Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 12/10/2001 9:05:22 AM EDT
In BlackHawk Down, one of the Delta guys was dissapointed in his 5.56mm bullets as they did not bring down the enemy unless he got a head shot.

I was wondering if anyone else has run into this?

In the book he mentioned that one of the D-boys that was killed used an M14 because he felt more confident in the 30-06. I understand Carlos Hathcock used both 30-06 and .308....not to mention the scoped .50 Browning (ouch).

Any opinions from those "in the know" on the 5.56?
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 9:09:41 AM EDT
We would need to know the barrel length of the weapon he was using.
For example if his rifle barrel was of the 11" variety he would have kill problems due to lack of velocity.
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 9:16:17 AM EDT
Ailupua,

Yep he was using green tips.

ok, I dunno what a green tip 5.56 is...sorry.

I get the impression it's an armor piercing round?
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 9:17:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/10/2001 9:09:54 AM EDT by mtnpatriot]
M14~.30-06

Libertas an Mortis!
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 9:21:01 AM EDT
If you do a search there was a 3 page thread about this very subject about 6 weeks ago.
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 9:33:42 AM EDT
Must been a Clinton 'kinder and gentler' 5.56mm load. My '67' vintage M-16 (the one that jammed all the time) would do a lot of damage up close and personal. Of course, I much preferred my M-60 machine gun, it literally saved my life by stopping a AK round during the TET-68 festivities, meant to eviscerate my liver. Mainly used the 'M-16' as an untrustworthy backup piece. Heard they worked out the bugs after I DEROS'ed'...

Gib
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 9:42:18 AM EDT
M855/SS109 ammunition is bad in that.... yes - it will penetrate.....hell, overpenetrate. When they were dealing with armed Somalis who were skinny as hell - the M855 rounds went through Somali like butter :) Barrel length might have effected s##t but the fact that Somalians are skinny as hell, suffer malnutrition, and are HIGH as a kite would effect a lot of things........

Probably the same reason that some law enforcement departments have records of perps being hit with 30 9mm rounds before going down. Ballistics tests on gelatin,etc.. do not take into account criminals on PCP, speed, etc...
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 9:48:23 AM EDT
In the book, I think someone had a M14, and when he hit the target it would stay down.
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 9:57:46 AM EDT
So long as the barrel was 14.5" or longer minus suppressor the rifle was not the problem.

I have no personal experience with armour piercing and humans.
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 10:03:23 AM EDT
The barrels were at least 14.5" long. Sounds like early M4 type rifles.

See this link:
www.cinemayhem.com/Cineforum/Forum17/HTML/000220.html

I'd be interested in reading that prior thread. I didn't find anything through a search.
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 1:11:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By J_Smith:
M855/SS109 ammunition is bad in that.... yes - it will penetrate.....hell, overpenetrate. When they were dealing with armed Somalis who were skinny as hell - the M855 rounds went through Somali like butter :) Barrel length might have effected s##t but the fact that Somalians are skinny as hell, suffer malnutrition, and are HIGH as a kite would effect a lot of things........

Probably the same reason that some law enforcement departments have records of perps being hit with 30 9mm rounds before going down. Ballistics tests on gelatin,etc.. do not take into account criminals on PCP, speed, etc...



Search around the forums, this topic has been discussed about a dozen times.

The barrel length was VERY crucial, since the projectile must be going atleast 2700fps to reliably fragment, at around 2500-2700fps it may or may not fragmentate.

Most of the problems with the cartridege were told by SFC Howe, a person who was very visible in the book, i do not recall a single Army Ranger complaining about the cartridge....answer is, they had 20" barrels where the M855 round will fragment atleast to 140-150 meters.

Link Posted: 12/10/2001 1:20:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By warlord:
In the book, I think someone had a M14, and when he hit the target it would stay down.



