User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 3:57:52 PM EDT
[#1]
Tough crowd. I'm not sure what else one can do after inviting one and all to come oversee the testing themselves.
Hopefully MAC and some other testers get their hands on these and we can get to the bottom of this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 4:35:35 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Tough crowd. I'm not sure what else one can do after inviting one and all to come oversee the testing themselves. Hopefully MAC and some other testers get their hands on these and we can get to the bottom of this. People wanted at Ear testing, we did it, want more brands to show you base, We will. It may be a week or so. It takes time to set up and film everything. Both Tim and I have a business to run as well. Having Said that it will be done. Still waiting on the details with MAC to coordinate that as well. Thanks Steve RLTW 816-718-9489 |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 1:40:33 AM EDT
[#3]
To further explain my comments:
All of our suppressors and also competing suppressors we have shot on AR15s measure pretty much at levels I indicated earlier. All tests done with correct equipment and made public, be it independent testers or manufacturers, show levels at similar levels. I have not seen any reputable manufacturer claiming sub 120 dB at the shooters ear with 5.56 and do not also recall anyone saying sub 130 dB either. I would advise anyone doubting me, email any U.S. manufacturer known to test correctly and then come back with their reply. Why I comment on topics that do not concern our suppressors? With suppressors having a history of stigmas, wrong information etc. attached, I do not want to see incorrect info spreading. As it will do over the net easily. Best Regards! Tuukka Jokinen Sales and Marketing Manager Ase Utra sound suppressors |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 2:24:09 AM EDT
[#4]
So at this point we have a can that supposedly sounds awesome and guys inviting anyone at any time to test.
And we have other people and people who sell other suppressors calling BS in not soo direct fashion. The questions are: Does the can really work this well? Are other manufacturers about to get outdated and are already in panic mode and on the attack under the guise of trying to protect the community? Someone is going to have egg on their face and I'm sure we will find out soon. Imo it could go either way. Sooner or later the technology must advance and new manufacturing techniques will produce quieter cans. Question is, is the time now? These cans can't get into the hands of independent testers fast enough. I'm drooling to see independent testing. I might be "that guy" but I'm sorta rooting for this can to be legit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 2:47:58 AM EDT
[#5]
There is a limit on how quiet you can make a suppressor for super sonic calibres and that is low 130´s, that is not going to change.
And, even if the suppressors have a 3-5 dB difference 1 m left of the muzzle, for example at the shooters right ear they will be at similar levels = due to the ejection port noise. Again, this just how it is and it has nothing to do with suppressor technology itself. Best Regards! Tuukka |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 8:48:38 AM EDT
[#6]
Maybe this graph can lend some reason for the skepticism.
As you can see, even transonic flight causes level in excess of 130dB The reason for such a distance from the muzzle was to isolate bullet fight noise (caused by supersonic flight) from muzzle signature (hopefully defeated by use of a suppressor) |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 4:30:04 PM EDT
[#7]
Looks like a sweet can.
Would love to put one on my 14.5" upper and then build a new predator bolt action (a la Ruger 556 RPR with 14.5" barrel). The good suppression with the short length and light weight would be sweet. Keep the good stuff coming |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 6:16:52 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So at this point we have a can that supposedly sounds awesome and guys inviting anyone at any time to test. And we have other people and people who sell other suppressors calling BS in not soo direct fashion. The questions are: Does the can really work this well? Are other manufacturers about to get outdated and are already in panic mode and on the attack under the guise of trying to protect the community? Someone is going to have egg on their face and I'm sure we will find out soon. Imo it could go either way. Sooner or later the technology must advance and new manufacturing techniques will produce quieter cans. Question is, is the time now? These cans can't get into the hands of independent testers fast enough. I'm drooling to see independent testing. I might be "that guy" but I'm sorta rooting for this can to be legit. Once this can gets into the hands of a 3rd party tester like MAC or SS, then either the doubt or the BS will be put to rest. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2017 7:02:01 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It would undoubtedly be the best performing can on the market if the claims being made are true. However, the claimed advancement would be such a giant leap forward in technology that people are reasonably raising questions about the validity of those claims. There seems to be the possibility that such a bombastic claim was made in the past that another model from the same brand was 10db quieter than a competitor. That was claim was tested and proven to be false. Once this can gets into the hands of a 3rd party tester like MAC or SS, then either the doubt or the BS will be put to rest. SAS and my self are working on other trust worthy 3rd parties to test and review. Once i have updates i will post them, or Tim at SAS will. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2017 7:08:00 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is a limit on how quiet you can make a suppressor for super sonic calibres and that is low 130´s, that is not going to change. And, even if the suppressors have a 3-5 dB difference 1 m left of the muzzle, for example at the shooters right ear they will be at similar levels = due to the ejection port noise. Again, this just how it is and it has nothing to do with suppressor technology itself. Best Regards! Tuukka I will agree that you can only suppressor a shot from a weapon so much. Tim and i have been working out a way to test what the DB level is down range, trying to get the Sonic Crack of a 556, 6.5CM, 762 and 338. All will have a different DB level based on the size. Any one that has severed in combat will can tell you that a 762x39 sounds Different then a 556, or 50 call when it is fired over your head. SAS is at the point of eliminating the largest portion of noise at the bore. The level at the shooters ear is also a reflection of this. The new MX line, and Baffles are leaps and bounds ahead of most suppressor manufactures. If you where at all close, i would make a heart felt invitation to try them out with my self of Tim in Reno. If you get over to the states your more then welcome to shoot them and see for your self. thanks Steve RLTW 816-718-9489 |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2017 7:47:16 AM EDT
[#11]
I am out of the office right now, can check for various down range figures for different calibres when I am back. But a .308 Win round measured at 1m from the bullet path is c. 150 dB.
With regards to the suppression at the ear, as I have written earlier, it is not about the suppressor techology but what is the SPL caused by the weapon action. For those reading this, there is enough info on the web also on this if one bothers to look. Or again, ask any reputable U.S manufacturer and they will tell you the same The AR15 is actually one of the better ones on this, other assault rifle types are even louder due to the weapon. You can see some examples here ( page 14 ) http://www.aseutra.fi/assets/files/Ase_Utra_military_and_law_enforcement_products.pdf Tuukka |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2017 9:32:18 AM EDT
[#12]
Wanted to update those that are calling for 3rd party testing. I have been in touch with Tim at MAC. It will be end of AUG or 1st of SEP, before the can due any testing.
We are working on other avenues as well. Tim at SAS has been tied up with keeping his house from burning down. Once the fires subside, we will get going hard on getting this going. thanks Steve RTLW 816-718-9489 |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2017 12:40:29 PM EDT
[#13]
Thanks for the update. Until you can get third party testing done, the next best thing would be to do a video that shows a baseline and tries to follow what MAC does. For example, do a continuous video with no cuts that shows:
1. A close-up of the tape measure showing the meter mic is positioned correctly ( whatever the proper distance to the left of the muzzle, and 6" from the shooter's right ear.) 2. A close-up of the meter showing the readings for a 5 shot group unsuppressed 3. The readings for a 5 shot group with your product, at muzzle and ear 4. 5 shot groups with whatever popular competitors you can name and mount on the same gun, at muzzle and ear That would go a long way toward reducing the reaction of disbelief you are getting. At this point, from our perspective we have no way of knowing if your meter is even functioning properly! So adding some points of reference would help a lot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2017 1:33:59 PM EDT
[#14]
Mikesmith is right, you do an uncut video like that and it will go a long darn way, plus show additional integrity.
Not even hard to do, you folks look more than capable given your prior videos. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2017 7:49:21 PM EDT
[#15]
Steve (rangerwalker71) I wish you the best of luck with this I will subscribe to this because I am intrigued by this suppressor.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2017 10:45:40 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thanks for the update. Until you can get third party testing done, the next best thing would be to do a video that shows a baseline and tries to follow what MAC does. For example, do a continuous video with no cuts that shows: 1. A close-up of the tape measure showing the meter mic is positioned correctly ( whatever the proper distance to the left of the muzzle, and 6" from the shooter's right ear.) 2. A close-up of the meter showing the readings for a 5 shot group unsuppressed 3. The readings for a 5 shot group with your product, at muzzle and ear 4. 5 shot groups with whatever popular competitors you can name and mount on the same gun, at muzzle and ear That would go a long way toward reducing the reaction of disbelief you are getting. At this point, from our perspective we have no way of knowing if your meter is even functioning properly! So adding some points of reference would help a lot. Mike, When we do testing it is always a 10 shot. This gives you a better average, and to ensure that there is not any thing Hookie going on. IE Wet. We had that all in mind. With the fires out west we are not allowed to shoot for a while. Once we can it will be done. thanks Steve RLTW 816-718-9489 |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2017 11:34:30 PM EDT
[#17]
Excited for updates, hoping that vid comes out soon.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/18/2017 9:09:55 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Excited for updates, hoping that vid comes out soon. I have a SAS Stainless Direct Thread Reaper. I like it. It's really quiet with my 6.8spc handloads. If this one performs close to advertised I'd buy one. Just need to see the video!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2017 1:11:23 PM EDT
[#19]
Here is a new vid showing that The Claymore suppressor is compatible with all SAS TOMB muzzle devices, and may be used as a reflex suppressor using the new over-the-barrel brake / flash hider or as a standard muzzle-mounted conventional design with previous 5.56 TOMB attachments.
