User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/14/2014 7:41:05 AM EDT
[#1]
I ran Tula in a carbine course 1k rounds not one hiccup, I'd rather shoot brass cause of barrel life tho. I'd rather not shoot bi-metal in the stainless barrel cause of wear but for the cheaper barrels you'll come out ahead shooting steel. If your gun can't run steel case time for a new gun IMHO
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2014 11:02:59 AM EDT
[#2]
I wonder if the bi-metal projectiles have any negative effects on chrome-lined barrells?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2014 11:38:03 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wonder if the bi-metal projectiles have any negative effects on chrome-lined barrells? They decrease barrel life. Depending on how much the barrel costs and the price differential between brass and steel cased ammo, it may or may not be worth it to shoot the stuff through your gun (the data suggests that the answer will be "yes" for most people). |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2014 12:04:24 PM EDT
[#4]
I shoot Tula and Herter's (made by Tula) almost exclusively through all three of my AR's and have never had a malfunction with it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2014 12:34:30 PM EDT
[#5]
Yeah Tula ammo is good to go in all the AR's between the family. I only shoot it through my LMT upper since its chrome lined and gets 250yard 10" gong accuracy all day with it. Nice to allow other shooters to use it, get a new scope dialed on paper, or in general to lazy to pick up brass in the weeds.
Its actually pretty accurate in my fathers 18" mini sass barrel, ill see if I still have the target with iron sights at 100 yards it had five shots around 1-1/2" |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2014 1:53:40 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted: Comments anyone... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2014 2:40:00 PM EDT
[#7]
First off thanks for posting this. More data is always great, and it's always good to see other's experience.
A few comments. Heavier bullets are gong to have lower velocity, so really you are mostly only comparing Tula to the Federal - which is subltly faster. But not bad really for the Tula out of a 16". If you don't mind my asking, what is the barrel twist? 200 rounds of each is a very full day. But enough rounds to really start getting some credible data. The Black hills data is a nice calibrator - showing that with good ammo your rifle is capable of around 2 MOA. Which is probably about right. Accuracy results aren't particularly astounding. M855 really isn't that great of a bullet, and American Rifleman points that due to the imbalances of the dual core design, it likes to zing around - the same way an imbalanced turbine will go flying off the handle when spun really fast. Supposedly if you have a fast twist barrel, that makes the effects of the imbalance even worse with such bullets. In any event, not surprising that was the worst grouping. Looks like the Tula is good for around 3" at 100 yards, or 3 MOA. That's actually not bad, for what that ammo is. For your gun - I'd buy Tula and call it GtG. Pick up a spare barrel and extractor when you see them on sale, and be thinking of changing out around 5000 rounds or so. Maybe sooner if you do a lot of rapid fire and cook your BBL. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2014 4:05:45 PM EDT
[#8]
Your test, while interesting, doesn't really address the issue:
Cycle problems are caused by pressure variations. That is a cartridge that might work fine in one rifle, maynot work in another due to the differences in the gas system and rifle. Pressure is related to the velocity of a bullet but not the same as measuring the pressure it self...... In order to answer the question of pressure differences in different ammo- test the pressure of the different rounds................ That will give you a better idea of this question............. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2014 5:37:26 PM EDT
[#9]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2014 6:47:55 PM EDT
[#10]
Pretty much there's enough reports out there for anyone that cares to read. Tula has been proven to NOT be weak but have improper burn rates. People tend to repeat what they hear others say. That tends to be what gives some guns issues. And read the link posted about me from Lucky Gunner Labs. Good info.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2014 3:04:13 AM EDT
[#11]
I received several question and comments which I appreciate and I will try to elaborate more here
1.) The barrel I used was 1/7 twist chrome lined 16 inch barrel made by PSA 2.) Velocity and accuracy was average for all 5 shot strings 3.) Temperature was 88 degrees and cloudy 4.) All shots were made from a bench rest and the barrel was allowed to cool after each 5 shot string. Test lasted about 5 hours. I have a home range so it was not so bad. 5.) The rifle was field stripped and cleaned before starting on the next 200 rounds so to keep the playing field somewhat level between the ammo brands 6.) The cleanest burning ammo was Black Hills and the dirtiest was Tula, but Lake City Industries ammo was also quite dirty as well. 7.) There were Zero malfunctions with all brands of Ammo 8.) Cost was as follows Tula $5.49 box of 20 at 28 cents a round, Black Hills $49.99 Box of 50 at $1.00 per round, Lake City Industries $199.00 Case of 420 at .48 cents a round , and Federal $8.99 box of 20 at .45 cents a round 9.) Conclusion: I wanted to prove to my self that all of the negativity around Tula ammo is misplaced and in fact it is a good quality ammo for the AR Platform Rife. I will continue to use it in all of my 5 different AR rifles. The cost per round is cheaper and thus will allow you to shoot more and get more practice in which is always a good thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2014 5:37:53 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 9.) Conclusion: I wanted to prove to my self that all of the negativity around Tula ammo is misplaced and in fact it is a good quality ammo for the AR Platform Rife. I will continue to use it in all of my 5 different AR rifles. The cost per round is cheaper and thus will allow you to shoot more and get more practise in which is always a good thing. For and example, you wanted to prove it was "quality" ammo for the ar platform, your testing procedures do not address that at all. It only proves that the selections of ammo for a one time event worked to YOUR quality specifications (which I'm assuming it met because you did not state it) Unless you have the same lot of ammo, tested over a wide range of ARs to be significant, in both shots fired and number in sample, it did not address anything other than your rifle (actually it doesn't even apply to your other 4). BTW to get into the 95% confidence range you need to test about 500 rounds from a sample (from 1k to 10K) These are all problems with a "test" its sounds formal when you look at it, but if you look at procedures and criteria it really doesn't mean squat to another persons rifle. Im not trying to shit on your test, I'm saying it really doesn't prove anything past your 1 sample size (as you stated in your conclusion). |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2014 6:06:20 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
