User Panel
Quoted:
So is mine, what have you been sarcastic about? fwiw no one considers black bears dangerous game. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You realize I've been in the military, don't you? The little tank icon that most of us telling you that you're wrong have means we've served.
"I killed a bear once, I know more about fighting than the DOD" You're no where near as smart or as insightful as you think you are. This is a dumb ass statement ... Not having a tank does not mean the person you are running your cake hole at did not serve. Nor does having one makes you an expert on rifles , combat or anything else. Of course I am waiting for you to start recanting your many kills and recount your anecdotal evidence of the combat god you want people to believe you are or how the M4 was more deadly than an M1 at twice the range. If you honestly believe that 5.56 is good for dangerous game you are NOT an expert at anything. Fucking tank icon and DoD Expert.. . seriously? You keep throwing around terms like "kills", "deadly", "dangerous game".... These are indicators that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You clearly don't know what dangerous game is Einstein. Bears are absolutely considered dangerous game. I don't give a shit what you think you know, please go on and tell me more. Oh by the way your sarcasm meter is broken . So is mine, what have you been sarcastic about? fwiw no one considers black bears dangerous game. I'm sure people who have never encountered a Blackie think they are dangerous. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
Quoted:
You literally made all of that up. I haven't seen anyone claim anything you just posted. If you're resorting to exaggerations to make your point, you've lost, just give it up already. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How the hell did this even turn into a discussion about bears? That shit belongs in shotgun home defense threads. Because some kids think they are unique , and they are the only ones who were ever in the military cause of tank icon and such. M4's for SHTF cause thats what they used while in a fully supported military operation. Cause that = SHTF and shotguns aren't deadly anymore cause of M4's That pretty much covers it all. You literally made all of that up. I haven't seen anyone claim anything you just posted. If you're resorting to exaggerations to make your point, you've lost, just give it up already. Actually kid I did not. Someone did indeed say I have a tank icon and that makes them an expert... . Go back and read the thread .. |
|
Quoted:
What makes you think we had M4's when I was in , I never stated that anywhere. Again you are trying to make your experience the only experience you think is relevant. I stated that the M4 is inadequate when compared to a rifle. It is, I also stated the military had to supplement the M4;s inadequacy with DMR rifles and ammunition programs , they did. I am not the one trying to bill the M4 as the end all be all of equipment. I said its not a good choice in a SHTF situation as described by the OP, it works for the military because of the manner in which it is employed. Machine gun support, air support and Designated Marksmen augment the M4 . Of course I am sure you will correct me and tell me that's not how combat works now days. I know you were out there all by yourself just an M4 and no help. In a SHTF situation in the US because of disaster etc etc.. do you think as a private citizen you are going to have all those resources? Of course in a perfect world I would have an M551A1 in my garage for those SHTF moments cause I spent part of my enlistment in one. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How the hell did this even turn into a discussion about bears? That shit belongs in shotgun home defense threads. Because some kids think they are unique , and they are the only ones who were ever in the military cause of tank icon and such. M4's for SHTF cause thats what they used while in a fully supported military operation. Cause that = SHTF and shotguns aren't deadly anymore cause of M4's That pretty much covers it all. So what sort of problems did you and your unit have with m4s? What makes you think we had M4's when I was in , I never stated that anywhere. Again you are trying to make your experience the only experience you think is relevant. I stated that the M4 is inadequate when compared to a rifle. It is, I also stated the military had to supplement the M4;s inadequacy with DMR rifles and ammunition programs , they did. I am not the one trying to bill the M4 as the end all be all of equipment. I said its not a good choice in a SHTF situation as described by the OP, it works for the military because of the manner in which it is employed. Machine gun support, air support and Designated Marksmen augment the M4 . Of course I am sure you will correct me and tell me that's not how combat works now days. I know you were out there all by yourself just an M4 and no help. In a SHTF situation in the US because of disaster etc etc.. do you think as a private citizen you are going to have all those resources? Of course in a perfect world I would have an M551A1 in my garage for those SHTF moments cause I spent part of my enlistment in one. If the M4 was inadequate, why was it merely supplemented and not replaced? Why has adoption of the M4 broadened over time? |
|
Quoted:
You have indeed stated that. However you have presented absolutely zero evidence to support that assertion, and it has been refuted thoroughly and repeatedly. Thank you for your service. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
I stated that the M4 is inadequate when compared to a rifle. It is. You have indeed stated that. However you have presented absolutely zero evidence to support that assertion, and it has been refuted thoroughly and repeatedly. Thank you for your service. Didnt the Corps do a big ass study on the reliability of rifle vs carbine awhile back and determine the rifle to be more reliable? Thought the A6 came out of that, remember reading RON or Auggie discussing it a couple years ago maybe. |
|
Quoted:
If the M4 was inadequate, why was it merely supplemented and not replaced? Why has adoption of the M4 broadened over time? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How the hell did this even turn into a discussion about bears? That shit belongs in shotgun home defense threads. Because some kids think they are unique , and they are the only ones who were ever in the military cause of tank icon and such. M4's for SHTF cause thats what they used while in a fully supported military operation. Cause that = SHTF and shotguns aren't deadly anymore cause of M4's That pretty much covers it all. So what sort of problems did you and your unit have with m4s? What makes you think we had M4's when I was in , I never stated that anywhere. Again you are trying to make your experience the only experience you think is relevant. I stated that the M4 is inadequate when compared to a rifle. It is, I also stated the military had to supplement the M4;s inadequacy with DMR rifles and ammunition programs , they did. I am not the one trying to bill the M4 as the end all be all of equipment. I said its not a good choice in a SHTF situation as described by the OP, it works for the military because of the manner in which it is employed. Machine gun support, air support and Designated Marksmen augment the M4 . Of course I am sure you will correct me and tell me that's not how combat works now days. I know you were out there all by yourself just an M4 and no help. In a SHTF situation in the US because of disaster etc etc.. do you think as a private citizen you are going to have all those resources? Of course in a perfect world I would have an M551A1 in my garage for those SHTF moments cause I spent part of my enlistment in one. If the M4 was inadequate, why was it merely supplemented and not replaced? Why has adoption of the M4 broadened over time? If it was superior why was it supplemented ? Politics played no small roll in it being adopted service wide I am certain. |
