User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/30/2016 11:29:05 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 44Echo10:
I believe mounts from both KAC and CQD have been used. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 44Echo10:
Originally Posted By bg10:
What's the clone appropriate front sling mount? I believe mounts from both KAC and CQD have been used. Would the BFG rail mounted front sling loop be acceptable? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2016 11:41:07 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By unstabl: Would the BFG rail mounted front sling loop be acceptable? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By unstabl: Originally Posted By 44Echo10: Originally Posted By bg10: What's the clone appropriate front sling mount? I believe mounts from both KAC and CQD have been used. Would the BFG rail mounted front sling loop be acceptable?  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2016 11:48:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: unstabl]
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By secretwheelman:
<a href="http://s1008.photobucket.com/user/secretwheelman/media/100_0786_zps8654f364.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af204/secretwheelman/100_0786_zps8654f364.jpg</a> Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By secretwheelman:
Originally Posted By unstabl:
Originally Posted By 44Echo10:
Originally Posted By bg10:
What's the clone appropriate front sling mount? I believe mounts from both KAC and CQD have been used. Would the BFG rail mounted front sling loop be acceptable? Thank you. I am almost finished putting together a Mod 0. It won't be perfect, but it's what I can do for the time being. I have a BFG mount and thought it might not get me kicked out of here until I can find one of the above.  Thanks again.
|
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 12/1/2016 3:13:33 AM EDT
[#4]
Just so I'm clear, before I place an order.
Will the NF A108 (1.265") rings clear a NF 2.5-10x24 over the top of the standard KAC rear iron sight found on a MK12 Mod 1 upper? Or in order to clear the rear sight, is it necessary to go to the next size up which is an A110 (1.375")? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2016 8:00:18 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By secretwheelman:
I'm 6' 1" at the end of the day, and use an A1. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 12/1/2016 8:48:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: tfisch67]
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By david05111:
Just so I'm clear, before I place an order. Will the NF A108 (1.265") rings clear a NF 2.5-10x24 over the top of the standard KAC rear iron sight found on a MK12 Mod 1 upper? Or in order to clear the rear sight, is it necessary to go to the next size up which is an A110 (1.375")? Dave, the A110 at 1.375" height-to-center will keep things as low-profile as possible while still clearing a KAC BUIS. At least with regard to the NF 2.5-10x24 and running any sort of rear lens cover. To put the clearance in perspective, that set up will not clear a SCAR BUIS. The SCAR BUIS is only slightly higher than the KAC BUIS. Enough to make the difference though. You don't want to go any lower than the A110. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2016 9:15:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Great_Balls_of_Fire]
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By david05111:
Just so I'm clear, before I place an order. Will the NF A108 (1.265") rings clear a NF 2.5-10x24 over the top of the standard KAC rear iron sight found on a MK12 Mod 1 upper? Or in order to clear the rear sight, is it necessary to go to the next size up which is an A110 (1.375")? You will need the A110 @ 1.375" height. While not the NF Xlite rings or NF x24, the badger rings on my M110 clone are 1.375" in height and clear the KAC 600m rear buis with ease (Mk4 has a very similar eyepiece profile). To give you an idea: 
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 12/1/2016 1:16:53 PM EDT
[#8]
Does anyone know how many MK12's were built?