This was recently discussed on another list. He didn't have an M14, he had an M21 and he was a designated marksman. Shot placement is always more important than ammunition.
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 3:20:49 PM EDT
On a related topic, can anybody tell me what magazine\issue this article was in:

Came out around the time that the U.S. military switched to M16A2's. They had gotten ahold of some green tip 62 gr. ammo, but didn't have a 1/7 or 1/9 barelled rifle to fire it out of. I seem to remember them firing into ballistic gelatin and posting pictures of the results, which were impressive. Most of the rounds split into 3 large pieces (2 internal pieces and bullet's jacket) and produced 3 different wound channels. Might have been Guns and Ammo or Soldier of Fortune, anybody happen to know?
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 3:43:54 PM EDT
The Rangers had mostly M-249's and CAR-15's from my understanding. Delta may have had the new M-4's - the were just coming out around this time. By leaving their NVG's behind on the mission, it seems they f####d themselves big time when it got dark and AK fire kept coming in.
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 3:44:31 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/10/2001 4:22:20 PM EDT

I understand Carlos Hathcock used both 30-06 and .308....not to mention the scoped .50 Browning (ouch).

Any opinions from those "in the know" on the 5.56?



That part isn't relevant to this thread. He used them because he was a sniper.
Link Posted: 12/24/2001 3:39:32 AM EDT
My experience in Somalia was as a Marine, prior to the blackhawk incident. From all reports there were more small arms exchanges in Mogadishu than in the other conflicts since Vietnam. My unit was involved in a few brief firefights and we had no complaints with our M16A2's. Most of the skinnys as we called them were high on Khat, the local narcotic of choice, all engancements I encountered were at night. Center mass hits reliably neutralized gunmen (couldn't check to see if dead). Typically you would see the funeral processions the next day. Not to stir up the M9 vs 1911 debate, but the Berettas were effective as well. The real story is the field day the snipers had over there...should be a neat History Channel show when it gets declassified.
Link Posted: 12/24/2001 4:49:40 AM EDT
The Warsaw Pact came out with a 5.45mm Sniper Rifle, I wonder is NATO/US will ever issue one. All the CMP guys are using AR's now, it would make a certain sense to have the sniper rifle on the same frame.
Link Posted: 12/24/2001 6:17:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/24/2001 6:10:59 AM EDT by shooterX308]
I have the privilege of knowing two former SpecFor soldiers, active during 'Nam. One, a sniper, hated the 5.56 due its inability to stop a man with one well placed shot. He related episodes of shooting a running enemy at 300 to 400 yards, seeing the dirt puff off his pajamas and the guy keep running. I suppose he was using the M16 for firefights as his primary rifles were .308 and 30-338. HOWEVER, he said his spotter, with a scoped M16, was absolutely deadly out to 600 yards.

The other shooter was SPECFOR,I think LRRP, and said he witnessed truly grotesque wounds inflicted from the early 1:14 twist rounds, but inside of 20 yards and beyond 60 yards he said they weren't worth a damn. His notion was the big advantage
of the 5.56 was the ability to carry lots of ammo, which was a good thing, 'cause you really needed all you could get to get the job done!
Link Posted: 12/24/2001 5:57:30 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/24/2001 6:10:54 PM EDT
Some of our guys engaged somealiens - oops that was somalians. with 20" C7's and C77 (M855/SS109) a double tap chest hit round striking within 2 inches. Rounds did not fragment, tgt withing 40m. Sniper enegments with 168gr Norma Match often also did not fragment.

After Action - Lesons Learned was the Somealiens were too malnuterurished (sp)and body mass did not allow for normal expansion.