BTW to get into the 95% confidence range you need to test about 500 rounds from a sample (from 1k to 10K) These are all problems with a "test" its sounds formal when you look at it, but if you look at procedures and criteria it really doesn't mean squat to another persons rifle. Im not trying to shit on your test, I'm saying it really doesn't prove anything past your 1 sample size (as you stated in your conclusion). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: BTW to get into the 95% confidence range you need to test about 500 rounds from a sample (from 1k to 10K) These are all problems with a "test" its sounds formal when you look at it, but if you look at procedures and criteria it really doesn't mean squat to another persons rifle. Im not trying to shit on your test, I'm saying it really doesn't prove anything past your 1 sample size (as you stated in your conclusion). I stated from the very beginning that this is by no means a scientific test only my observation and personal experience. I will have to disagree with you in that it does not prove anything when in fact it clearly shows the Velocity of the Tula ammo is right up there with the best of them as is the accuracy and shooting 1000 rounds over the course of this test might not be earth shattering evidence, but it is surely a credit to the 4 makers of ammo used in my test. Being there was Zero Malfunctions with all ammo is also good news and dispels all I have read about Tula cases sticking and tearing off the extractor. Which I have never had an issue with and I have fired many thousands of rounds through all 5 of my rifles. In the end, I wanted to take a small sample size of the most popular .223 ammo and see what I got under controlled conditions. I tried to be thorough to best of my ability and impartial and let the date speak for itself, which I think I did a pretty good job at. I hope this proves useful to someone out there and if it does not so be it. I sure had a good time letting a lot of lead fly downrange, so it was not a total lose anyway 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2014 7:08:19 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
the problem is the "quality" definition, it means different things to different people and you did not define it to start with For and example, you wanted to prove it was "quality" ammo for the ar platform, your testing procedures do not address that at all. It only proves that the selections of ammo for a one time event worked to YOUR quality specifications (which I'm assuming it met because you did not state it) Unless you have the same lot of ammo, tested over a wide range of ARs to be significant, in both shots fired and number in sample, it did not address anything other than your rifle (actually it doesn't even apply to your other 4). BTW to get into the 95% confidence range you need to test about 500 rounds from a sample (from 1k to 10K) These are all problems with a "test" its sounds formal when you look at it, but if you look at procedures and criteria it really doesn't mean squat to another persons rifle. Im not trying to shit on your test, I'm saying it really doesn't prove anything past your 1 sample size (as you stated in your conclusion). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
9.) Conclusion: I wanted to prove to my self that all of the negativity around Tula ammo is misplaced and in fact it is a good quality ammo for the AR Platform Rife. I will continue to use it in all of my 5 different AR rifles. The cost per round is cheaper and thus will allow you to shoot more and get more practise in which is always a good thing. For and example, you wanted to prove it was "quality" ammo for the ar platform, your testing procedures do not address that at all. It only proves that the selections of ammo for a one time event worked to YOUR quality specifications (which I'm assuming it met because you did not state it) Unless you have the same lot of ammo, tested over a wide range of ARs to be significant, in both shots fired and number in sample, it did not address anything other than your rifle (actually it doesn't even apply to your other 4). BTW to get into the 95% confidence range you need to test about 500 rounds from a sample (from 1k to 10K) These are all problems with a "test" its sounds formal when you look at it, but if you look at procedures and criteria it really doesn't mean squat to another persons rifle. Im not trying to shit on your test, I'm saying it really doesn't prove anything past your 1 sample size (as you stated in your conclusion). Just so we are all on the same page, every ammunition test is descriptive in nature and doesn't prove anything past the sample size, unless inferential analysis is conducted (which never happens). |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2014 7:41:31 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Tula has been proven to NOT be weak but have improper burn rates. This. The pressure curve/burn rate is poor for the AR15 operating system... some gas system configurations seem to do a bit better than others but not ideal at all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2014 8:41:18 AM EDT
[#16]
questionable test, at best
If you just want to shoot Tula, do it. If you want to try to prove how great it is, well, good luck. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2014 8:43:52 AM EDT
[#17]
With brass case 5.56 approaching the $0.30 per round mark, Tula is becoming more and more useless by the day. But hey, whatever makes you feel better.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2014 9:21:02 AM EDT
[#18]
I have had surprisingly accurate results from using Tula myself.
Unfortunately, it is very dirty and inconsistent ammo. This can cause it to give cycling problems in some guns depending on how each lot is loaded. I've had absolutely filthy tula, coated in a fine grey powder. I've had tula that was so inconsistent, you could feel the pressure differences between each shot fired from the same box. A properly set up AR can usually run it fine, but it is the least reliable brand of all the commercial ammo that is out there, including the other steel. Which is exactly why I have a case of it. I use it to "function / reliability test" new guns. If it can cycle through the tula fine with no problems, chances are the gun will eat anything without issue. As others have said though, it greatly decreases barrel life in a gun. Through comparrrison tests, it was shown that steel cased bi-metal jacket ammo wears barrels out in around half the time as conventional copper jacketed brass bullets. I consider firing one round of steel the same as 2 of brass for this reason. IE, firing a box of 20 rounds of steel will be logged as having fired 40 rounds through the gun of regular ammo due to the 2x wear of the bi-metal jacket. I must say though that your velocity results for Federal seem WAY off. Are you SURE you're firing XM193 and NOT AE223??? A 16" AR should be getting 3,150 fps at the muzzle from a 16" barrel. Your chrony numbers from 10 ft shouldn't be much lower than 3,100 fps. In fact, 2,900 fps would be low for XM193 out of even a 14.5" barrel! Your 2,800 fps for XM855 is also at least 100 - 150 fps too low! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2014 10:16:24 AM EDT
[#19]
People have had problems using Tula. Obviously quite a few or this wouldn't have started up, again.