-Kirby |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2016 1:55:18 PM EDT
[#9]
Does anyone know where the hell the other 700+ pages of my thread went?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2016 1:59:50 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RTUtah:
Does anyone know where the hell the other 700+ pages of my thread went? They're all here, it seems that the new website format allows for twice as many posts per page, so 1400+ turned into 700+ |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2016 2:00:01 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RTUtah:
Does anyone know where the hell the other 700+ pages of my thread went? We went from 25 posts/page to 50, therefore it cut threads down in half. |
|
|
|
MN, USA
|
Posted: 12/1/2016 2:00:55 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RTUtah:
Does anyone know where the hell the other 700+ pages of my thread went? I think they more-or-less doubled the number of posts per page, which resulted in threads halving their page count. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2016 2:01:05 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RTUtah:
Does anyone know where the hell the other 700+ pages of my thread went? I think the new site has more posts per page. If I go back to pg 1 it is actually pg 1 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2016 2:03:38 PM EDT
[#14]
Roger that, guys. I figured they expanded the posts-per-page but I still don't like this new feel. Oh well, gotta get used to it.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2016 2:10:33 PM EDT
[#15]
The doubled the number of posts per page but also made the posts you can see on the screen less. More scrolling
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2016 2:13:47 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By A_Friendly_Manatee:
I think they more-or-less doubled the number of posts per page, which resulted in threads halving their page count. 25 x 2 does indeed equal 50. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2016 2:14:25 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RTUtah:
Roger that, guys. I figured they expanded the posts-per-page but I still don't like this new feel. Oh well, gotta get used to it. I like it because I prefer to use my Flickr account for image hosting (laziness, not wanting to sign up for or learn a new hosting website) but it was pretty much impossible to do on my phone so I could only post pics via my laptop. Much easier now  Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2016 3:19:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Zakk101abn]
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RTUtah:
Roger that, guys. I figured they expanded the posts-per-page but I still don't like this new feel. Oh well, gotta get used to it. Wtf is this witchcraft! I feel so lost... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2016 3:26:24 PM EDT
[#19]
Just in case anyone is curious, it costs $530 to ship 20 pelican 1700s. All cases have shipped.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2016 3:35:25 PM EDT
[#20]
Thank you!
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2016 3:38:09 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Zakk101abn:
Wtf is this witchcraft! I feel so lost... You're not kidding. I'm already realizing that it can do some sweet stuff and will be much simpler, buuuuuttttttttttttt at the moment the I HATE CHANGE side of me is taking over. I'm already liking my emojicon options. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2016 3:43:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Samson-Dogg]
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By KavonTN:
Just in case anyone is curious, it costs $530 to ship 20 pelican 1700s. All cases have shipped. Thanks. I'm curious to get mine and see if I like it. Not a huge fan of the worn look but stranger things have grown on me( ace socom). Thanks for doing all this. I think it's really appreciated by all. I love the new way of posting pics. Image hosting sucks. 
|
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 12/1/2016 4:12:38 PM EDT
[#23]
Gonna be a lot of 1st page owning retracting, haha!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2016 4:36:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Zakk101abn]
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By chenault:
You're not kidding. I'm already realizing that it can do some sweet stuff and will be much simpler, buuuuuttttttttttttt at the moment the I HATE CHANGE side of me is taking over. I'm already liking my emojicon options.  Attached FileI'm completely lost on how to post pics... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2016 4:45:53 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RTUtah:
Roger that, guys. I figured they expanded the posts-per-page but I still don't like this new feel. Oh well, gotta get used to it. Yeah the mobile site is MUCH improved. Actually...it finally exists. The site was not mobile-responsive before so you got the desktop version everywhere. 
Roughly half of internet traffic is "mobile" so this will undoubtedly help site traffic, advertisers, Google rankings, etc. So I'm happy. 
I do prefer the old look though. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2016 4:48:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: dangerdan]
[#26]
Uploading from my phone doesn't seem to work |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2016 5:51:06 PM EDT
[#27]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2016 6:32:45 PM EDT
[#28]
 Just a test.
New ARF is pretty good so far.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2016 7:25:18 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By secretwheelman:
Just a test. New ARF is pretty good so far. That's bad ass right there. 
|
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 12/1/2016 10:30:31 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tfisch67:
Dave, the A110 at 1.375" height-to-center will keep things as low-profile as possible while still clearing a KAC BUIS. At least with regard to the NF 2.5-10x24 and running any sort of rear lens cover. To put the clearance in perspective, that set up will not clear a SCAR BUIS. The SCAR BUIS is only slightly higher than the KAC BUIS. Enough to make the difference though. You don't want to go any lower than the A110. Cool, thanks for the info. |
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 12/1/2016 10:49:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: david05111]
[#31]
OK I need some opinions. My scope showed up today and I threw the gun together with some parts I had lying around. I know its not the correct suppressor (its on order) and I'd like to have the shorter bipod (the upper came with this one).