Some guys using 40gr Fed Blitz reported excellent results - I would not recommend this round against larger north americans
Link Posted: 12/25/2001 10:41:16 PM EDT
I was under the impression that the 5.56mm(.223rem) was not designed to kill but only wound. Which would take up nonwounded's time in carrying, treating, etc. Then the nonwounded that are taking care of wounded would not be behind a weapon and firing on us? And also there is the issue in being able to carry more 5.56mm rounds than the .308's.
Link Posted: 12/26/2001 1:01:37 AM EDT
Urban legend, mjacvn71. There's no truth to that whatsoever.
Link Posted: 1/2/2002 2:36:10 AM EDT
if i hear that shit about 5.56 being designed to wound one more time, i swear im gonna beat someone. THINK ABOUT IT. its retarded. if you really believe that then you probably shouldnt have a gun with which you could hurt yourself!
Link Posted: 1/2/2002 7:12:40 AM EDT
DV-Dog. Forgive them, for they know not what they speak. Much of this discussion should spark the reality that stopping power is not absolute. Little skinny people can be harded to kill than bigger, healthier, not on drug people. As a vet. I would hate to go into combat not trusting my issue weapon or its ammo. I think we bot it right, the AR, by now.
Link Posted: 1/2/2002 9:35:24 AM EDT
I have seen several deer shot at under 100 yardswith 300 Mags, creating a massive and lethal would, and still not go down instantly. The guys in Somalia have been playing too much DOOM and watching too many Hollywood movies. I think the fact that the bad guys were doped up was a huge factor.
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 7:54:37 AM EDT
First of all, you have to HIT the guy, and if you are not in the military, you are not stuck with using ball ammo, either. Even the military, in CONUS, can arrange their own private supplyof softpoints. Ball ammo from the N.Hollywood bank robber's 30 cals didnt do all that great, either 10 cops hit, none dead most able to fire back for quite some time, even after multiple hits, etc. That's the effect of using ball ammo in ANY carryable rifle, especially with peripheral hits.
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 7:57:01 AM EDT

In BlackHawk Down, one of the Delta guys was dissapointed in his 5.56mm bullets as they did not bring down the enemy unless he got a head shot.

I was wondering if anyone else has run into this?



Umm, no -- I have never run into this problem. It is not too often that I have to stop people where only head shots would count...
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 7:59:50 AM EDT
So I guess the moral of this story is:

"Use varmit loads on the sammies"
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 2:02:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/7/2002 2:05:28 PM EDT by McNamara]
A really important question, and one that gets brought up every time in discussions like this is: if you are limited to ball ammo, which is more lethal - 7.62x51mm or 5.56x45mm? Most would agree on 7.62 at all ranges, but especially at ranges >200m. At junlge/city fighting distance, the fragmentation of ball 5.56 ammo at the cannelure (spelling?) vastly increases the wounding potential. As someone already mentioned, Fackler did alot of research on this, and as a combat surgeon I lend him a good deal of credibility.

Which is closer at CQB distances, 5.56 or 7.62? I have no idea. All I know is that, at almost every distance 7.62 will give you more consistent wounds. The 5.56 might or might not do its job. And that's ball ammo. If you're civilian or LE and have the choice of expanding round, the 7.62 will regin supreme at any distance, I don't care what kind of cool ballistic tip the 5.56 has. An expanding 7.62 will do nasty damage out to great distance.

The only real advantages 5.56 has are quicker follow-up shots and the ability to carry more. These might be enough to tip the scales in its favor for you, but I think killing power should have the highest priority in selecting caliber.

Edited to add:

Many of the cops shot in Hollywood by the AK-wielding bank robbers would not have been shot if it weren't for the FMJ bullets used by the suspects. They penetrated all the way through cars to hit some of the cops and bystanders. Penetration is important, too! You give up some wounding potential for a greater chance to hit your target when he's behind cover. That's the main reason the military went to SS109, IIRC.
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 2:18:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/7/2002 2:27:26 PM EDT by cc48510]
5.56mm has a problem. I shot a bunch of 5.56mm UMC the other day. I shot at various targets such as a Clinton Head. The 5.56mm fragmented too early. Most of the fragmentation was actually in the Nazi Helmet I had on Clinton's Head. The rest of the bullet passed through and out the other side. But, the size of the hole looked more like that which a pellet gun would make.

#1) Fragments Too Early.
#2) Round is too damn small.

If it could be made to fragment further in, then it might be a better round. Perhaps if it were to fragment inside the body instead of just under the skin or worse in the clothing if contains metal.

If a 5.56mm would fragment a few inches inside the body then it could do alot more damage.
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 3:46:18 PM EDT
This post is disintegrating into too much BS...