You shot a measly 200 rounds of it, clocked its speed, and decided since 200 rounds was good for you That day, it's ALL good. Very small test, and even smaller sample. It's still junk ammo. If you like it keep using it |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2014 10:28:25 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have had surprisingly accurate results from using Tula myself. Unfortunately, it is very dirty and inconsistent ammo. This can cause it to give cycling problems in some guns depending on how each lot is loaded. I've had absolutely filthy tula, coated in a fine grey powder. I've had tula that was so inconsistent, you could feel the pressure differences between each shot fired from the same box. A properly set up AR can usually run it fine, but it is the least reliable brand of all the commercial ammo that is out there, including the other steel. Which is exactly why I have a case of it. I use it to "function / reliability test" new guns. If it can cycle through the tula fine with no problems, chances are the gun will eat anything without issue. As others have said though, it greatly decreases barrel life in a gun. Through comparrrison tests, it was shown that steel cased bi-metal jacket ammo wears barrels out in around half the time as conventional copper jacketed brass bullets. I consider firing one round of steel the same as 2 of brass for this reason. IE, firing a box of 20 rounds of steel will be logged as having fired 40 rounds through the gun of regular ammo due to the 2x wear of the bi-metal jacket. I must say though that your velocity results for Federal seem WAY off. Are you SURE you're firing XM193 and NOT AE223??? A 16" AR should be getting 3,150 fps at the muzzle from a 16" barrel. Your chrony numbers from 10 ft shouldn't be much lower than 3,100 fps. In fact, 2,900 fps would be low for XM193 out of even a 14.5" barrel! Your 2,800 fps for XM855 is also at least 100 - 150 fps too low! No the velocity are what they are... this is an average velocity... I agree with you on the Tula being filthy Ammo never said it was clean and you are right when you say a properly set up AR should feed and cycle with no problems. I can attest to this as all of my 5 AR's eat up the Tula... Now Brown Bear AMMo that is who other story for another time. I have to disagree with you about barrel wear though. I keep a shooting log on all of my rifles and a round count as well. The Rifle I used for testing has well over 5500 rounds through it and it still shoots tight groups and there is very little wear of the Lands and groove and the chamber is still tight. Most of this ammo count was with Tula ammo in fact I can tell you exactly how much was Tula, That barrel has 3265 rounds of Tula shot through it. When the rifle was new at round 205 I had the tightest group with Black Hills Match 0.95 MOA at 100 yards. Round number 4780 was also Black Hills Match at 100 yards and it was 1.88 MOA. I am sure I could get it down if I really tried. But True there is some loss of accuracy. I think that is to be expected though. I have another rifle with well over 7000 rounds of Tula and it still shots respectable groups and the chamber is still tight with Plenty of meat left in the rifling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2014 12:06:31 PM EDT
[#21]
I've been shooting Tula 223 55 gr. as well as other steel cased Wolf and Brown Bear for a few years now and have had avg results. Tula is one of the lowest priced 223 practice rds I can find here in GA and so far I've put about 2000 rds through my AR which is chambered for 223/556. 1/9 twist 16" chrome lined barrel. I shoot in a Tac match once a month and recently I was surprised when I experienced a failure to eject problem with Tula. The BCG was locked onto the spent casing which was still in the chamber so I was able to quickly mortar clear it and continue but it cost me some time at that station. I shot he rest of the match with nothing but the Tula without any problems so I didn't think much more about it and made sure that I cleaned the AR good when I got back. I then went to my range for practice the following week and the second rd would not eject and jammed my rifle again. Same issue, failure to eject and the BCG was locked onto the spent rd. I went on to try to practice but the problem continued and I had to switch to my Wolf ammo which cycles perfectly in that rifle. I tried my brass cased and other steel cased and all cycles fine but now all of a sudden the Tula is giving me failure to eject problems. I contacted Tula through their website and have not recivied any response which I am not surprised. Has anyone else had this problem with Tula? Any suggestions to fix a Failure to Eject issue would be much appreciated since I still have about 800 rds of the Tula in my locker.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2014 1:25:10 PM EDT
[#22]
So, you shot 4 types of ammo and the Tula was the worst performer... didn't we know this?
No, you didn't compare 4 similar types of ammo. You compared 2 similar with 2 dissimilar. And the results you posted are lower than that is regularly posted elsewhere, which would indicate the numbers are wrong(faulty readings?). Did you miss this link? http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/brass-vs-steel-cased-ammo/ You like Tula, cool... I see it as a waste of my money. I use 193/855 as my plinking rounds and the brass is used to reload the good stuff. I have 2 boxes of tula that I bought during the scare... and I may sell them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2014 3:57:47 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Just so we are all on the same page, every ammunition test is descriptive in nature and doesn't prove anything past the sample size, unless inferential analysis is conducted (which never happens). Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I'm saying it really doesn't prove anything past your 1 sample size (as you stated in your conclusion). |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2014 4:55:50 PM EDT
[#24]
For comparing velocity you must compare loads with the same bullet weights. Heavier bullet loads have a naturally lower velocity.
Five rounds through the chronograph is not all that helpful. It does give you an average, but the sample size is terribly small. You need a much larger sample size to be able to establish consistency. What's the standard deviation? How do the individual values disperse themselves around the average? Two loads can have the same average but be very different in the consistency of the individual shots. I think there's an error with your Federal 55 grain load. XM193 that I have tested averages 3133 fps. The commercial 223 load averages about 2900 for me, both out of a 16 inch barrel. I'd be interested in seeing your velocity test again using at least 20 rounds and the accompanying standard deviation, as well as a 10 round accuracy test, preferably at. 100 yards I appreciate your time and willingness to run the test. We have too many Aristotles here who just sit around and philosophize. I'm glad to see a Galileo every once in a while |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2014 7:07:16 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is that not what I just said?