|
Quoted:
Actually kid I did not. Someone did indeed say I have a tank icon and that makes them an expert... . Go back and read the thread .. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How the hell did this even turn into a discussion about bears? That shit belongs in shotgun home defense threads. Because some kids think they are unique , and they are the only ones who were ever in the military cause of tank icon and such. M4's for SHTF cause thats what they used while in a fully supported military operation. Cause that = SHTF and shotguns aren't deadly anymore cause of M4's That pretty much covers it all. You literally made all of that up. I haven't seen anyone claim anything you just posted. If you're resorting to exaggerations to make your point, you've lost, just give it up already. Actually kid I did not. Someone did indeed say I have a tank icon and that makes them an expert... . Go back and read the thread .. Maybe kid, jeff was refering to the shotguns not being deadly anymore |
|
|
|
Quoted:
If SHTF and I am confronted with what I think is a long range engagement, I am going to egress. View Quote And when the zombies try and pursue over big country they are easy pickins. When you have 500yds of standoff and any semblance of parity in numbers the pursuers are going to get stacked up like cordwood. |
|
Quoted:
If it was superior why was it supplemented ? Politics played no small roll in it being adopted service wide I am certain. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because some kids think they are unique , and they are the only ones who were ever in the military cause of tank icon and such. M4's for SHTF cause thats what they used while in a fully supported military operation. Cause that = SHTF and shotguns aren't deadly anymore cause of M4's That pretty much covers it all. So what sort of problems did you and your unit have with m4s? What makes you think we had M4's when I was in , I never stated that anywhere. Again you are trying to make your experience the only experience you think is relevant. I stated that the M4 is inadequate when compared to a rifle. It is, I also stated the military had to supplement the M4;s inadequacy with DMR rifles and ammunition programs , they did. I am not the one trying to bill the M4 as the end all be all of equipment. I said its not a good choice in a SHTF situation as described by the OP, it works for the military because of the manner in which it is employed. Machine gun support, air support and Designated Marksmen augment the M4 . Of course I am sure you will correct me and tell me that's not how combat works now days. I know you were out there all by yourself just an M4 and no help. In a SHTF situation in the US because of disaster etc etc.. do you think as a private citizen you are going to have all those resources? Of course in a perfect world I would have an M551A1 in my garage for those SHTF moments cause I spent part of my enlistment in one. If the M4 was inadequate, why was it merely supplemented and not replaced? Why has adoption of the M4 broadened over time? If it was superior why was it supplemented ? Politics played no small roll in it being adopted service wide I am certain. Different roll. We supplemented with 240s also |
|
Quoted:
If it was superior why was it supplemented? View Quote Mostly because optics, especially magnified optics like ACOG, weren't in the system for M4s yet. The big looky-tube on top of that DMR helped a hell of a lot more than a few Inches barrel or even a bigger cartridge. Once things like RCO and similar came online, the DMRs left the spotlight, and the M14s mostly went back to the armory. |
|
Quoted:
And when the zombies try and pursue over big country they are easy pickins. When you have 500yds of standoff and any semblance of parity in numbers the pursuers are going to get stacked up like cordwood. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
If SHTF and I am confronted with what I think is a long range engagement, I am going to egress. And when the zombies try and pursue over big country they are easy pickins. When you have 500yds of standoff and any semblance of parity in numbers the pursuers are going to get stacked up like cordwood. Personally, at distance, I would avoid giving away my position until I absolutely had to. And anyway, I'd have a LR weapon also. |
|
Quoted:
Personally, at distance, I would avoid giving away my position until I absolutely had to. And anyway, I'd have a LR weapon also. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If SHTF and I am confronted with what I think is a long range engagement, I am going to egress. And when the zombies try and pursue over big country they are easy pickins. When you have 500yds of standoff and any semblance of parity in numbers the pursuers are going to get stacked up like cordwood. Personally, at distance, I would avoid giving away my position until I absolutely had to. And anyway, I'd have a LR weapon also. Im on the fence when it comes to zombies. Putting them down a quarter mile away has its.benefits. |
|
Quoted:
Im on the fence when it comes to zombies. Putting them down a quarter mile away has its.benefits. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If SHTF and I am confronted with what I think is a long range engagement, I am going to egress. And when the zombies try and pursue over big country they are easy pickins. When you have 500yds of standoff and any semblance of parity in numbers the pursuers are going to get stacked up like cordwood. Personally, at distance, I would avoid giving away my position until I absolutely had to. And anyway, I'd have a LR weapon also. Im on the fence when it comes to zombies. Putting them down a quarter mile away has its.benefits. Is "zombie" not a code word for bad guy anymore? |
|
Quoted:
What makes you think we had M4's when I was in , I never stated that anywhere. Again you are trying to make your experience the only experience you think is relevant. I stated that the M4 is inadequate when compared to a rifle. It is, I also stated the military had to supplement the M4;s inadequacy with DMR rifles and ammunition programs , they did. I am not the one trying to bill the M4 as the end all be all of equipment. I said its not a good choice in a SHTF situation as described by the OP, it works for the military because of the manner in which it is employed. Machine gun support, air support and Designated Marksmen augment the M4 . Of course I am sure you will correct me and tell me that's not how combat works now days. I know you were out there all by yourself just an M4 and no help. In a SHTF situation in the US because of disaster etc etc.. do you think as a private citizen you are going to have all those resources? Of course in a perfect world I would have an M551A1 in my garage for those SHTF moments cause I spent part of my enlistment in one. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How the hell did this even turn into a discussion about bears? That shit belongs in shotgun home defense threads. Because some kids think they are unique , and they are the only ones who were ever in the military cause of tank icon and such. M4's for SHTF cause thats what they used while in a fully supported military operation. Cause that = SHTF and shotguns aren't deadly anymore cause of M4's That pretty much covers it all. So what sort of problems did you and your unit have with m4s? What makes you think we had M4's when I was in , I never stated that anywhere. Again you are trying to make your experience the only experience you think is relevant. I stated that the M4 is inadequate when compared to a rifle. It is, I also stated the military had to supplement the M4;s inadequacy with DMR rifles and ammunition programs , they did. I am not the one trying to bill the M4 as the end all be all of equipment. I said its not a good choice in a SHTF situation as described by the OP, it works for the military because of the manner in which it is employed. Machine gun support, air support and Designated Marksmen augment the M4 . Of course I am sure you will correct me and tell me that's not how combat works now days. I know you were out there all by yourself just an M4 and no help. In a SHTF situation in the US because of disaster etc etc.. do you think as a private citizen you are going to have all those resources? Of course in a perfect world I would have an M551A1 in my garage for those SHTF moments cause I spent part of my enlistment in one. This argument falls flat on it's face when you realize that USMC units also utilized "DMR" type rifles even when those units primarily consisted of troops carrying M16A4s. If barrel length was the reason for these rifles (more like uppers) being produced, why were they used in units where the standard issue small arm was a 20" A4? Once again, you fail to understand or realize anything. |
|
Quoted:
Is "zombie" not a code word for bad guy anymore? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If SHTF and I am confronted with what I think is a long range engagement, I am going to egress. And when the zombies try and pursue over big country they are easy pickins. When you have 500yds of standoff and any semblance of parity in numbers the pursuers are going to get stacked up like cordwood. Personally, at distance, I would avoid giving away my position until I absolutely had to. And anyway, I'd have a LR weapon also. Im on the fence when it comes to zombies. Putting them down a quarter mile away has its.benefits. Is "zombie" not a code word for bad guy anymore? LOL. My point is that if you bump an group of "zombies" at distance and they decide to try and run you to ground without support the cost is going to be very high. Regardless of how long your barrel is or is not. |
|
Quoted:
Is "zombie" not a code word for bad guy anymore? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If SHTF and I am confronted with what I think is a long range engagement, I am going to egress. And when the zombies try and pursue over big country they are easy pickins. When you have 500yds of standoff and any semblance of parity in numbers the pursuers are going to get stacked up like cordwood. Personally, at distance, I would avoid giving away my position until I absolutely had to. And anyway, I'd have a LR weapon also. Im on the fence when it comes to zombies. Putting them down a quarter mile away has its.benefits. Is "zombie" not a code word for bad guy anymore? Im not sure, i may have some whiskey in me and this entire thread is kind of bizarre |
|
Quoted:
Actually kid I did not. Someone did indeed say I have a tank icon and that makes them an expert... . Go back and read the thread .. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How the hell did this even turn into a discussion about bears? That shit belongs in shotgun home defense threads. Because some kids think they are unique , and they are the only ones who were ever in the military cause of tank icon and such. M4's for SHTF cause thats what they used while in a fully supported military operation. Cause that = SHTF and shotguns aren't deadly anymore cause of M4's That pretty much covers it all. You literally made all of that up. I haven't seen anyone claim anything you just posted. If you're resorting to exaggerations to make your point, you've lost, just give it up already. Actually kid I did not. Someone did indeed say I have a tank icon and that makes them an expert... . Go back and read the thread .. That's not what you stated. Not really all that surprising that you can't even comprehend the shit that your typing. In case you're confused, no one ever stated "I was the only one ever in the military." |
|
Quoted:
How the hell did this even turn into a discussion about bears? That shit belongs in shotgun home defense threads. View Quote Well I have bears in my AO and and the possibility of having to drop a bear is real and what ever I carry should be able to. Neighbor came out to a bear chasing a new foal in the corral attached to the house. That was a SHTF moment for him. |
|
Quoted:
Maybe kid, jeff was refering to the shotguns not being deadly anymore View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How the hell did this even turn into a discussion about bears? That shit belongs in shotgun home defense threads. Because some kids think they are unique , and they are the only ones who were ever in the military cause of tank icon and such. M4's for SHTF cause thats what they used while in a fully supported military operation. Cause that = SHTF and shotguns aren't deadly anymore cause of M4's That pretty much covers it all. You literally made all of that up. I haven't seen anyone claim anything you just posted. If you're resorting to exaggerations to make your point, you've lost, just give it up already. Actually kid I did not. Someone did indeed say I have a tank icon and that makes them an expert... . Go back and read the thread .. Maybe kid, jeff was refering to the shotguns not being deadly anymore No, I was referring to all of it. - No one ever claimed that "they were the only one who was ever in the military." - No one ever said that being in combat with a myriad of support options available was the exact same thing as "SHTF." - No one ever said shotguns weren't deadly. He literally made all of that shit up. |
|
Quoted:
What makes you think we had M4's when I was in , I never stated that anywhere. Again you are trying to make your experience the only experience you think is relevant. I stated that the M4 is inadequate when compared to a rifle. It is, I also stated the military had to supplement the M4;s inadequacy with DMR rifles and ammunition programs , they did. I am not the one trying to bill the M4 as the end all be all of equipment. I said its not a good choice in a SHTF situation as described by the OP, it works for the military because of the manner in which it is employed. Machine gun support, air support and Designated Marksmen augment the M4 . Of course I am sure you will correct me and tell me that's not how combat works now days. I know you were out there all by yourself just an M4 and no help. In a SHTF situation in the US because of disaster etc etc.. do you think as a private citizen you are going to have all those resources? Of course in a perfect world I would have an M551A1 in my garage for those SHTF moments cause I spent part of my enlistment in one. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How the hell did this even turn into a discussion about bears? That shit belongs in shotgun home defense threads. Because some kids think they are unique , and they are the only ones who were ever in the military cause of tank icon and such. M4's for SHTF cause thats what they used while in a fully supported military operation. Cause that = SHTF and shotguns aren't deadly anymore cause of M4's That pretty much covers it all. So what sort of problems did you and your unit have with m4s? What makes you think we had M4's when I was in , I never stated that anywhere. Again you are trying to make your experience the only experience you think is relevant. I stated that the M4 is inadequate when compared to a rifle. It is, I also stated the military had to supplement the M4;s inadequacy with DMR rifles and ammunition programs , they did. I am not the one trying to bill the M4 as the end all be all of equipment. I said its not a good choice in a SHTF situation as described by the OP, it works for the military because of the manner in which it is employed. Machine gun support, air support and Designated Marksmen augment the M4 . Of course I am sure you will correct me and tell me that's not how combat works now days. I know you were out there all by yourself just an M4 and no help. In a SHTF situation in the US because of disaster etc etc.. do you think as a private citizen you are going to have all those resources? Of course in a perfect world I would have an M551A1 in my garage for those SHTF moments cause I spent part of my enlistment in one. Sharpshooter hit the nail on the head! Spot on! Everyone should pay attention and read this post a couple times to make sure it sinks in. |
|
|
Quoted:
Sharpshooter hit the nail on the head! Spot on! Everyone should pay attention and read this post a couple times to make sure it sinks in. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How the hell did this even turn into a discussion about bears? That shit belongs in shotgun home defense threads. Because some kids think they are unique , and they are the only ones who were ever in the military cause of tank icon and such. M4's for SHTF cause thats what they used while in a fully supported military operation. Cause that = SHTF and shotguns aren't deadly anymore cause of M4's That pretty much covers it all. So what sort of problems did you and your unit have with m4s? What makes you think we had M4's when I was in , I never stated that anywhere. Again you are trying to make your experience the only experience you think is relevant. I stated that the M4 is inadequate when compared to a rifle. It is, I also stated the military had to supplement the M4;s inadequacy with DMR rifles and ammunition programs , they did. I am not the one trying to bill the M4 as the end all be all of equipment. I said its not a good choice in a SHTF situation as described by the OP, it works for the military because of the manner in which it is employed. Machine gun support, air support and Designated Marksmen augment the M4 . Of course I am sure you will correct me and tell me that's not how combat works now days. I know you were out there all by yourself just an M4 and no help. In a SHTF situation in the US because of disaster etc etc.. do you think as a private citizen you are going to have all those resources? Of course in a perfect world I would have an M551A1 in my garage for those SHTF moments cause I spent part of my enlistment in one. Sharpshooter hit the nail on the head! Spot on! Everyone should pay attention and read this post a couple times to make sure it sinks in. Except for it all being bullshit. You're right, except for that small little tidbit, great post! Fun little fact, the military has now gone away from "DMR" style 5.56 rifles in favor of shorter .308 options. If we're strictly going after things that have supplemented the M4 in one way or another, your 18-20" 5.56 AR is out and a 16-20" .308 gas gun is in. |
|
Quoted:
If it was superior why was it supplemented ? Politics played no small roll in it being adopted service wide I am certain. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because some kids think they are unique , and they are the only ones who were ever in the military cause of tank icon and such. M4's for SHTF cause thats what they used while in a fully supported military operation. Cause that = SHTF and shotguns aren't deadly anymore cause of M4's That pretty much covers it all. So what sort of problems did you and your unit have with m4s? What makes you think we had M4's when I was in , I never stated that anywhere. Again you are trying to make your experience the only experience you think is relevant. I stated that the M4 is inadequate when compared to a rifle. It is, I also stated the military had to supplement the M4;s inadequacy with DMR rifles and ammunition programs , they did. I am not the one trying to bill the M4 as the end all be all of equipment. I said its not a good choice in a SHTF situation as described by the OP, it works for the military because of the manner in which it is employed. Machine gun support, air support and Designated Marksmen augment the M4 . Of course I am sure you will correct me and tell me that's not how combat works now days. I know you were out there all by yourself just an M4 and no help. In a SHTF situation in the US because of disaster etc etc.. do you think as a private citizen you are going to have all those resources? Of course in a perfect world I would have an M551A1 in my garage for those SHTF moments cause I spent part of my enlistment in one. If the M4 was inadequate, why was it merely supplemented and not replaced? Why has adoption of the M4 broadened over time? If it was superior why was it supplemented ? Politics played no small roll in it being adopted service wide I am certain. Why are M240B machine guns, M9 pistols, and M2010 sniper rifles issued if the M4 is a good infantry rifle? If the M4 doesn't suck, why do we have fighter jets, tanks, submarines, and nuclear bombs? The fact that we are buying F-35s is proof that the M4 is a complete failure. |
|
Quoted:
I'm sure people who have never encountered a Blackie think they are dangerous. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You keep throwing around terms like "kills", "deadly", "dangerous game".... These are indicators that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You clearly don't know what dangerous game is Einstein. Bears are absolutely considered dangerous game. I don't give a shit what you think you know, please go on and tell me more. Oh by the way your sarcasm meter is broken . So is mine, what have you been sarcastic about? fwiw no one considers black bears dangerous game. I'm sure people who have never encountered a Blackie think they are dangerous. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Ive encountered lots and have had a hard time keeping them in the same county. They are pretty skittish and I consider untrained dogs and cows more dangerous. Im not saying they are not dangerous but calling them dangerous game is a bit if a stretch. I have more bruises from flailing deer than bears once they're down |
|
Quoted:
Damage wasn't the primary concern I was alluding to, though that is also a valid point as glass is much less durable than steel. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Do you believe irons are somehow immune from damage? Also did you ever provide a link to data showing SBRs are more failure prone? Damage wasn't the primary concern I was alluding to, though that is also a valid point as glass is much less durable than steel. Because optics have been proven to be so fragile, unreliable and useless. It's really a mystery how 99.999999% of professionals use optics. They must all be noobs. |
|
Quoted:
Because optics have been proven to be so fragile, unreliable and useless. It's really a mystery how 99.999999% of professionals use optics. They must all be noobs. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do you believe irons are somehow immune from damage? Also did you ever provide a link to data showing SBRs are more failure prone? Damage wasn't the primary concern I was alluding to, though that is also a valid point as glass is much less durable than steel. Because optics have been proven to be so fragile, unreliable and useless. It's really a mystery how 99.999999% of professionals use optics. They must all be noobs. At this point, there's no way this dude isn't trolling. |
|
Quoted:
I'm not poor, so I have plenty of my "special tacticool" ammo laying around. Maybe try making more money so you don't have these issues? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In Blue: Why the hell would a civilian not bound by international rules be using only ballistically inferior ball ammo regardless of barrel length? I'll take an SBR with Federal Fusion 62's over a 20" firing M193/M855 any day of the week. Furthermore, while I'm not Infantry I can tell you that most infantrypeople (don't wanna be sexist ) would prefer something shorter than an A2/A4 series weapon. Theres nothing "gear queer" about making use of the advancements in weapon technology. In the military we call that attitude institutional inertia. I assume civilians call it stupidity. Because post SHTF, your average CITIZEN can't just stroll down to Walmart to pick up his special tacticool pet .223 zombie round. If all you had available was .223 fmj, would you rather be firing it from a 20" tube or a <16" one? I'm not poor, so I have plenty of my "special tacticool" ammo laying around. Maybe try making more money so you don't have these issues? Ahh, another one who thinks he is going to be an armchair commando in his living room during SHTF! I already addressed your pitiful attempt at a witty rebuttal, kid. Reread the entire thread this time before embarrassing yourself with a premature post that proves you didn't even bother to read before you opened your mouth. |
|
Quoted:
Sharpshooter hit the nail on the head! Spot on! Everyone should pay attention and read this post a couple times to make sure it sinks in. View Quote "This" post, not "his" post? Maybe "your" post? You're probably just both off azimuth in the same way, but I've already had that sock puppet feel today. Maybe you're not trolling, and maybe he's just misguided. Technical questions seeking justification for certain assertions dont get addressed in any case. Seems hinky. |
|
Quoted:
Ahh, another one who thinks he is going to be an armchair commando in his living room during SHTF! I already addressed your pitiful attempt at a witty rebuttal, kid. Reread the entire thread this time before embarrassing yourself with a premature post that proves you didn't even bother to read before you opened your mouth. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In Blue: Why the hell would a civilian not bound by international rules be using only ballistically inferior ball ammo regardless of barrel length? I'll take an SBR with Federal Fusion 62's over a 20" firing M193/M855 any day of the week. Furthermore, while I'm not Infantry I can tell you that most infantrypeople (don't wanna be sexist ) would prefer something shorter than an A2/A4 series weapon. Theres nothing "gear queer" about making use of the advancements in weapon technology. In the military we call that attitude institutional inertia. I assume civilians call it stupidity. Because post SHTF, your average CITIZEN can't just stroll down to Walmart to pick up his special tacticool pet .223 zombie round. If all you had available was .223 fmj, would you rather be firing it from a 20" tube or a <16" one? I'm not poor, so I have plenty of my "special tacticool" ammo laying around. Maybe try making more money so you don't have these issues? Ahh, another one who thinks he is going to be an armchair commando in his living room during SHTF! I already addressed your pitiful attempt at a witty rebuttal, kid. Reread the entire thread this time before embarrassing yourself with a premature post that proves you didn't even bother to read before you opened your mouth. Reread what? The mostly incoherent drivel that you're spewing? Thanks, but no thanks. Have fun with the whole "being poor" thing though. It must suck not being able to afford quality optics or ammo. |
|
Quoted:
Sharpshooter hit the nail on the head! Spot on! Everyone should pay attention and read this post a couple times to make sure it sinks in. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because some kids think they are unique , and they are the only ones who were ever in the military cause of tank icon and such. M4's for SHTF cause thats what they used while in a fully supported military operation. Cause that = SHTF and shotguns aren't deadly anymore cause of M4's That pretty much covers it all. So what sort of problems did you and your unit have with m4s? What makes you think we had M4's when I was in , I never stated that anywhere. Again you are trying to make your experience the only experience you think is relevant. I stated that the M4 is inadequate when compared to a rifle. It is, I also stated the military had to supplement the M4;s inadequacy with DMR rifles and ammunition programs , they did. I am not the one trying to bill the M4 as the end all be all of equipment. I said its not a good choice in a SHTF situation as described by the OP, it works for the military because of the manner in which it is employed. Machine gun support, air support and Designated Marksmen augment the M4 . Of course I am sure you will correct me and tell me that's not how combat works now days. I know you were out there all by yourself just an M4 and no help. In a SHTF situation in the US because of disaster etc etc.. do you think as a private citizen you are going to have all those resources? Of course in a perfect world I would have an M551A1 in my garage for those SHTF moments cause I spent part of my enlistment in one. Sharpshooter hit the nail on the head! Spot on! Everyone should pay attention and read this post a couple times to make sure it sinks in. I do have a hard time understanding how someone with zero experience using something can say that its inadequate and less accurate than its predecessors. Will i understand if I read it a couple more times? |