FYI. New Sale as well. $950 for Suppressor with one reflex brake and one TOMB Brake. Link to youtube showing Claymore on standard TOMB Brake. Vid. RLTW Steve 816-718-9489 |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2017 7:42:22 PM EDT
[#20]
I did a quick AR15 bolt drop video today.
https://youtu.be/w3Cb8aw1Sd0 |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2017 9:45:08 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I did a quick AR15 bolt drop video today. https://youtu.be/w3Cb8aw1Sd0 |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2017 10:46:23 PM EDT
[#22]
When will we see some more meter tests of this can? I'm anxious to see it side by side with some competitors in comparable size.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2017 10:50:24 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I did a quick AR15 bolt drop video today. https://youtu.be/w3Cb8aw1Sd0 I'm surprised that it was louder on the left though, not on the port side. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2017 11:13:07 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is awesome, thank you!! I figured that chambering a round would be quieter than dropping on an empty chamber. I'm surprised that it was louder on the left though, not on the port side. Shows just how effective the Claymore is at suppression the 556. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2017 11:02:01 PM EDT
[#25]
It absolutely does not show that. It shows the opposite, that just like we all suspected and the other suppressor manufacturer stated many times, 118db is impossible from an AR. Dropping the bolt is louder than that.
I'm not surprised the video with other suppressors is taking so long, because it will clearly show this as well. Now this is no reason to be disheartened as even a 2-3db decrease over other leading manufacturers on an AR at the ear would be huge. I hope that is the case and I hope your video shows just that. But it is safe to say the 118db claim was and is bunk, and was at best made in error for whatever reason. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2017 11:08:22 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm surprised that it was louder on the left though, not on the port side. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2017 11:41:19 PM EDT
[#27]
I'm no expert, but I think we should remember that there are a lot of variables in play when comparing one person's DB number to another's. What really matters is when variables are controlled and you try to get real A/B comparisons. Until that is done we should avoid drawing absolute conclusions.
Ideally, the same meter would be used for all testing and everything would be measured in one continuous session using the same rifle for everything. Add the "drop the bolt on empty chamber and over loaded magazine" to the testing protocol listed earlier! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2017 7:50:52 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It absolutely does not show that. It shows the opposite, that just like we all suspected and the other suppressor manufacturer stated many times, 118db is impossible from an AR. Dropping the bolt is louder than that. I'm not surprised the video with other suppressors is taking so long, because it will clearly show this as well. Now this is no reason to be disheartened as even a 2-3db decrease over other leading manufacturers on an AR at the ear would be huge. I hope that is the case and I hope your video shows just that. But it is safe to say the 118db claim was and is bunk, and was at best made in error for whatever reason. WHAT SAY YOU?????? Thanks Steve RTLW 816-718-9489 |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2017 8:10:59 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your in VT correct?? Next week i hope to have a independent test. this is planned for Plainfield NH. YOU ARE INVITED TO COME WATCH AND SHOOT THE CLAYMORE. You will see that this can is as good as i have stated. WHAT SAY YOU?????? Thanks Steve RTLW 816-718-9489 |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2017 10:29:55 AM EDT
[#30]
I say the burden of proof is on you, not me. Lots of us have work, lives, family, etc, there is no way the vast majority of us can come shoot a can 3-7 hours of driving round trip at a minimum. I and many other locals appreciate the invite I'm sure, and I'll spread the word, but I wouldn't count on a huge turnout. And the only thing that could really be confirmed is that there is less blowback than other cans. Unless there is a meter running and testing done in front of us with competitors cans, we won't get any info we don't already have. And if you do intend to do that, then you just need to film it and put the video up here (as promised) and boom, your claims or proven or not (which again, I am hopeful).