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm saying it really doesn't prove anything past your 1 sample size (as you stated in your conclusion).
It is. I misread what you posted. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2014 7:26:41 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, you shot 4 types of ammo and the Tula was the worst performer... didn't we know this? No, you didn't compare 4 similar types of ammo. You compared 2 similar with 2 dissimilar. And the results you posted are lower than that is regularly posted elsewhere, which would indicate the numbers are wrong(faulty readings?). Did you miss this link? http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/brass-vs-steel-cased-ammo/ You like Tula, cool... I see it as a waste of my money. I use 193/855 as my plinking rounds and the brass is used to reload the good stuff. I have 2 boxes of tula that I bought during the scare... and I may sell them. Right. My impression of your "test" is that you purchased quite a bit of it and want/need this forum to help justify your waste of money. The chrono...well...unless you reload another waste of money. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/16/2014 1:55:23 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
questionable test, at best If you just want to shoot Tula, do it. If you want to try to prove how great it is, well, good luck. Ok and why is it questionable, because you don't agree with it... I see 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/16/2014 1:57:42 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
With brass case 5.56 approaching the $0.30 per round mark, Tula is becoming more and more useless by the day. But hey, whatever makes you feel better. Sorry I have to call BS I have not seen brass cased ammo at 30 cents a round in say 5 years maybe. Tell you what you point in the direction of where I can buy 20 rounds of brass cases .223 or 5.56 for $6.00
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/16/2014 2:06:41 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
People have had problems using Tula. Obviously quite a few or this wouldn't have started up, again. You shot a measly 200 rounds of it, clocked its speed, and decided since 200 rounds was good for you That day, it's ALL good. Very small test, and even smaller sample. It's still junk ammo. If you like it keep using it I do not know why there is so much vitriol toward Tula, I am not saying it is junk ammo because it is not and the test was only 200 rounds, I have fired many hundreds of rounds of Tula in my 5 different AR and the ammo all though dirty has performed as good as ammo costing twice as much. So my sample size is not 200 rounds but in the thousands of rounds... I may be wrong but after reading many posts on this forum about how bad Tula is the one thing I noticed in almost all instances was the rifles were home built or franken rifles.. Now I may be wrong but maybe you should check your build to make sure it is with-in tolerances. I will say it again if the rifle is built correctly and within spec you should have no issues with Tula Ammo or any other ammo for that matter. Maybe you should check your rifle and be sure it is functioning correctly because I can tell you this if your rifle it set up properly it should feed and cycle everything that is what makes it a battle rifle if it only feeds and cycle expensive ammo then in my book it is a "wanna be battle rifle" and not for me.... Just saying Like someone else said earlier on this post if your rifle can not function with Tula maybe it is time to get a new one |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/16/2014 6:42:22 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I do not know why there is so much vitriol toward Tula, I am not saying it is junk ammo because it is not and the test was only 200 rounds, I have fired many hundreds of rounds of Tula in my 5 different AR and the ammo all though dirty has performed as good as ammo costing twice as much. So my sample size is not 200 rounds but in the thousands of rounds... I may be wrong but after reading many posts on this forum about how bad Tula is the one thing I noticed in almost all instances was the rifles were home built or franken rifles.. Now I may be wrong but maybe you should check your build to make sure it is with-in tolerances. I will say it again if the rifle is built correctly and within spec you should have no issues with Tula Ammo or any other ammo for that matter. Maybe you should check your rifle and be sure it is functioning correctly because I can tell you this if your rifle it set up properly it should feed and cycle everything that is what makes it a battle rifle if it only feeds and cycle expensive ammo then in my book it is a "wanna be battle rifle" and not for me.... Just saying Like someone else said earlier on this post if your rifle can not function with Tula maybe it is time to get a new one Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
People have had problems using Tula. Obviously quite a few or this wouldn't have started up, again. You shot a measly 200 rounds of it, clocked its speed, and decided since 200 rounds was good for you That day, it's ALL good. Very small test, and even smaller sample. It's still junk ammo. If you like it keep using it I do not know why there is so much vitriol toward Tula, I am not saying it is junk ammo because it is not and the test was only 200 rounds, I have fired many hundreds of rounds of Tula in my 5 different AR and the ammo all though dirty has performed as good as ammo costing twice as much. So my sample size is not 200 rounds but in the thousands of rounds... I may be wrong but after reading many posts on this forum about how bad Tula is the one thing I noticed in almost all instances was the rifles were home built or franken rifles.. Now I may be wrong but maybe you should check your build to make sure it is with-in tolerances. I will say it again if the rifle is built correctly and within spec you should have no issues with Tula Ammo or any other ammo for that matter. Maybe you should check your rifle and be sure it is functioning correctly because I can tell you this if your rifle it set up properly it should feed and cycle everything that is what makes it a battle rifle if it only feeds and cycle expensive ammo then in my book it is a "wanna be battle rifle" and not for me.... Just saying Like someone else said earlier on this post if your rifle can not function with Tula maybe it is time to get a new one There is just so much wrong in those statements. If you want to wave the Tula flag and state Tula praises, go ahead. Make your momma proud if that is your goal. Tula is crap ammo due to it's quality control (or total lack of) quite often. What you fail to grasp is that all Tula ammo is not the same. When so many people have problems with Tula ammo, yet have no other ammo fail, it is Tula that is the common problem. Sh!t ammo is sh!t ammo, go ahead and praise the bottom feeder ammo if you want, I stay away from Tula at every opportunity. I shot around 9000 rounds of Tula 7n6 -5.45 ammo before seeing problems, the 9th can looked identical to all the others, showed no signs of problems, but several cases are out of dimensional spec and some have dud primers. Is this what you want to rely on? Not me! Cases getting stuck in the chambers and some not able to pop a primer- no matter how many attempts. Yes, Tula is far from worthy for my uses. If you want to blame the rifles, this is ignorance. Total ignorance. Poor ammo in quality guns cause problems at high rates. I would never judge a weapon when using piss poor ammo by Tula- it is bottom feeder ammo. As long as people buy poor products, companies will continue their paths. Look at Hesse, look at Tula. Buy all you want. I'll gladly spend a little more, or even a lot more to stay away from problems. Tula is not worthy of my time. My rifles will feed any ammo that is in spec. Don't blame the rifle for not feeding sh!t ammo. That is similar to blaming a car for not running on water (cause we all know water will fit in the tank). Praise it if you want. We need laughs. Don't confuse Tula with quality. All it has going for it is price. Your battle rifle is no better than ours. Will my rifles handle .223 Tula? Nope, they will never get the chance. I keep lot's of quality ammo around, will not even try sh!t ammo when others have had so many bad batches. Wave that Tula flag and stand proud. The Russians are proud of you... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/16/2014 6:44:34 AM EDT
[#31]
The problem is that you're getting defensive over your choice of ammo. It's not you, it's the ammo.