The concern I have is the optic mount. The optic came in an LT104, which in one way is convenient. It allowed me to assess the height I prefer the optic to be set at for one and for another, it helped me establish what sort of eye relief I'll need. The A1 stock I fitted forces the optic to be a bit close to my face, so the mount compensates for that well by pulling it forward. The consequence is that I can't see a way where I can use "correct" rings, Nightforce or otherwise, to get the scope in a position far enough forward to attain reasonable eye relief. And that leaves me with a choice to make I suppose. Do I stick with it as it is, and simply use a mount that isn't "correct"? Or do I swap to an A2 stock and grab correct rings and *hope* that gives me enough eye relief to make it a useful package? Is there another practical solution? Here's the gun as it's currently configured. Waiting on grip panels and a KAC broomhandle to be delivered tomorrow. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2016 11:19:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 78Staff]
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By david05111:
OK I need some opinions. My scope showed up today and I threw the gun together with some parts I had lying around. I know its not the correct suppressor (its on order) and I'd like to have the shorter bipod (the upper came with this one). The concern I have is the optic mount. The optic came in an LT104, which in one way is convenient. It allowed me to assess the height I prefer the optic to be set at for one and for another, it helped me establish what sort of eye relief I'll need. The A1 stock I fitted forces the optic to be a bit close to my face, so the mount compensates for that well by pulling it forward. The consequence is that I can't see a way where I can use "correct" rings, Nightforce or otherwise, to get the scope in a position far enough forward to attain reasonable eye relief. And that leaves me with a choice to make I suppose. Do I stick with it as it is, and simply use a mount that isn't "correct"? Or do I swap to an A2 stock and grab correct rings and *hope* that gives me enough eye relief to make it a useful package? Is there another practical solution? Here's the gun as it's currently configured. Waiting on grip panels and a KAC broomhandle to be delivered tomorrow. https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5712/31328785196_d549251d6d_b.jpg Essentially for me the A1 and proper rings just don't work. I had to switch to an A2 to get decent eye relief with the correct scope and rings. I ran the LT104 for a few months while sourcing the correct rings, and it sure does make things easier :). However to go correct if the A1 isn't working for you then your options are switch to A2, or switch to SOPMOD collapsible. Or, if you really want to play it loose, the LT104 is in the wild correct apparently, if you want to go down that road. Or switch to ARMS 36 and use lower height rings. Lastly you can bridge the gap with rings, and really get yelled at. But there are several images of this also occurring in the wild, but it's frowned upon. 
Personally for me, the MK12 Mod1 just doesn't look right without ARMS rings and TS30 :) which is why I ditched the LT104. But it took me better part of a year to find the correct no-hump 22h's... more testing of the medial library :).    
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2016 11:48:33 PM EDT
[#33]
I actually want to ditch my Larue mount as well, but I don't know if I want rings or a unimount type setup.
|
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 12:12:59 AM EDT
[#34]
Yeah I'm inclined to go with correct rings, but the only way I see that that's going to work is with an A2 maybe or a SOPMOD. And I'd definitely prefer a fixed stock...might not be able to get all the "wants" though. I could build it "correct" and it might compromise practical usability for me.
This isn't bad (not mine), but it looks like it only works with the SOPMOD. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 1:08:44 AM EDT
[#35]
 Mk12 Mod1 Overview |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 2:16:22 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryAwesome. I like the gun and video format is way better than pics. Way to go |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 2:26:56 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryNIce,looks like you get close to 3 turns, same as me. Actually I'm just under 3 turns. Read here somewhere that was original spec, then they later changed it to get a few more turns. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 9:07:33 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 78Staff:
NIce,looks like you get close to 3 turns, same as me. Actually I'm just under 3 turns. Read here somewhere that was original spec, then they later changed it to get a few more turns. Yeah I honestly forget the count but it's not much. As I recall, the Holland got more turns but my Mk18 Mod0 12.5" gets the most. It's never been an issue, though. When that can threads on and centers against the shoulder of the collar, it's always right where it should be. Flawless design even if it's not "quick". |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 9:22:34 AM EDT