Seeing you run to the same excuse over and over "come test for yourself" whenever the obvious is brought up is very worrisome at best. As has been shown, it is simply physically impossible to get an AR to 118db at the right ear. The bolt closing is louder than that. A suppressor physically cannot slow down chambering of the round in a fashion where it would still feed but be quieter. As I said, don't stick by impossible claims, even 134db at the right ear would be a HUGE deal and folks would be very pleased. Saying "come shoot for yourself' isn't any kind of defense of your claims. On the face of it, it seems nice. But in reality it is something very few people can take advantage of, and again unless the same testing that you could easily video is done, we don't learn anything. Furthermore, from a marketing perspective it is strictly worse than just releasing a scientifically valid test video substantiating your claims. Help yourselves out, do that instead of making friendly but largely empty offers. So again, video the event as you have claimed you would, and if it performs against competitors the way you claim it will I'm sure many of use will be queuing up for one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2017 9:09:20 PM EDT
[#31]
Boy this thread sure has brought out the hate and discontent crowd.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2017 11:33:09 PM EDT
[#32]
No it really hasn't. It has brought reasonable skepticism and requests for proof, and both have been asked in far nicer ways than one normally finds on the net. if you think this is hate, you must be very sheltered.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2017 11:42:34 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Boy this thread sure has brought out the hate and discontent crowd. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/31/2017 7:27:14 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I say the burden of proof is on you, not me. Lots of us have work, lives, family, etc, there is no way the vast majority of us can come shoot a can 3-7 hours of driving round trip at a minimum. I and many other locals appreciate the invite I'm sure, and I'll spread the word, but I wouldn't count on a huge turnout. And the only thing that could really be confirmed is that there is less blowback than other cans. Unless there is a meter running and testing done in front of us with competitors cans, we won't get any info we don't already have. And if you do intend to do that, then you just need to film it and put the video up here (as promised) and boom, your claims or proven or not (which again, I am hopeful). Seeing you run to the same excuse over and over "come test for yourself" whenever the obvious is brought up is very worrisome at best. As has been shown, it is simply physically impossible to get an AR to 118db at the right ear. The bolt closing is louder than that. A suppressor physically cannot slow down chambering of the round in a fashion where it would still feed but be quieter. As I said, don't stick by impossible claims, even 134db at the right ear would be a HUGE deal and folks would be very pleased. Saying "come shoot for yourself' isn't any kind of defense of your claims. On the face of it, it seems nice. But in reality it is something very few people can take advantage of, and again unless the same testing that you could easily video is done, we don't learn anything. Furthermore, from a marketing perspective it is strictly worse than just releasing a scientifically valid test video substantiating your claims. Help yourselves out, do that instead of making friendly but largely empty offers. So again, video the event as you have claimed you would, and if it performs against competitors the way you claim it will I'm sure many of use will be queuing up for one. MAC is booked until the end of SEPT. We are working on several other people trying to get some thing to show that the numbers are accurate. In the mean time, if some one that lived close wanted to shoot it, i am willing to make that happen. I have a test lined up that i will be taking the suppressor to for independent testing. I will video every thing. I am sure people with throw stones and not be happy with some aspect of the the can, the test, or something. I will say it again---- ANY one that wants to come and shoot it contact me at 816-718-9489 or [email protected]. I will put you on a gun with the Claymore, you can make your own assessment of it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/31/2017 10:19:40 AM EDT
[#35]
Well I cannot say I expected any other response, but I was hopeful. Oh well.