It is steel cased with a bi-metal jacket. It wears parts faster than brass/copper-jacketed ammo will. You also cannot reload it(well you can, but it's hard on dies an the cases don't last long...). Steel cased ammo does not function the same as brass cased. This is the hierarchy: Brass Cased Ammo > Steel Cased Ammo And of the steel cased, Tula is KNOWN to be the worst. I see FMJ xm193 as junk ammo. Why? Because it's primary use is to punch paper. It has redeeming values, though. Not only does it function properly and not cause unnecessary barrel wear(I will never shoot enough to wear it out), I can also use the brass to reload with good bullets. I get you like tula. I cannot justify buying the bottom of the barrel ammo to shoot out of a high-end rifle. It's kind of like buying a Porsche and running cheap gas in it. Sure, it'll work... just not very well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/16/2014 7:14:43 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is just so much wrong in those statements. If you want to wave the Tula flag and state Tula praises, go ahead. Make your momma proud if that is your goal. Tula is crap ammo due to it's quality control (or total lack of) quite often. What you fail to grasp is that all Tula ammo is not the same. When so many people have problems with Tula ammo, yet have no other ammo fail, it is Tula that is the common problem. Sh!t ammo is sh!t ammo, go ahead and praise the bottom feeder ammo if you want, I stay away from Tula at every opportunity. I shot around 9000 rounds of Tula 7n6 -5.45 ammo before seeing problems, the 9th can looked identical to all the others, showed no signs of problems, but several cases are out of dimensional spec and some have dud primers. Is this what you want to rely on? Not me! Cases getting stuck in the chambers and some not able to pop a primer- no matter how many attempts. Yes, Tula is far from worthy for my uses. If you want to blame the rifles, this is ignorance. Total ignorance. Poor ammo in quality guns cause problems at high rates. I would never judge a weapon when using piss poor ammo by Tula- it is bottom feeder ammo. As long as people buy poor products, companies will continue their paths. Look at Hesse, look at Tula. Buy all you want. I'll gladly spend a little more, or even a lot more to stay away from problems. Tula is not worthy of my time. My rifles will feed any ammo that is in spec. Don't blame the rifle for not feeding sh!t ammo. That is similar to blaming a car for not running on water (cause we all know water will fit in the tank). Praise it if you want. We need laughs. Don't confuse Tula with quality. All it has going for it is price. Your battle rifle is no better than ours. Will my rifles handle .223 Tula? Nope, they will never get the chance. I keep lot's of quality ammo around, will not even try sh!t ammo when others have had so many bad batches. Wave that Tula flag and stand proud. The Russians are proud of you...
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
People have had problems using Tula. Obviously quite a few or this wouldn't have started up, again. You shot a measly 200 rounds of it, clocked its speed, and decided since 200 rounds was good for you That day, it's ALL good. Very small test, and even smaller sample. It's still junk ammo. If you like it keep using it I do not know why there is so much vitriol toward Tula, I am not saying it is junk ammo because it is not and the test was only 200 rounds, I have fired many hundreds of rounds of Tula in my 5 different AR and the ammo all though dirty has performed as good as ammo costing twice as much. So my sample size is not 200 rounds but in the thousands of rounds... I may be wrong but after reading many posts on this forum about how bad Tula is the one thing I noticed in almost all instances was the rifles were home built or franken rifles.. Now I may be wrong but maybe you should check your build to make sure it is with-in tolerances. I will say it again if the rifle is built correctly and within spec you should have no issues with Tula Ammo or any other ammo for that matter. Maybe you should check your rifle and be sure it is functioning correctly because I can tell you this if your rifle it set up properly it should feed and cycle everything that is what makes it a battle rifle if it only feeds and cycle expensive ammo then in my book it is a "wanna be battle rifle" and not for me.... Just saying Like someone else said earlier on this post if your rifle can not function with Tula maybe it is time to get a new one There is just so much wrong in those statements. If you want to wave the Tula flag and state Tula praises, go ahead. Make your momma proud if that is your goal. Tula is crap ammo due to it's quality control (or total lack of) quite often. What you fail to grasp is that all Tula ammo is not the same. When so many people have problems with Tula ammo, yet have no other ammo fail, it is Tula that is the common problem. Sh!t ammo is sh!t ammo, go ahead and praise the bottom feeder ammo if you want, I stay away from Tula at every opportunity. I shot around 9000 rounds of Tula 7n6 -5.45 ammo before seeing problems, the 9th can looked identical to all the others, showed no signs of problems, but several cases are out of dimensional spec and some have dud primers. Is this what you want to rely on? Not me! Cases getting stuck in the chambers and some not able to pop a primer- no matter how many attempts. Yes, Tula is far from worthy for my uses. If you want to blame the rifles, this is ignorance. Total ignorance. Poor ammo in quality guns cause problems at high rates. I would never judge a weapon when using piss poor ammo by Tula- it is bottom feeder ammo. As long as people buy poor products, companies will continue their paths. Look at Hesse, look at Tula. Buy all you want. I'll gladly spend a little more, or even a lot more to stay away from problems. Tula is not worthy of my time. My rifles will feed any ammo that is in spec. Don't blame the rifle for not feeding sh!t ammo. That is similar to blaming a car for not running on water (cause we all know water will fit in the tank). Praise it if you want. We need laughs. Don't confuse Tula with quality. All it has going for it is price. Your battle rifle is no better than ours. Will my rifles handle .223 Tula? Nope, they will never get the chance. I keep lot's of quality ammo around, will not even try sh!t ammo when others have had so many bad batches. Wave that Tula flag and stand proud. The Russians are proud of you...