|
Quoted:
Except for it all being bullshit. You're right, except for that small little tidbit, great post! Fun little fact, the military has now gone away from "DMR" style 5.56 rifles in favor of shorter .308 options. If we're strictly going after things that have supplemented the M4 in one way or another, your 18-20" 5.56 AR is out and a 16-20" .308 gas gun is in. View Quote Nope. You're incorrect again as usual. The initial claim we are disputing is the fallacy that "if the military / gov uses it, it must be the best!" IE, bunch of fools claiming the M4, etc is "better" because uncle sugar has chosen it. As has been proven, just because the government picks something, doesn't mean it is the best, or even very good! |
|
Quoted:
True that you would be a target either way. My point is the best way to survive SHTF is to BE the sniper. Good luck shooting back if I am hunkered down in a forest in full hunting camo. There are no good guys/bad guys in SHTF - only survival of the fittest. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hate to break it to you guys, but anybody running around outside carrying any kind of large firearm, like any AR, is going to be a target for a sniper. Free gun plus free ammo = bonus. Now, if you are the sniper hunkered down picking people off... different story. In Sarajevo you were a target even without a rifle. I'll take my chances with the tool that gives me the option of shooting back....and a radio. Radios are useful. True that you would be a target either way. My point is the best way to survive SHTF is to BE the sniper. Good luck shooting back if I am hunkered down in a forest in full hunting camo. There are no good guys/bad guys in SHTF - only survival of the fittest. So.... Is this going to be your plan all day every day during some kind of SHTF type world? Never going to chop wood, change a tire, take a shit, fix a fence, make chow, walk over to a neighbors house/town to do some trading, go outside to check on the dogs/horses/whatever? Or are you just going to stay hunkered down in full camo all day? Look... I love 18 & 20 inch rifles and shoot the shit out of them in 3-gun all day long. But for a practical carbine in a situation like that, a 14.5" or 16" has got it beat for an "all around" gun any day of the week. 99.999999% of the time you're not going to actually be in an active gunfight and you're going to have to be doing shit. Then you're going to need something that's easy to live with. For the 0.00000000000000000000000001% of the time you're shooting, it's going to be less than 200 meters anyways. Probably more like less than 50-75 meters. Unless your plan in a SHTF world is to just shoot whatever people you see... In which case whatever neighbors you have left are going to just kill you because you're crazy, dangerous, and just shoot people for no reason. |
|
Quoted:
Damage wasn't the primary concern I was alluding to, though that is also a valid point as glass is much less durable than steel. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Do you believe irons are somehow immune from damage? Also did you ever provide a link to data showing SBRs are more failure prone? Damage wasn't the primary concern I was alluding to, though that is also a valid point as glass is much less durable than steel. Would you mind posting a single modern LE or Mil unit tasked with any sort of combat that still uses "steel" sights as opposed to some sort of optical sight. We will be waiting. |
|
Quoted:
Ive encountered lots and have had a hard time keeping them in the same county. They are pretty skittish and I consider untrained dogs and cows more dangerous. Im not saying they are not dangerous but calling them dangerous game is a bit if a stretch. I have more bruises from flailing deer than bears once they're down View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You keep throwing around terms like "kills", "deadly", "dangerous game".... These are indicators that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You clearly don't know what dangerous game is Einstein. Bears are absolutely considered dangerous game. I don't give a shit what you think you know, please go on and tell me more. Oh by the way your sarcasm meter is broken . So is mine, what have you been sarcastic about? fwiw no one considers black bears dangerous game. I'm sure people who have never encountered a Blackie think they are dangerous. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Ive encountered lots and have had a hard time keeping them in the same county. They are pretty skittish and I consider untrained dogs and cows more dangerous. Im not saying they are not dangerous but calling them dangerous game is a bit if a stretch. I have more bruises from flailing deer than bears once they're down Exactly, shoot bear, sit down and eat cookies and listen for death rumble, retrieve bear, make sausage and rug. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
Nope. You're incorrect again as usual. The initial claim we are disputing is the fallacy that "if the military / gov uses it, it must be the best!" IE, bunch of fools claiming the M4, etc is "better" because uncle sugar has chosen it. As has been proven, just because the government picks something, doesn't mean it is the best, or even very good! View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Except for it all being bullshit. You're right, except for that small little tidbit, great post! Fun little fact, the military has now gone away from "DMR" style 5.56 rifles in favor of shorter .308 options. If we're strictly going after things that have supplemented the M4 in one way or another, your 18-20" 5.56 AR is out and a 16-20" .308 gas gun is in. Nope. You're incorrect again as usual. The initial claim we are disputing is the fallacy that "if the military / gov uses it, it must be the best!" IE, bunch of fools claiming the M4, etc is "better" because uncle sugar has chosen it. As has been proven, just because the government picks something, doesn't mean it is the best, or even very good! And the post that you stated was "great" used an argument that because the military used something (a "DMR" style rifle) to supplement the M4, it must be better. So your argument is that using the military as a benchmark is a bad thing, except for when it fits the narrative you're pushing? Do I have that right? |
|
I like the 20' it feels solid in my hands. I have always been a full size rifle guy and while I see the positives of a carbine length I prefer the full size.