[#39]
|
|
|
|
OR, USA
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 6:00:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: mrsaturn7085]
[#40]
I'm at a bit of a crossroads here with my Mod 0 upper... I'm at a point where making it any more 'correct' would take the following parts:
1. Genuine wheeled FSB (and have barrel milled for flats) 2. Genuine early PRi foreend 3. Genuine early A.R.M.S. rings Honestly, the only one I'd probably ever bother with is the wheeled FSB as the other details don't bother me... unfortunately, that'd also probably run me $500+ including the barrel machine work. The other concern is that I don't really care much about the lower - I've got my one registered lower set up exactly how I want it, and I'm not about to change it to impress people online (which is why I don't really post pictures in clone threads, for the most part). So at this point, I'm considering selling off the Mod 0 upper sans-optics and suppressor, and building a Mod H given the availability of the parts, marginally lower weight, etc. I think the biggest thing holding me back is concerns over accuracy (given the Mk 262 load was designed around an 18" bbl) - maybe someone who's owned both could chime in with comparisons? |
|
|
TN, USA
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 6:21:18 PM EDT
[#41]
It's been awhile since I've posted here since we've been pretty busy lately, but I figured I'd throw up a few pictures from the last few days.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 6:40:07 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Nikiel09:
It's been awhile since I've posted here since we've been pretty busy lately, but I figured I'd throw up a few pictures from the last few days. http://i398.photobucket.com/albums/pp70/Nikiel09/FF52B0BC-86DB-438B-A136-5C4250BBAEC2_zpskb8lxj9o.jpg http://i398.photobucket.com/albums/pp70/Nikiel09/16FA4B5D-9DE9-439A-AC08-F0930E90F81D_zpsjxh0re4h.jpg http://i398.photobucket.com/albums/pp70/Nikiel09/74DC4A5B-0073-4E1B-B4C2-D7CA8F13092E_zpsb3c6j9e5.jpg You never seem to disappoint.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 6:54:35 PM EDT
[#43]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 7:05:48 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Nikiel09:
It's been awhile since I've posted here since we've been pretty busy lately, but I figured I'd throw up a few pictures from the last few days. http://i398.photobucket.com/albums/pp70/Nikiel09/FF52B0BC-86DB-438B-A136-5C4250BBAEC2_zpskb8lxj9o.jpg http://i398.photobucket.com/albums/pp70/Nikiel09/16FA4B5D-9DE9-439A-AC08-F0930E90F81D_zpsjxh0re4h.jpg http://i398.photobucket.com/albums/pp70/Nikiel09/74DC4A5B-0073-4E1B-B4C2-D7CA8F13092E_zpsb3c6j9e5.jpg Hot damn, that's sexy |
|
|
|
WI, USA
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 8:17:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: JJREA]
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By david05111:
Yeah I'm inclined to go with correct rings, but the only way I see that that's going to work is with an A2 maybe or a SOPMOD. And I'd definitely prefer a fixed stock...might not be able to get all the "wants" though. I could build it "correct" and it might compromise practical usability for me. This isn't bad (not mine), but it looks like it only works with the SOPMOD. http://scontent.cdninstagram.com/t51.2885-15/e35/13694700_311643485847222_372400920_n.jpg?ig_cache_key=MTI5MzQ5MTg5ODMzMzQ5NTU4Nw%3D%3D.2 I'm pretty sure we see the LT-104 in a lot of pics on Mod 1's. Not something I've seen on a Mod 0 I don't think. IMHO, even an A2 will be pushing it for prone shooting. But as I said before, depends on neck length and if you're wearing a vest or thick jacket. An A1 is 5/8" shorter than an A2. You could cut up a 5/8" in block of wood or something and see if it makes a difference. Traditional rings just put that scope back really far. I agree it looks better, and I GUESS it's more clone correct. But I swear there have been pics of LT-104's on guns being used. Hasn't there? I think they use it on the Mod H. Or there is always this option, but prepare to bend over and get a reaming from everyone if you go that route. I still kind of want to try it on my recce. But I noticed my rail feels a tiny bit canted in comparison to my receiver, so it might be a bad idea in general. They Mod 0 and Mod h builds had it right. With the scout rail. I've seen it on a Mod 1 also. Which in the end, that's what I'd recommend doing, if you don't want to stick with the LT-104: 
Scout rail on Mod 1 woot woot: 
ETA: I just realized I just said everything 78staff did. Sorry about that. |
|
|
WI, USA
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 8:34:59 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mrsaturn7085:
I'm at a bit of a crossroads here with my Mod 0 upper... I'm at a point where making it any more 'correct' would take the following parts: 1. Genuine wheeled FSB (and have barrel milled for flats) 2. Genuine early PRi foreend 3. Genuine early A.R.M.S. rings http://i924.photobucket.com/albums/ad85/mrsaturn7085b/IMG_1683_zpsrjsicvm2.jpg Honestly, the only one I'd probably ever bother with is the wheeled FSB as the other details don't bother me... unfortunately, that'd also probably run me $500+ including the barrel machine work. The other concern is that I don't really care much about the lower - I've got my one registered lower set up exactly how I want it, and I'm not about to change it to impress people online (which is why I don't really post pictures in clone threads, for the most part). So at this point, I'm considering selling off the Mod 0 upper sans-optics and suppressor, and building a Mod H given the availability of the parts, marginally lower weight, etc. I think the biggest thing holding me back is concerns over accuracy (given the Mk 262 load was designed around an 18" bbl) - maybe someone who's owned both could chime in with comparisons? mark my words: EVERY BARREL IS PREJUDICED. It's not a foregone conclusion that any 18" barrel will shoot MK262 well. Obviously the chances go up with a better quality barrel. But even some really good barrels get kind of picky about what they like. I mean it will probably shoot it pretty decent regardless. But you never know. I bought a box of Black Hills red 69 BTHP's with high expecations for my recce but it shoots it for crap. Yet it shoots 75's and 77's really well. 68's a lot better than the 69's and some other loads it really likes. But it sure hates though 69's. You gotta figure out with each barrel what it likes. Have you ever run Mk262 through that upper? I'm not even sure I'd consider Mk262 the best ammo for accuracy. It's kind of hot and that doesn't always translate to good accuracy. At least that's how I understand it. Although I've seen pics of some that shot it really well . So..... |
|
|
OR, USA
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 8:43:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: mrsaturn7085]
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JJREA:
mark my words: EVERY BARREL IS PREJUDICED. It's not a foregone conclusion that any 18" barrel will shoot MK262 well. Obviously the chances go up with a better quality barrel. But even some really good barrels get kind of picky about what they like. I mean it will probably shoot it pretty decent regardless. But you never know. I bought a box of Black Hills red 69 BTHP's with high expecations for my recce but it shoots it for crap. Yet it shoots 75's and 77's really well. 68's a lot better than the 69's and some other loads it really likes. But it sure hates though 69's. You gotta figure out with each barrel what it likes. Have you ever run Mk262 through that upper? I'm not even sure I'd consider Mk262 the best ammo for accuracy. It's kind of hot and that doesn't always translate to good accuracy. At least that's how I understand it. Although I've seen pics of some that shot it really well . So..... Shoots about 1.1-1.2 MOA w/Mk 262; approximately 100-150 rds total through the upper. Barrel is a HCS, all upper parts are brand-new Colt, faced the receiver, installed the barrel with a reaction rod, and used retaining compound on the barrel extension during installation (which is why I'm not just planning to buy the handguard and new barrel, reuse the old parts, and call it a day). |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 9:04:07 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JJREA:
ETA: I just realized I just said everything 78staff did. Sorry about that. No no man - good stuff :). I'm digging that scout rail, might have to look for one of them, or the ARMS 36 :). What's the "official" name for that scout rail? |
|
|
|
WI, USA
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 10:23:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: JJREA]
[#49]
I guess I'm using the wrong term. PRI calls it a Recce Rail.
prireccerail But that one on the Mod 1 I posted looks like something different. But not the same as the one on the Mod 0. That one seems longer and thicker..... Is it the ARMS 36 you were talking about? I don't know if the PRI recce rail would work on a non PRI FF handgaurd. That one picture might be how you'd have to do it on a Mod 1, but i have no clue what it is. I'm guessing some kind of ARMS rail. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 11:17:50 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JJREA:
I guess I'm using the wrong term. PRI calls it a Recce Rail. prireccerail But that one on the Mod 1 I posted looks like something different. But not the same as the one on the Mod 0. That one seems longer and thicker..... Is it the ARMS 36 you were talking about? I don't know if the PRI recce rail would work on a non PRI FF handgaurd. That one picture might be how you'd have to do it on a Mod 1, but i have no clue what it is. I'm guessing some kind of ARMS rail. I believe it's a ARMS #36 s-ex |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
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.
Attached File
Attached File
