assembling from imported parts any semi-automatic rifle or any shotgun which is identical to any rifle or shotgun prohibited from importation.

Taking the "sporter" version of the M3 (short magazine), imported from Italy, and adding an extended magazine - without also adding the required number of US-made parts - and you've just, technically, broken the law.

This is the main reason why Benelli no longer sells extended mag tubes and collapsible stocks for the M4.

Chances of being prosecuted for this are slim, or so I've heard, but it could happen.

Thanks for the info.

[westberg]

Actually you would have more of a problem remaining 922(r) compliant.

922(r) prohibits assembling from imported parts any semi-automatic rifle or any shotgun which is identical to any rifle or shotgun prohibited from importation.

Taking the "sporter" version of the M3 (short magazine), imported from Italy, and adding an extended magazine - without also adding the required number of US-made parts - and you've just, technically, broken the law.

This is the main reason why Benelli no longer sells extended mag tubes and collapsible stocks for the M4.

Chances of being prosecuted for this are slim, or so I've heard, but it could happen.

Thanks Squib Joe, That is what I finding to be true, I already have mixed feelings about the gun and I'm sure not going to get into position of trying to prove certain parts are US made vs imported. It not worth it to me.

[Fast351]

Looks like you already got the answer, but yeah, the problem isn't the assault weapons ban, but the 922(r) regulations with regards to imports. Judging by how many M1s are running around with pistol grips and extended tubes in three gunning, you're probably in the clear, but TECHNICALLY, the shotgun would be illegal, unless you put in a bunch of US parts.

You'll get varying opinions on this, but if your intent is to use this shotgun for gaming, I'd replace the stock. Regular stocks seems to be preferred for that. Part of the reason is the recoil goes into your shoulder where it's supposed to go, instead of into your hand and wrist, which will start to hurt after pounding some full recoil slugs, or 100+ rounds of shot through it.

The Benelli forum has that discussion regularly (do a search for 922R there) and there isn't a clear cut answer. I asked the same thing 6 months ago and came away with no clearer view of the topic.

[westberg]

Thanks everyboby for trying to help, you have helped me make up my mind.............its new gun time.
Could one of you please let Dawn know......

[David]

This sort of reminds me of the difference in regulations between various governmental agencies. For example, the Minnesota State Fire Marshal's office changed from enforcing the Uniform Fire Code to enforcing the International Fire Code a few years ago. One difference between codes was a requirement for fire extinguishers and pull stations in hallways. When the code changed, the Fire Marshal inspectors were telling people they could get rid of many of their extinguishers and pull stations, so they did. Then, when some of these companies got inspected by OSHA, they got cited, because OSHA rules still required no more than a 75' distance from employees to fire extinguishers. They have since backed off of that a bit, but for a couple of years people were getting awfully confused.

So, the moral of the story here appears to be to consider all laws from all agencies, and to keep digging even after you find one possible answer!

[Keith]

The Benelli forum has that discussion regularly (do a search for 922R there) and there isn't a clear cut answer. I asked the same thing 6 months ago and came away with no clearer view of the topic.

Yup. Clear as gin, isn't it?