Who freaking cares what Remchester ammo does to a NVA helmet, the real quote under discussion is the opinion of a few of the actual combat veterans, not how big a hole it makes.

What the veterans remember is clouded by their situation. If I had just seen 2 helios shot out of the air by RPG's I would feel undergunned with an M2 fed by a cavern of ammo.
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 4:03:08 PM EDT
Actually, I heard the "FMJ is designed to wound not kill the enemy" in a class given by our top Navy "Doc" attached to our unit. He always affectionately referred to rounds flying in combat as "brass bees".

He did a stint in Vietnam as a corpsman, so I had no reason to not believe him.

Why is the use of "soft" tipped, dum-dum, hollow-point, etc ammunition illegal to use in combat as far as the Geneva Convention is concerned?

I thought it was because they cause nastier wounds...

if anyone else knows the answer please inform us.
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 4:18:13 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 6:45:41 PM EDT


Well said Troy!
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 7:23:50 PM EDT
What, nobody clicked on Troy's link?

It's a great read, give it a try.
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 9:12:07 PM EDT
I thought Ball ammo M855 was designed correctly. Its frangible if it is kept above 750+ pounds of Muzzle energy and 2,600 fps. Then it is all a matter or placement. So when looking for the correct ammo keep these things in mind. Most firefights go no further then 150 meters 200 at most. I have found one round that maintains it lethality (read Fragments on impact) and that was a 68gr that kept 750+ pounds of muzzle energy out at 200 yards. BINGO. I forget the manufacturer and type.

Benjamin
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 9:15:28 PM EDT
By the way the complaints concerning Black Hawk down were directed at the AP or Armor Piercing rounds the green tipped buggers. That is as I read it anyway.

Benjamin
Link Posted: 1/7/2002 9:41:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Benjamin0001:
By the way the complaints concerning Black Hawk down were directed at the AP or Armor Piercing rounds the green tipped buggers. That is as I read it anyway.

Benjamin


Benji - M855 (SS109) is green tipped
it is not AP it is simply green tipped in order to make sure A1 equipt units did not use it by mistake - no other NATO country colour codes its SS109.
BLACK TIPPED AMMO IS AP
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 6:48:02 AM EDT
Ohhh OK, thanks for the correction.

Benjamin
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 11:18:00 AM EDT
There's something I've been wondering and this is just as good a place as any to bring it up.

My understanding is the green tipped ammo typically designates that it fragments, like black tipped ammo designates armor piercing.

Was M855 ball designed to fragment? I know the history of M193 ball, how it was originally believed that tumbling was the key to its wounding potential, and how it was later discovered that it fragments. I concluded that the fact that M193 ball fragments is purely coincidental and it was not designed that way on purpose.

The fragmenting effect of M193 ball and M855 ball is very similar, and the wounds it causes are almost indistinguishable according to Fackler.

So... was M855 ball designed to fragment (hence the green tips) or not?

Troy? Anyone?

BTW, VERY good post Troy. You should add that to the ammo FAQ.
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 11:59:14 AM EDT
.223 sucks! .30 cal rocks! Anyone using .223's in combat is a loser and/or dead man!
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 12:05:38 PM EDT
Buddyman, I see that you have set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in a public forum.
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 12:52:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Big_Bear:
So... was M855 ball designed to fragment (hence the green tips) or not?