You completely contradict yourself in this statement. You say very clearly that you fired 9000 rounds of Tula before you had a problem. Well that sounds like pretty good ammo to me. I mean firing 9000 rounds and all. Also I am not touting Tula I am simply saying that it is not as bad as people make it out to be and I bet those that bad mouth it don't really shoot it either. Is there bad batches in ammosure there is it does not matter the brand it is going to happen. But hey you answered this argument for me when you said " I fired 9000 rounds before I had my first problem" so thank you for making the point of what I was saying...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/16/2014 7:33:56 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You completely contradict yourself in this statement. You say very clearly that you fired 9000 rounds of Tula before you had a problem. Well that sounds like pretty good ammo to me. I mean firing 9000 rounds and all. Also I am not touting Tula I am simply saying that it is not as bad as people make it out to be and I bet those that bad mouth it don't really shoot it either. Is there bad batches in ammosure there is it does not matter the brand it is going to happen. But hey you answered this argument for me when you said " I fired 9000 rounds before I had my first problem" so thank you for making the point of what I was saying...
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
People have had problems using Tula. Obviously quite a few or this wouldn't have started up, again. You shot a measly 200 rounds of it, clocked its speed, and decided since 200 rounds was good for you That day, it's ALL good. Very small test, and even smaller sample. It's still junk ammo. If you like it keep using it I do not know why there is so much vitriol toward Tula, I am not saying it is junk ammo because it is not and the test was only 200 rounds, I have fired many hundreds of rounds of Tula in my 5 different AR and the ammo all though dirty has performed as good as ammo costing twice as much. So my sample size is not 200 rounds but in the thousands of rounds... I may be wrong but after reading many posts on this forum about how bad Tula is the one thing I noticed in almost all instances was the rifles were home built or franken rifles.. Now I may be wrong but maybe you should check your build to make sure it is with-in tolerances. I will say it again if the rifle is built correctly and within spec you should have no issues with Tula Ammo or any other ammo for that matter. Maybe you should check your rifle and be sure it is functioning correctly because I can tell you this if your rifle it set up properly it should feed and cycle everything that is what makes it a battle rifle if it only feeds and cycle expensive ammo then in my book it is a "wanna be battle rifle" and not for me.... Just saying Like someone else said earlier on this post if your rifle can not function with Tula maybe it is time to get a new one There is just so much wrong in those statements. If you want to wave the Tula flag and state Tula praises, go ahead. Make your momma proud if that is your goal. Tula is crap ammo due to it's quality control (or total lack of) quite often. What you fail to grasp is that all Tula ammo is not the same. When so many people have problems with Tula ammo, yet have no other ammo fail, it is Tula that is the common problem. Sh!t ammo is sh!t ammo, go ahead and praise the bottom feeder ammo if you want, I stay away from Tula at every opportunity. I shot around 9000 rounds of Tula 7n6 -5.45 ammo before seeing problems, the 9th can looked identical to all the others, showed no signs of problems, but several cases are out of dimensional spec and some have dud primers. Is this what you want to rely on? Not me! Cases getting stuck in the chambers and some not able to pop a primer- no matter how many attempts. Yes, Tula is far from worthy for my uses. If you want to blame the rifles, this is ignorance. Total ignorance. Poor ammo in quality guns cause problems at high rates. I would never judge a weapon when using piss poor ammo by Tula- it is bottom feeder ammo. As long as people buy poor products, companies will continue their paths. Look at Hesse, look at Tula. Buy all you want. I'll gladly spend a little more, or even a lot more to stay away from problems. Tula is not worthy of my time. My rifles will feed any ammo that is in spec. Don't blame the rifle for not feeding sh!t ammo. That is similar to blaming a car for not running on water (cause we all know water will fit in the tank). Praise it if you want. We need laughs. Don't confuse Tula with quality. All it has going for it is price. Your battle rifle is no better than ours. Will my rifles handle .223 Tula? Nope, they will never get the chance. I keep lot's of quality ammo around, will not even try sh!t ammo when others have had so many bad batches. Wave that Tula flag and stand proud. The Russians are proud of you...
You completely contradict yourself in this statement. You say very clearly that you fired 9000 rounds of Tula before you had a problem. Well that sounds like pretty good ammo to me. I mean firing 9000 rounds and all. Also I am not touting Tula I am simply saying that it is not as bad as people make it out to be and I bet those that bad mouth it don't really shoot it either. Is there bad batches in ammosure there is it does not matter the brand it is going to happen. But hey you answered this argument for me when you said " I fired 9000 rounds before I had my first problem" so thank you for making the point of what I was saying...
