PDA

View Full Version : Benelli Super Black Eagle????



Multidigits
01-10-2004, 11:51 AM
Kentucky's KRS law 150.360 states -
"Shotguns used in the taking of wildlife, protected or unprotected, shall not be larger than 10-gauge and shall be fired from the shoulder. No wildlife, except deer, protected or unprotected, shall be taken with or by means of any automatic loading or hand-operated repeating shotgun capable of holding more than three (3) shells,
the magazine of which has not been cut off or plugged with a one (1) piece filler incapable of removal through the loading end, in such manner as to reduce the capacity of the gun to not more than three (3) shells at one (1) time in the magazine and chamber combined."

There's the KRS. Mosy of you know that these shotguns defeat the 3 shot capacity with the user being able to insert one extra after the chamber is loaded and the magizine is full. So, with it capable of holding 4, does it make the Black Eagle illegeal to hunt with on anything other then deer?????[?]

GSP
01-10-2004, 11:59 AM
Multi, you lost me. Are you saying you can't plug the Black Eagle to only hold 2 in the mag???

Grant
01-10-2004, 12:11 PM
I wouldn't think so, basically because the gun isn't made to work that way.
I do know that the new SBE won't hold the 4th shell anymore.

http://www.hunt101.com/img/084011.jpg

Multidigits
01-10-2004, 01:37 PM
GSP-with the plug in, the shotgun can have two in the mag, 1 in the chamber, and one on the carrier, making a total of 4. To be legal the plug would have to limit the mag to one roundm which it doesn't.

I'm not aware of any changes to the Benelli that would eliminate loading the extra shell, can you explain what is different?

Grant
01-10-2004, 01:58 PM
I don't exactly sure what modifications they did to them, just know that you can't put a shell in the carrier anymore, therefore, with the plug in, it will only handle 3 shells.

http://www.hunt101.com/img/084011.jpg

steelslinger
01-10-2004, 05:24 PM
Grant is correct, the new SBE's will not work by placing the 4th shell on the carrier. Not sure of the modification, but my uncle owns an old one that will and a friend bought one last fall that will not. A local dealer also conferms that the new ones will not carry the 4th shell. This mod was done because of the 4th shell and the 3 shell regulations.

shoot em in the lips

Salty
01-10-2004, 07:13 PM
Multi - it's my understanding that several states complained about the capability of SBE's to hold 4 rounds with the plug installed. They corrected the situation about 3 years ago. The guns that will hold 4 have a round safety. The guns that have a triangular safety will not allow a round on the carrier.

steelslinger
01-10-2004, 07:49 PM
It was never intended by the company for the 4th round. The reason this was possible was called an "anti-jam" feature to allow the gun to cycle even when a shell escaped the magazine due to recoil of firing. In the early days of the SBE, reps from the company would place a shell on the carrier and one in the chamber. Then they would cycle the action by hand to show that it wouldn't cause a jam. It was the anti-jam feature that was the selling point, not the point that a hunter could buck the 3 shell rule. As far as the legal issue, I would like to see a response from some of the law enforcement agents that post here.

shoot em in the lips

Grant
01-10-2004, 07:54 PM
I know of several cases that people had put the 4th shell in the gun, then got checked without taking it out. Needless to say, an expensive 4th shell!!

http://www.hunt101.com/img/084011.jpg

RutNBuck
01-10-2004, 08:58 PM
an officer told me that if he finds someone with a 4th shell in the SBE it will become property of the KDFW
....this is one reason i stay away from that shotgun...not worth the risk

"A wise indian once said,the more you move the less you will see,the less you move the more you will see"

" I live to hunt, but my wife says i may be hunting a place to live"

Finn209
01-10-2004, 09:11 PM
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by steelslinger</i>
<br /> As far as the legal issue, I would like to see a response from some of the law enforcement agents that post here.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Personally, I think that KRS 150.360 is pretty clear on this subject.

http://prod.bsis.bellsouth.net/coDataImages/p/Groups/9/9518/folders/3361/15369flyfisher.gif

The Kentucky Conservation Officers' Association (http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Cabin/4914/)

Finn209
01-10-2004, 09:31 PM
I guess you might like a longer answer than that.

In my opinion the "spirit of the law" is that you should only hunt with 3 shells in a shotgun unless you're deer hunting. The way I read KRS 150.360, the "letter of the law" says that it is illegal to hunt with a shotgun which is capable of holding and shooting that 4th shell.

So according to the KRS, it appears to me that if you're hunting with one that can hold (and then shoot) 4 shells, that you're in violation.

http://prod.bsis.bellsouth.net/coDataImages/p/Groups/9/9518/folders/3361/15369flyfisher.gif

The Kentucky Conservation Officers' Association (http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Cabin/4914/)

GSP
01-10-2004, 09:31 PM
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">No wildlife, except deer, protected or unprotected, shall be taken with or by means of any automatic loading or hand-operated repeating shotgun <i>capable of holding more than three (3) shells</i>,<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Looks as if your gun isn't plugged to hold only <b>1</b> shell in the mag, you are in violation.