|
|
Quoted:
I like the 20' it feels solid in my hands. I have always been a full size rifle guy and while I see the positives of a carbine length I prefer the full size. View Quote Me too. In the real world I much prefer shooting, hunting, and woods bumming with my 20" A2. I even posted a pic. I also much prefer shooting my 1860 army clone but I dont think its better than my glock or beretta as a fighting gun. I may even use.it for black bear this year. |
|
Quoted:
And the post that you stated was "great" used an argument that because the military used something (a "DMR" style rifle) to supplement the M4, it must be better. So your argument is that using the military as a benchmark is a bad thing, except for when it fits the narrative you're pushing? Do I have that right? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Except for it all being bullshit. You're right, except for that small little tidbit, great post! Fun little fact, the military has now gone away from "DMR" style 5.56 rifles in favor of shorter .308 options. If we're strictly going after things that have supplemented the M4 in one way or another, your 18-20" 5.56 AR is out and a 16-20" .308 gas gun is in. Nope. You're incorrect again as usual. The initial claim we are disputing is the fallacy that "if the military / gov uses it, it must be the best!" IE, bunch of fools claiming the M4, etc is "better" because uncle sugar has chosen it. As has been proven, just because the government picks something, doesn't mean it is the best, or even very good! And the post that you stated was "great" used an argument that because the military used something (a "DMR" style rifle) to supplement the M4, it must be better. So your argument is that using the military as a benchmark is a bad thing, except for when it fits the narrative you're pushing? Do I have that right? Incorrect. That actually just proves my point. The military gets it wrong ALL the time, which is why they are constantly changing things. They are hardly the barometer for "what is best". Just look at the history of AR magazines and ammunition to see that point. How many changes did they have to make to the carbine since it was first introduced to address various issues from reliability to lack of stopping power? |
|
Quoted:
Look, for the vast majority of my time in the Marine Corps I was issued the M-16A2 with its wonderful full length stock and 20in barrel. It hurt because like most of you I was also an owner of an M4gery (whatever the equivalent with fixed A2 sights) early in my career and immediately knew it was the handier, lighter equivalent and yes there were trade offs but most of us agree that they are worth it. I deployed twice to Iraq with the A2 and of course did all the pre-deployment workups with it. I finally got my beloved M-4 complete with ACOG, KAC RIS, PEQ-15, etc for AFG 2010 and it was about freaking time! Any vets who were like me and actually used both would most likely go with the M-4, it's a no brainer when you have to carry it around. Any samplings of those same group of vets who would prefer the 20" A2 or A4 are certainly entitled to their opinions but I would go with the majority on this one. Fixed stock :I think you would have to be crazy to prefer a fixed stock even on a 20" rifle. The adjustable length of pull makes too much sense but isn't freedom great (for now).... View Quote What do you know kid. The Krag is the best, anything else the government had a hand in designing and is inadequate. |
|
Quoted:
What do you know kid. The Krag is the best, anything else the government had a hand in designing and is inadequate. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Look, for the vast majority of my time in the Marine Corps I was issued the M-16A2 with its wonderful full length stock and 20in barrel. It hurt because like most of you I was also an owner of an M4gery (whatever the equivalent with fixed A2 sights) early in my career and immediately knew it was the handier, lighter equivalent and yes there were trade offs but most of us agree that they are worth it. I deployed twice to Iraq with the A2 and of course did all the pre-deployment workups with it. I finally got my beloved M-4 complete with ACOG, KAC RIS, PEQ-15, etc for AFG 2010 and it was about freaking time! Any vets who were like me and actually used both would most likely go with the M-4, it's a no brainer when you have to carry it around. Any samplings of those same group of vets who would prefer the 20" A2 or A4 are certainly entitled to their opinions but I would go with the majority on this one. Fixed stock :I think you would have to be crazy to prefer a fixed stock even on a 20" rifle. The adjustable length of pull makes too much sense but isn't freedom great (for now).... What do you know kid. The Krag is the best, anything else the government had a hand in designing and is inadequate. As time goes on, I'm not sure what I know anymore..... |
|
Quoted:
Actually kid I did not. Someone did indeed say I have a tank icon and that makes them an expert... . Go back and read the thread .. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How the hell did this even turn into a discussion about bears? That shit belongs in shotgun home defense threads. Because some kids think they are unique , and they are the only ones who were ever in the military cause of tank icon and such. M4's for SHTF cause thats what they used while in a fully supported military operation. Cause that = SHTF and shotguns aren't deadly anymore cause of M4's That pretty much covers it all. You literally made all of that up. I haven't seen anyone claim anything you just posted. If you're resorting to exaggerations to make your point, you've lost, just give it up already. Actually kid I did not. Someone did indeed say I have a tank icon and that makes them an expert... . Go back and read the thread .. Did he say that made him an expert? I could have swore that he mentioned it because it helps show he's got experience with the issue. You confuse basic words. |
|
Quoted:
Incorrect. That actually just proves my point. The military gets it wrong ALL the time, which is why they are constantly changing things. They are hardly the barometer for "what is best". Just look at the history of AR magazines and ammunition to see that point. How many changes did they have to make to the carbine since it was first introduced to address various issues from reliability to lack of stopping power? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Except for it all being bullshit. You're right, except for that small little tidbit, great post! Fun little fact, the military has now gone away from "DMR" style 5.56 rifles in favor of shorter .308 options. If we're strictly going after things that have supplemented the M4 in one way or another, your 18-20" 5.56 AR is out and a 16-20" .308 gas gun is in. Nope. You're incorrect again as usual. The initial claim we are disputing is the fallacy that "if the military / gov uses it, it must be the best!" IE, bunch of fools claiming the M4, etc is "better" because uncle sugar has chosen it. As has been proven, just because the government picks something, doesn't mean it is the best, or even very good! And the post that you stated was "great" used an argument that because the military used something (a "DMR" style rifle) to supplement the M4, it must be better. So your argument is that using the military as a benchmark is a bad thing, except for when it fits the narrative you're pushing? Do I have that right? Incorrect. That actually just proves my point. The military gets it wrong ALL the time, which is why they are constantly changing things. They are hardly the barometer for "what is best". Just look at the history of AR magazines and ammunition to see that point. How many changes did they have to make to the carbine since it was first introduced to address various issues from reliability to lack of stopping power? You're a fucking trip, bro. ETA: The military always gets it wrong, so they end up replacing stuff with something better, except for in the case of the 20" A2, that was the one time in history they got it wrong. Stellar fucking logic. |
|
Quoted:
This is a dumb ass statement ... Not having a tank does not mean the person you are running your cake hole at did not serve. Nor does having one makes you an expert on rifles , combat or anything else. Of course I am waiting for you to start recanting your many kills and recount your anecdotal evidence of the combat god you want people to believe you are or how the M4 was more deadly than an M1 at twice the range. If you honestly believe that 5.56 is good for dangerous game you are NOT an expert at anything. Fucking tank icon and DoD Expert.. . seriously? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
You realize I've been in the military, don't you? The little tank icon that most of us telling you that you're wrong have means we've served.