M855 ball (or, rather, Begium SS109) was designed to meet the NATO requirement for the SAW. I.e., ability to match the AP performance of 7.62 NATO ball out to a certain distance. Hence, the designers had their hands full meeting this specific requirement, I doubt that they gave a thought to matching the wounding potential of M193 ball.
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 1:46:01 PM EDT
Buddyman is right on target, 5.56 does suck! Lets look at ONE of the reasons the 5.56 was adopted, there are many reasons but ONE of them (remember I said ONE) is it was designed to WOUND not KILL. Because conventional wisdom is that a wounded soldier is more of a liability than a dead one. You just leave a dead one on the battlefield, you have to medivac a wounded one and treat his wounds requiring alot of logistical support. As far as blackhawk down goes I saw the show on Discovery about Somolia and that operation. TDC interviewed the rangers that fought there and they said the exact same thing, that the green tip stuff was ziping right through those little bastards. You see the green tip stuff is not armor piercing it is light armor piercing for things like body armor, so when it hits a human it zips on through, little hole in front little hole in back. Some of the rangers said they shot people three and four times and they were still shooting back. The ranger also relayed a story about how they used to make fun of the guy who had to carry the M-14, because it was big and heavier, and older but this one ranger said when they started in this fire fight the guy with the M-14 was dropping people with one round, DEAD. He said at that time they weren't making fun of that guy with the M-14 anymore they all wish they had M-14's too. The green tip stuff the military is using has a steal core and is traveling very fast, so when it hits soft targets it doesn't pitch or yaw the way it is supposed to failing to create the massive wound cavaties needed to stop an enemy. This was right from the mouth's of the people that were there so don't get any grand illusions that the movie just made that part up, that part actually happend. 5.56 is not the magical round some of you like to think it is it has advantages of being smaller and lighter so you can carry more, but it in no way out performs 7.62. Anyone who thinks this is dilusional. A very good friend of mine has some experience at being shot at, and he said when he was being shot at with 7.62 he was scared shitless the ground would accutally shutter when they hit near you. When 5.56 was a comin' he was still scared but you couldn't really tell where the rounds were hitting. Yes the story in Blackhawk down is true.

ROCK ON!
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 2:27:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/8/2002 2:31:57 PM EDT by Mongo_Mad]
Umm, no. 5.56 was not designed to wound. That is a popular myth that should not be repeated on an informed board like this. Check the archives here or other firearms boards.
5.56 was choosen soley because of the ability to carry more ammo. Accuracy was the main other consideration. Yes, 5.56 is basicaly a high velocity BB that is very accurate.
The fragmenting, huge wound channel, and stopping power at certain CQC ranges was as big a surprise to the Military brass as it was to the designers. Its just a lucky side effect.
The research has always shown the side with the more ammo usually wins. Caliber and wound potential are much smaller variables. Accuracy and penetration are usually of greater concern to them as well.
You can't have one bullet be great at everything. I'm sure that's little comfort to that Delta guy in the middle of a fire fight.
I think the military should provide the weapons but let the individual units decide for them selves what weapons and ammo to carry. If they knew they were going to be in an urban combat area they may have choosen different weapons and/or ammo.
Those somalies would not have "kept fighting" after being hit with expanding or exploding rounds, even from 5.56.
The Hauge Treaty only applies when fighting other "signed" nations. When fighting not allined nations or gurrilla troops, we(or other contries) can, and do, use whatever we want. Just our military doesn't let the soldiers decide for themselves. I think the unit commanders should decide how he equips his men.
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 2:33:13 PM EDT
I have shot SKSes, AKs, ARs, etc. I have used 5.56x45, 7.62x39, 9mm, .45ACP, .380 Automatic, etc...

The ARs are more accurate and usable than the AKs/SKSes. But, the 5.56mm doesn't begin to work as well as 7.62mm. The 7.62mm Soviet may not be as accurate, but it does a lot more damage to the target. For popping baloons and head shots, you could use a 5.56mm. For shooting skinny, coked up somalis, you need someting with a lot more mass. A 5.56mm just doesn't have the necessary mass.