Seems to me the gun would NOT be legal under the current law. No different than if I had an 870 with only 2 in the mag and no plug. The gun WAS CAPABLE.

steelslinger
01-10-2004, 10:48 PM
I guess the response from the CO I was looking for would be...when you find a hunter with a SBE and only 3 shells in the gun and no other violations where found, would you be inclined to cite the person for useing the gun even though there were only 3 shells in it? We all agree what the law states. Touchy subject I guess considering the number of these guns in use and the $$ that was spent on purchasing them.

shoot em in the lips

Finn209
01-11-2004, 08:22 AM
a message on GunsReview.com

http://www.gunsreview.com/views/benelli_4th_shot_abillity984633.html




http://prod.bsis.bellsouth.net/coDataImages/p/Groups/9/9518/folders/3361/15369flyfisher.gif

The Kentucky Conservation Officers' Association (http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Cabin/4914/)

Finn209
01-13-2004, 01:13 AM
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by steelslinger</i>
<br />I guess the response from the CO I was looking for would be...when you find a hunter with a SBE and only 3 shells in the gun and no other violations where found, would you be inclined to cite the person for useing the gun even though there were only 3 shells in it? We all agree what the law states. Touchy subject I guess considering the number of these guns in use and the $$ that was spent on purchasing them.

shoot em in the lips
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Not so much a touchy subject to me. The amount of dollars spent and amount of people using them, isn't that much of a consideration.

I work Lake Malone where the max. horsepower allowed is 150 hp. Have encountered many boats purchased just to use on Lake Malone over the legal horsepower limit. They cost much more than these shotguns and we encounter many more of them than we do these shotguns and still the violations are seriously addressed.

But I don't like saying what I think that I would be inclined to do with a certain described situation of a violation. Not all violations are handled by all officers in the same way each time for various reasons.

This may not sound like much help, but I'm answering the best way I know how for this particular question.


http://prod.bsis.bellsouth.net/coDataImages/p/Groups/9/9518/folders/3361/15369flyfisher.gif

The Kentucky Conservation Officers' Association (http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Cabin/4914/)

Finn209
01-13-2004, 01:29 AM
ps..........

Has anyone heard about a piece they produced which can be installed in these guns so that the 4th shell won't install or work?

And, have you heard about anyone modifying the newer ones which won't work with the 4th shells, so that after modifying them, they will accept and shoot the 4th shell?

I've heard about the possibility of both, but wondered if either were true or rumors[?]



http://prod.bsis.bellsouth.net/coDataImages/p/Groups/9/9518/folders/3361/15369flyfisher.gif

The Kentucky Conservation Officers' Association (http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Cabin/4914/)

Multidigits
01-13-2004, 06:49 AM
I'd be against an out right ban on these guns for several reasons. It's unlikely that the 3 shot rule would ever be changed because of tradition. Why do we have the restriction anyway???

Finn, what do the Feds say about the Benelli's???? Seem they would have an opinion being that waterfowl is what the gun is used the most for.

Seems like you would need to get an opinion from Scott or Mr. Casey and go from there? Good luck getting them to commit!

Grant
01-13-2004, 09:50 AM
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Finn209</i>
<br />
And, have you heard about anyone modifying the newer ones which won't work with the 4th shells, so that after modifying them, they will accept and shoot the 4th shell?




<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I have heard that, but I have only heard, havn't seen it done.
The SBE isn't the onlt gun that will take the 4th shell anyway. I have a Super X2, and was shown several years back by an SBE shooter that my gun would hide the 4th shell as well. I want to think theres another gun out there that will, but I can't be sure.

The SBE is the more popular gun for the 4th shell because of the ease it can be put in there, the SBE owner had to work alot more to get mine to hold it
http://www.hunt101.com/img/084011.jpg

Multidigits
01-13-2004, 10:03 AM
If the X2 does, then the Browning Gold would because they are the same except for the magizine cut-off feature. But I don't think it will work with 4. Never seen it done either?

schuyler olt
01-14-2004, 08:10 AM
I have a first generation SBE that will hold the fourth shell. Several years ago I was checked by a Kentucky CO while duck hunting. He came up unexpectedly from behind, and the very first thing he asked was to see the Benelli unloaded. When only three shells came out, his response was, "Damn, that's the first one I've seen this season with only three shells in it." I think he was genuinely surprised. I did not get a ticket.

There was another problem with some of the other early guns chambered for 3.5s. The plug was a hair too short, and four 2.75s could be loaded if you really pushed and shoved. A knowledgeable CO did this to a friend of mine on a dove hunt--the friend had no knowledge that this was possible but was cited and eventually paid a fine.

I am not a gun designer, and when I bought my SBE it was represented to only hold three shells when plugged. I took them at their word. If a CO cites me for having a gun that the KDFWR has never deemed illegal, be ready for a long jury trial.[}:)] That is particularly true given the fact that the manual for the gun cautions against loading or attempting to load more than three shells in a plugged SBE.

Grant
01-14-2004, 12:04 PM
Milti, I don't know about the Browning, but it WILL fit in the SuperX2, and if there the same design, it should work as well.

http://www.hunt101.com/img/084011.jpg