My statement (if you want a quote) is : I shot around 9000 rounds of Tula 7n6 -5.45 ammo before seeing problems I clearly stated that was in 5.45 -7n6 surplus ammo not the much poorer grade .223 they export to the U.S. And when I had problems, they were very often (from that batch). I had seen many, many rifles choke on Tula .223 but I never shot any Tula in my .223/5.56 rifles (nor will I). The message in my reply is that Tula has poor quality control. I felt extremely lucky shooting the 7n6 ammo, it is true military surplus, unlike the bottom feeder .223 that they ship to the U.S. Tula .223 is poor ammo- I made that distinction in my post. I will never support poor quality control, therefore I will not buy Tula in .223. No contradiction, I was lucky. I figured it was a matter of time. I bought many crates of the 7n6 because it was cheap and plentiful- I needed something to feed my AK74s and 5.45 ARs. I would never rely on Tula for anything except blasting, 9000 rounds is not much. I have shot well in excess of 350,000 rounds of ammo, Tula is still the worst of all I have ever used. Find something worthy to believe in. Tula is not worthy of your praise, it is just one choice of many. Edit for clarification. Re-edit- I apologize for coming off as an ass, but I really hate seeing someone align themselves with poor quality. Poor reputations are hard to shake (Tula's). I am happy that you have (so far) had good luck with TulaAmmo. They do get a lot right, but you cannot erase the poor results that so many have with it by you having good luck. Many have not had this good luck. Tula deserves this bad reputation due to peoples results with this ammo. Their choice of fast burn rate powder (in their .223 ammo) compounds the quality issues. The pressure curve is often times worse than any other ammo that we are aware of. I commend you for being loyal to Tula, altho you can make better decisions (to support companies who care about quality issues). All companies make mistakes, some more than others. Tula could do better, and they would if their ammo sat on the shelves instead of being sold. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/16/2014 5:37:31 PM EDT
[#34]
A few members have stopped posting excellent and informative data on ammo (Molon) because many members here do nothing but complain and criticize the info.
I do not believe the O.P. was trying make any diffinative statements or claims. He simply posted some anecdotal results. And I say THANKS OP. I do believe Tula is one of the lowest quality ammos and I dont use it. But it was informative to have it compared with some other common rounds. I take this data, like most, with a grain of salt but my life is too full of other drama and bullshit to criticize it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/16/2014 6:04:19 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A few members have stopped posting excellent and informative data on ammo (Molon) because many members here do nothing but complain and criticize the info. Oh you mean how Molon chastised those who posted how accurate their gun/ammo was by posting 3 shot groups? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/16/2014 7:49:08 PM EDT
[#36]
I just bought a case of 1000 rounds of Tula for $215. It has it's place...dirty as he'll though.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2014 6:07:28 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sorry I have to call BS I have not seen brass cased ammo at 30 cents a round in say 5 years maybe. Tell you what you point in the direction of where I can buy 20 rounds of brass cases .223 or 5.56 for $6.00
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
With brass case 5.56 approaching the $0.30 per round mark, Tula is becoming more and more useless by the day. But hey, whatever makes you feel better. Sorry I have to call BS I have not seen brass cased ammo at 30 cents a round in say 5 years maybe. Tell you what you point in the direction of where I can buy 20 rounds of brass cases .223 or 5.56 for $6.00
You can get it here http://www.the-armory.com/shopsite_sc/store/html/product1887.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2014 6:40:06 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sorry I have to call BS I have not seen brass cased ammo at 30 cents a round in say 5 years maybe. Tell you what you point in the direction of where I can buy 20 rounds of brass cases .223 or 5.56 for $6.00
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
With brass case 5.56 approaching the $0.30 per round mark, Tula is becoming more and more useless by the day. But hey, whatever makes you feel better. Sorry I have to call BS I have not seen brass cased ammo at 30 cents a round in say 5 years maybe. Tell you what you point in the direction of where I can buy 20 rounds of brass cases .223 or 5.56 for $6.00
Sigh. J&G Sales just ran a sale on Federal XM193 in cans and on stripper clips for $0.30 a round SHIPPED. You aren't looking hard enough. But whatever makes you feel better about shooting junk steel cased ammo I guess. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2014 9:45:11 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sigh. J&G Sales just ran a sale on Federal XM193 in cans and on stripper clips for $0.30 a round SHIPPED. You aren't looking hard enough. But whatever makes you feel better about shooting junk steel cased ammo I guess. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
With brass case 5.56 approaching the $0.30 per round mark, Tula is becoming more and more useless by the day. But hey, whatever makes you feel better. Sorry I have to call BS I have not seen brass cased ammo at 30 cents a round in say 5 years maybe. Tell you what you point in the direction of where I can buy 20 rounds of brass cases .223 or 5.56 for $6.00
Sigh. J&G Sales just ran a sale on Federal XM193 in cans and on stripper clips for $0.30 a round SHIPPED. You aren't looking hard enough. But whatever makes you feel better about shooting junk steel cased ammo I guess. Geeze, I wish I had seen that sale! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2014 10:21:01 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I just bought a case of 1000 rounds of Tula for $215. It has it's place...dirty as he'll though. Where did you buy that from can you post a link for me... Thanks |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2014 10:58:48 AM EDT
[#41]
check slickguns.com
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2014 11:49:50 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Geeze, I wish I had seen that sale! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
With brass case 5.56 approaching the $0.30 per round mark, Tula is becoming more and more useless by the day. But hey, whatever makes you feel better. Sorry I have to call BS I have not seen brass cased ammo at 30 cents a round in say 5 years maybe. Tell you what you point in the direction of where I can buy 20 rounds of brass cases .223 or 5.56 for $6.00