.223 -- 55 Grains/3240 fps/1282 Lbs.
7.62x39 -- 123 Grains/2355 fps/1509 Lbs.
.243 -- 80 Grains/3350 fps/1993 Lbs.
.25-06 -- 90 Grains/3440 fps/2364 Lbs.
.308 -- 150 Grains/2900 fps/2802 Lbs.
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 3:00:53 PM EDT
I think the somalia encounter illustrates the need for a different bullet. Not a different caliber.
If all those guys had been carring M14's or other .30's they would have run out of ammo sooner and would have been over run. All dead.
As it was they were able to hold off a huge hoard of somalies.
I'd be willing to bet most if not all of the somalies who were hit died later, even from peripheral wounds.
P.S. I think they should never have been there in the first place. I couldn't care less if clinton was getting b/j's from his intern, but he should have been strung up for sending in a brave group of men to do a stupid job without the full weight of the U.S. Military. I say go all the way or don't do it at all.
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 3:07:03 PM EDT
The lack of effectiveness was due to two things which have been discussed here. The Somalians were extremely skinny. Secondly they were high. You could chainsaw off an arm and they would still be shooting at you. Military ammunition tries to combine both fragmentation and penetration. Trying to combine the two means that neither attribute is exceedingly reliable. I'd use soft points for protection. At close range even soft points would probably zip through body armor quite nicely. Unfortunately, the soldiers often have to make longer shots.

My personal choice for military conflict would be the russian 5.45 fodder. My AK-74 clone is great. It's much more accurate that it's older brother the 47, and is totally reliable in any conditions with or without maintainence or lubrication. The 5.45 round is nasty. The bullet is very long and it seems that anything you shoot has a big nasty exit wound. The stuff tumbles at the drop of a hat. Probably not as nasty as nicely fragmented 5.56, but the tumbling is totally reliable occurs in a shorter length of flesh than the 5.56 fragmentation.
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 3:21:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Mongo_Mad:
I think the somalia encounter illustrates the need for a different bullet. Not a different caliber.
If all those guys had been carring M14's or other .30's they would have run out of ammo sooner and would have been over run. All dead.
As it was they were able to hold off a huge hoard of somalies.
I'd be willing to bet most if not all of the somalies who were hit died later, even from peripheral wounds.
P.S. I think they should never have been there in the first place. I couldn't care less if clinton was getting b/j's from his intern, but he should have been strung up for sending in a brave group of men to do a stupid job without the full weight of the U.S. Military. I say go all the way or don't do it at all.




I don't agree with that, if it takes three or four rounds of 5.56 to stop an attacker whereas
it would take one round of 7.62/.308 it would endup coming out about the same. Lets just say all things were perfect, if you are carrying 200 rounds of 5.56 and it takes four rounds of 5.56 (like told in the story from the ranger)to kill someone, you can kill 50 people right.
However if you were carrying 80 rounds of 7.62 you could kill 80 people, now this is obviously very over simplified and I am not saying this is at all the way it is. I'm just trying to make a point about how I feel it evens out in the end.
I'm not debating the values of either round, I feel they both have their place depending on the situation, but he asked if this was true in Blackhawk Down and the answer is yes. I feel the main reason this happened was a poor choice of ammo for that situation, they should have never been using GREEN TIP shit on soft targets, they should have just used ball.

ROCK ON!
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 3:27:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sk8brdnick:
The lack of effectiveness was due to two things which have been discussed here. The Somalians were extremely skinny. Secondly they were high. You could chainsaw off an arm and they would still be shooting at you. Military ammunition tries to combine both fragmentation and penetration. Trying to combine the two means that neither attribute is exceedingly reliable. I'd use soft points for protection. At close range even soft points would probably zip through body armor quite nicely. Unfortunately, the soldiers often have to make longer shots.

My personal choice for military conflict would be the russian 5.45 fodder. My AK-74 clone is great. It's much more accurate that it's older brother the 47, and is totally reliable in any conditions with or without maintainence or lubrication. The 5.45 round is nasty. The bullet is very long and it seems that anything you shoot has a big nasty exit wound. The stuff tumbles at the drop of a hat. Probably not as nasty as nicely fragmented 5.56, but the tumbling is totally reliable occurs in a shorter length of flesh than the 5.56 fragmentation.




I must agree with you my friend, I too prefer the 5.45x39 Russian round to the 5.56. The Russian engineers designed the round with an air pocket in the tip so that the round will yaw violently when it hits a target creating visious wound cavities. The civilian rounds we buy here in the states also have this neat little feature.



ROCK ON!
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top