"I killed a bear once, I know more about fighting than the DOD" You're no where near as smart or as insightful as you think you are. This is a dumb ass statement ... Not having a tank does not mean the person you are running your cake hole at did not serve. Nor does having one makes you an expert on rifles , combat or anything else. Of course I am waiting for you to start recanting your many kills and recount your anecdotal evidence of the combat god you want people to believe you are or how the M4 was more deadly than an M1 at twice the range. If you honestly believe that 5.56 is good for dangerous game you are NOT an expert at anything. Fucking tank icon and DoD Expert.. . seriously? It's a hint that you should consider what you're saying before you accuse people of "not knowing how the DOD works." It's got nothing to do with "being a combat god." You sure love strawmen and putting words in people's mouths when you're losing an argument, don't you? For fucks sake, man, no one has even mentioned a M1; you seriously need to try a little harder. I never carried the M4. I carried an A4, hence why I know carrying a 20" gun sucks. At least I've got some relevant experience. IF you did, you'd know what I'm saying is correct. Quoted:
How the hell did this even turn into a discussion about bears? That shit belongs in shotgun home defense threads. Dude, you've been here long enough to know that bears are going to come up as soon as a shotgun is mentioned. It's on the list of "must be posted" things for these threads. Bears, don't need to aim, muh gothic carnage, just rack the slide, etc. Apparently, there's a bear crisis affecting every Arfcommer that can't afford a modern self defense firearm. Quoted:
Quoted:
How the hell did this even turn into a discussion about bears? That shit belongs in shotgun home defense threads. Because some kids think they are unique , and they are the only ones who were ever in the military cause of tank icon and such. M4's for SHTF cause thats what they used while in a fully supported military operation. Cause that = SHTF and shotguns aren't deadly anymore cause of M4's That pretty much covers it all. Except you're literally making every bit of that up, but, sure, that's it. I've said at least twice that I was never issued an M4. I'm getting a lot clearer picture of you, now. I'm going to guess, served in the 80s or 90s peace time military, middle aged, never really accomplished much, have a strong, urgent need to shore up your self-perception of masculinity. Such a pressing need that you get angry when anyone disagrees with you, and it leads to a tendency to accuse others of things, yell at nobody, and feel self-righteous afterwards. Bet extends to you, as well. Show me where someone on the carbine side has non-jokingly posted that a shotgun can't kill someone when loaded with proper ammunition (ie, buckshot or a slug) and I'll send you a pmag. Oh, and for what it's worth, the M14 as a DMR, more properly, the M21, came around in 1969...you know, when all but a tiny number of AR pattern rifles were 20". Aren't you the one, by the way, that was just saying the DOD is stupid, and we should ignore any input they have WRT small arms? |
|
Quoted:
Incorrect. That actually just proves my point. The military gets it wrong ALL the time, which is why they are constantly changing things. They are hardly the barometer for "what is best". Just look at the history of AR magazines and ammunition to see that point. How many changes did they have to make to the carbine since it was first introduced to address various issues from reliability to lack of stopping power? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Except for it all being bullshit. You're right, except for that small little tidbit, great post! Fun little fact, the military has now gone away from "DMR" style 5.56 rifles in favor of shorter .308 options. If we're strictly going after things that have supplemented the M4 in one way or another, your 18-20" 5.56 AR is out and a 16-20" .308 gas gun is in. Nope. You're incorrect again as usual. The initial claim we are disputing is the fallacy that "if the military / gov uses it, it must be the best!" IE, bunch of fools claiming the M4, etc is "better" because uncle sugar has chosen it. As has been proven, just because the government picks something, doesn't mean it is the best, or even very good! And the post that you stated was "great" used an argument that because the military used something (a "DMR" style rifle) to supplement the M4, it must be better. So your argument is that using the military as a benchmark is a bad thing, except for when it fits the narrative you're pushing? Do I have that right? Incorrect. That actually just proves my point. The military gets it wrong ALL the time, which is why they are constantly changing things. They are hardly the barometer for "what is best". Just look at the history of AR magazines and ammunition to see that point. How many changes did they have to make to the carbine since it was first introduced to address various issues from reliability to lack of stopping power? So what do you recomend again? |
|
Quoted:
As time goes on, I'm not sure what I know anymore..... View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Look, for the vast majority of my time in the Marine Corps I was issued the M-16A2 with its wonderful full length stock and 20in barrel. It hurt because like most of you I was also an owner of an M4gery (whatever the equivalent with fixed A2 sights) early in my career and immediately knew it was the handier, lighter equivalent and yes there were trade offs but most of us agree that they are worth it. I deployed twice to Iraq with the A2 and of course did all the pre-deployment workups with it. I finally got my beloved M-4 complete with ACOG, KAC RIS, PEQ-15, etc for AFG 2010 and it was about freaking time! Any vets who were like me and actually used both would most likely go with the M-4, it's a no brainer when you have to carry it around. Any samplings of those same group of vets who would prefer the 20" A2 or A4 are certainly entitled to their opinions but I would go with the majority on this one. Fixed stock :I think you would have to be crazy to prefer a fixed stock even on a 20" rifle. The adjustable length of pull makes too much sense but isn't freedom great (for now).... What do you know kid. The Krag is the best, anything else the government had a hand in designing and is inadequate. As time goes on, I'm not sure what I know anymore..... Semper Fi bro |
|
Quoted:
Damage wasn't the primary concern I was alluding to, though that is also a valid point as glass is much less durable than steel. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Do you believe irons are somehow immune from damage? Also did you ever provide a link to data showing SBRs are more failure prone? Damage wasn't the primary concern I was alluding to, though that is also a valid point as glass is much less durable than steel. Interesting that you bring that up. I've seen a fair amount of broken iron sights. Bent front sight posts are fairly common. |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.