Sigh. J&G Sales just ran a sale on Federal XM193 in cans and on stripper clips for $0.30 a round SHIPPED. You aren't looking hard enough. But whatever makes you feel better about shooting junk steel cased ammo I guess. Geeze, I wish I had seen that sale! It didn't last long. The hive pretty much wiped it out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2014 1:40:59 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Where did you buy that from can you post a link for me... Thanks Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I just bought a case of 1000 rounds of Tula for $215. It has it's place...dirty as he'll though. Where did you buy that from can you post a link for me... Thanks One thing you'll learn is that gun owners are some of the worst for "big fish stories" and exaggeration. Cheapest available for Tula is $225 / 1,000 NOT including shipping (another ~ $25 or so) which brings it up to around $250 delivered. That is basically what it is selling for locally for around here, and is only a few dollars cheaper than what the good brass stuff (fed XM193) is going for. Of course, some gun owner buys a case of tula selling for $225 online, which really cost him around $250 after shipping. He'll post on a board how he just bought a case for $200 shipped! It's a sickness really. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2014 1:55:11 PM EDT
[#44]
The problem is port pressure, not muzzle velocity. You are chasing your tail if you do not understand this.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2014 4:08:39 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
One thing you'll learn is that gun owners are some of the worst for "big fish stories" and exaggeration. Cheapest available for Tula is $225 / 1,000 NOT including shipping (another ~ $25 or so) which brings it up to around $250 delivered. That is basically what it is selling for locally for around here, and is only a few dollars cheaper than what the good brass stuff (fed XM193) is going for. Of course, some gun owner buys a case of tula selling for $225 online, which really cost him around $250 after shipping. He'll post on a board how he just bought a case for $200 shipped! It's a sickness really. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I just bought a case of 1000 rounds of Tula for $215. It has it's place...dirty as he'll though. Where did you buy that from can you post a link for me... Thanks One thing you'll learn is that gun owners are some of the worst for "big fish stories" and exaggeration. Cheapest available for Tula is $225 / 1,000 NOT including shipping (another ~ $25 or so) which brings it up to around $250 delivered. That is basically what it is selling for locally for around here, and is only a few dollars cheaper than what the good brass stuff (fed XM193) is going for. Of course, some gun owner buys a case of tula selling for $225 online, which really cost him around $250 after shipping. He'll post on a board how he just bought a case for $200 shipped! It's a sickness really. Uh ok. I'm not sure what the point of calling me a liar was. It was not $250 after shipping. It's an odd stance to take that you know the pricing of every store, including those not listed on gunbot. Find it yourself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/18/2014 7:21:55 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Uh ok. I'm not sure what the point of calling me a liar was. It was not $250 after shipping. It's an odd stance to take that you know the pricing of every store, including those not listed on gunbot. Find it yourself. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I just bought a case of 1000 rounds of Tula for $215. It has it's place...dirty as he'll though. Where did you buy that from can you post a link for me... Thanks One thing you'll learn is that gun owners are some of the worst for "big fish stories" and exaggeration. Cheapest available for Tula is $225 / 1,000 NOT including shipping (another ~ $25 or so) which brings it up to around $250 delivered. That is basically what it is selling for locally for around here, and is only a few dollars cheaper than what the good brass stuff (fed XM193) is going for. Of course, some gun owner buys a case of tula selling for $225 online, which really cost him around $250 after shipping. He'll post on a board how he just bought a case for $200 shipped! It's a sickness really. Uh ok. I'm not sure what the point of calling me a liar was. It was not $250 after shipping. It's an odd stance to take that you know the pricing of every store, including those not listed on gunbot. Find it yourself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/18/2014 8:52:51 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I just bought a case of 1000 rounds of Tula for $215. It has it's place...dirty as he'll though. Where did you buy that from can you post a link for me... Thanks One thing you'll learn is that gun owners are some of the worst for "big fish stories" and exaggeration. Cheapest available for Tula is $225 / 1,000 NOT including shipping (another ~ $25 or so) which brings it up to around $250 delivered. That is basically what it is selling for locally for around here, and is only a few dollars cheaper than what the good brass stuff (fed XM193) is going for. Of course, some gun owner buys a case of tula selling for $225 online, which really cost him around $250 after shipping. He'll post on a board how he just bought a case for $200 shipped! It's a sickness really. Uh ok. I'm not sure what the point of calling me a liar was. It was not $250 after shipping. It's an odd stance to take that you know the pricing of every store, including those not listed on gunbot. Find it yourself. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2014 10:46:45 PM EDT
[#48]
Tula is proven to be substandard ammo, why skimp on a $500.00 - $1000.00+ gun with ammunition proven to be defective? It's just not worth the possibility of it fucking up my firearm, especially when there are better choices. Cheaper isn't always better, and there have been enough posts on various gun boards to show me that it's not worth the gamble. I don't care if it runs great in 90% of other peoples guns, it's just not going in mine, buy proven ammunition, or roll your own.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2014 3:39:57 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Tula is proven to be substandard ammo, why skimp on a $500.00 - $1000.00+ gun with ammunition proven to be defective? It's just not worth the possibility of it fucking up my firearm, especially when there are better choices. Cheaper isn't always better, and there have been enough posts on various gun boards to show me that it's not worth the gamble. I don't care if it runs great in 90% of other peoples guns, it's just not going in mine, buy proven ammunition, or roll your own. Tula isn't defective and wont fuck up your gun. It is just dirty and weak. I don't care fore it out of my ARs, but it is ok if that is what you can afford. I do agree that it doesn't make sense to spend good money on a gun then skimp on ammo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2014 10:32:46 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This. The pressure curve/burn rate is poor for the AR15 operating system... some gas system configurations seem to do a bit better than others but not ideal at all. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Tula has been proven to NOT be weak but have improper burn rates. This. The pressure curve/burn rate is poor for the AR15 operating system... some gas system configurations seem to do a bit better than others but not ideal at all. This. |
|
|
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.
