Love my new blaster

For purely discussion purposes, Rob Orgel of Emergency Response Tactical (who has ten years of experience as a Marine Corps rifleman and tons of experience training military, contractors, LE, and civilians) wrote an article in the fall 2022 issue of Dillion Precision's quarterly magazine The Blue Press entitled "Pump vs. Semiauto Shotgun: Which is Better?" Mr. Orgel made four interesting observations:

• The shotgun is unique in the gun world in that it feeds a shorter loaded round and extracts/ejects a longer empty one.
• "Conventional wisdom leads us to believe a pump action is the utmost in reliability because 'we' are in control of its action. Being in 'control,' however, instigates human error, unlike the mechanical action of a reliable semiauto. Often, if we do not rack our pump shotgun with enough power, or we short stroke the action, we induce a malfunction. Having taught many shotgun courses, I've found the operator of the pump causes more malfunctions than the action of the semiauto."
• A pump shotgun will not communicate with the user that it's out of ammunition. You rack the shotgun, eject the last round, and then click. "In other words, you'll find out you're out of ammo when you attempt to use your weapon." This, he says, comes with "intense consequences." Not so, the semi-auto.
• Mr. Orgel ran a speed test with three targets 10 yards apart at a distance of 30 yards. Time to engage those three targets with one round each with a pump shotgun was 2.48 seconds. Time to engage those three targets with a semi-auto shotgun was 1.37 seconds.

Mr. Orgel concludes, "I lean heavily toward semiautomatic shotguns mostly because of reliability and knowing how devastating it is when your gun goes click instead of bang." The only drawback to the semi-auto shotgun that he identifies is cost - $400 to $600 for a pump vs. $1200 to $1600 for a semi-auto.

Today's semi-auto shotguns are far more reliable then the early 20th Century designs, but still they just don't seem to be AS reliable as a pump action.
Today's focus seems to be on gas-operated guns that due to gas system fouling don't seem to be as reliable as the old recoil operated guns like the Browning A5.

Each has advantages, but the limiting factor is the ammunition.
The shotgun shell is virtually unchanged from the 1870's other then the materials used to make them.
It's still a fat, soft, blunt ended rimmed shell that simply isn't as reliable as a pistol or rifle cartridge.
Until a more modern shotgun shell is designed the guns are going to be limited by the ammo.

A more reliable shell might be all-plastic like the old 1960's Wanda shell, and with a rimless tapered case that can feed through double stack box magazines.

semi vs pump...

That debate has been going on for some time.

The Benelli has been in inventory for a few years now. I wonder how it's military reliability has been? Does anyone know? I do know that I haven't read about any issues with it. But I'm also not taking sides. Today both action types work if chosen with care.

FWIW, I just read a review of the Turkish Benelli clone the Panzer Arms M4 Tactical. The Benelli is $2k the PA is <$500. In the test I read it worked fine and workmanship was excellent. It made it sound good. Now if they made it in 20gauge and in a bullpup... Yeah, I'd sell my KS7 and buy one. I'd give serious thought to buying one in 12 gauge and probably would. But a long long gun? I don't want anymore of them.

FWIW, semi-autos of old gave credibility to the argument of the pump shotgun being superior. That's the nice way of saying the semi-autos weren't reliable. Not all that many years ago there was a Remington semi (I forget the model) whose owners using them in competition owned 3, one to shoot, one in for repairs, and a spare so that when the shooter broke they could keep shooting.