I look forward to the video regardless, and if it shows even close results to the claims perhaps I will make the time to test one before buying. ....and just FYI, no one in their right mind will be throwing stones if you just do the video as has been laid out ITT. Not cuts, same host, competitors cans included, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/31/2017 10:51:29 AM EDT
[#36]
I guess my YouTube channel isn't big enough to garner a response lol
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/31/2017 1:38:29 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I guess my YouTube channel isn't big enough to garner a response lol All anyone needs is a video testing this silencer alongside another known quantity. Something that should've been easy to provide by now considering these guys have a meter. Instead, we get invitations to come halfway across the country to shoot it next to something else because the video won't do it justice. The video will do it justice, that's the gold standard for showing proof of your test. And as everyone knows, there need to be a few cans tested at the same time so a good comparison can be drawn due to day-to-day environmental changes. 130.8 dB at the muzzle and "well below 120 dB" at the ear is the claim so far. I believe people would buy this can left and right with those numbers given the published length and weight, provided they can see the proof. Why not meter it next to an Omega, Recce 5, and M4-2000? Three very popular cans whose performance is already a known quantity. That's a hell of a lot easier than someone coming out to you guys, and the repeated invitation to come see for ourselves rather than simply showing the test comes across poorly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/31/2017 4:50:37 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You need Giant Red FontTM to be noticed. All anyone needs is a video testing this silencer alongside another known quantity. Something that should've been easy to provide by now considering these guys have a meter. Instead, we get invitations to come halfway across the country to shoot it next to something else because the video won't do it justice. The video will do it justice, that's the gold standard for showing proof of your test. And as everyone knows, there need to be a few cans tested at the same time so a good comparison can be drawn due to day-to-day environmental changes. 130.8 dB at the muzzle and "well below 120 dB" at the ear is the claim so far. I believe people would buy this can left and right with those numbers given the published length and weight, provided they can see the proof. Why not meter it next to an Omega, Recce 5, and M4-2000? Three very popular cans whose performance is already a known quantity. That's a hell of a lot easier than someone coming out to you guys, and the repeated invitation to come see for ourselves rather than simply showing the test comes across poorly. He stated that he is busy and can't just drop every thing to come shoot. More vid is coming, I will take out the can's that i have for demo purposes and do 10 shot meter tests. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/31/2017 4:51:48 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I guess my YouTube channel isn't big enough to garner a response lol That is the policy of SAS and Colonial Armory. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/31/2017 6:13:46 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Where are you located? we have had a issue in the past with people testing out products. Tim or i want to be present when the testing is done. That is the policy of SAS and Colonial Armory. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I guess my YouTube channel isn't big enough to garner a response lol That is the policy of SAS and Colonial Armory. And the underlined sounds very sketchy to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2017 11:20:36 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
North Carolina And the underlined sounds very sketchy to me. As far as new vid's they will be coming next week. i am tied up and don't have the time this week to do them. Next week i will be doing several on shot from start to finish. I will test The Claymore, as well as other SAS Cans, SICO can, YHM and any other i have for demo. We will do 10 shot mil spec and at shooters Right ear, 6" off. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2017 12:33:28 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Where are you located? we have had a issue in the past with people testing out products. Tim or i want to be present when the testing is done. That is the policy of SAS and Colonial Armory. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2017 2:37:32 PM EDT
[#43]
I was interested at 12.6 oz. If it sounds as good, if not better, than an 18oz Griffin Armament SPR, its what my SPR build needs.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2017 2:47:55 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
North Carolina And the underlined sounds very sketchy to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2017 2:48:13 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
North Carolina And the underlined sounds very sketchy to me. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I guess my YouTube channel isn't big enough to garner a response lol That is the policy of SAS and Colonial Armory. And the underlined sounds very sketchy to me. 
Inventors/Manufacturers have every right to protect their product. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2017 3:14:55 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Apparently you've never watched the OSS video trashing the Surfire SOCOM
Inventors/Manufacturers have every right to protect their product. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I guess my YouTube channel isn't big enough to garner a response lol That is the policy of SAS and Colonial Armory. And the underlined sounds very sketchy to me.
Inventors/Manufacturers have every right to protect their product. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2017 6:40:02 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
North Carolina And the underlined sounds very sketchy to me. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I guess my YouTube channel isn't big enough to garner a response lol That is the policy of SAS and Colonial Armory. And the underlined sounds very sketchy to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2017 7:36:25 PM EDT
[#48]
Here is a pretty straight forward video of a 223 Ultra 7 on a 14.5" upper. No adjustable gas block or anything. The 223 Ultra 7 suppresses very well.
Here's how the shots go Unsuppressed 165.5 165 164.5 165.5 165.5 223 Ultra 7 Milspec 132 128.5 130.5 130 128 130 Eport 6" 158 155.5 159.25 156.25 Left side 141.5 140 140 141 eport 160 159 MilSpec 129.5 132 130 134 132 left side 141 142.5 Eport 160 160 Averages Unsuppressed 165.2 MilSpec 130.6 Left Side 140.6 Eport 158.5 https://www.youtube.com/edit?o=U&video_id=-d-4_9lRSfQ |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2017 8:59:01 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryMade hot: https://youtu.be/-d-4_9lRSfQ
 Thunder Beast 223 Ultra 7 shooters ear and MilSpec sound test. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2017 9:07:39 PM EDT
[#50]
DUPE
|
|
|
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.
