User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/22/2003 9:40:06 PM EDT
[#1]
That's pretty funny, I wish I had that business/money, I wouldn't be sitting here pointing out things that generaly known by all mil spec makers/ and users. Your info on who I am is about as accurate as the mil standard 1913 rail claim.
Jack |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2003 9:44:59 PM EDT
[#2]
dick swan....that would make sense. I mean 3rdtk does always praise ARMS stuff to the point of being annoying, and at the same time bashes anything and everything else that is not arms and could/is competition to ARMS gear.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2003 10:04:00 PM EDT
[#3]
3rdtk,
The picture of our hand guard clearly shows the Surefire light system, and Eo-Tech sight system is shown mounted to our rail system. The external features of the rail are to the mil-spec. Please read TreeTop's post. He talks from experience. He actualy seen and handled the hand guard. If you'd like, we could send you one for you to review. Then you could talk from experience about our hand guard, since you would have it for review. Once you finished with your review of our product, return it to us at no cost to you. I would think your review of the hand guard shouldn't take longer then a week total. Just provide us your name, address, phone number. Best regards, Frank POF-USA PS: Our product is MADE IN THE USA (Phx.,AZ) |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2003 10:08:01 PM EDT
[#4]
Pointing out any actual facts that sometimes even a blind man can see, experienced and or reseach a little is not bashing. The meaning of bashing can be found in the dictionary. I get paid to evaluate and also train personel on harware/devices, I report the results, and when I can, I also share some on this forum. Someone makes a claim or two that are not accurate about hardware and mil standards that are readily available to compare, many of us have done that to help seperate the wheat from the shaft to help the membership have facts they can easily verify elsewhere. POF makes no sense at all about who he thinks I am, just another inaccurate dumb statement/claim like what the mil stds. are. Do his rails look like the mil spec flat top receivers, of course not.
Good shootin, Jack |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2003 10:14:13 PM EDT
[#5]
if they dont look like the old boring Mil spec stuff. Fine with me. Do they work, can everything designed to fit on the picatinny spec work on the predator rails system, so far it seems like the answer is yes. wait, If a ARMS mount works on it that would be the true test, that would mean it is to spec, huh....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2003 10:21:40 PM EDT
[#6]
3rdtk,
Who pay's you to evaluate there systems? Are you an employee of another manufacture like ARMS or Knight? Our offer still stands as long as your not an employee our another manufacture, and your truly a third party that evaluates new products. little223shooter Your correct. The arms products do mount on our rail design. Best regards, Frank POF-USA |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2003 10:28:07 PM EDT
[#7]
3rdtk makes me want to never buy anymore ARMS products and sell the ones I have already.
Jack when will you get it through your head that the features that are required by the military are not neccessarily what the civilian market needs, nor are the military requirements always set in stone. If they were we would still be using flint lock muskets to this day. If this piece was designed to work with a gas piston upper, the advantages of the gas piston upper probably outweigh the disadvantages of having to use different sighting systems in the military's eyes. At $150.00 less than a SIR or RAS, it is more affordable for the average consumer while having a unique look and being lighter weight than similar systems such as the Yankee Hill Machine quad rail, and the C-More rail. The way the POF attaches seems more solid than either of the two. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2003 10:28:52 PM EDT
[#8]
Frank, you have an interesting looking rail device and no doubt that it will accept what you say and show. However, the gov't will not accept as mil std., those cuts along the side of the dovetail and some other things I see, they are not called for on the gov't print. Don't bash me for pointing out a gov't requirement not being met by your product, I didn't make the rules. If and when the gov't decide to accept your device in competition and evaluations for pos gov't use, I could then be looking at it. Hell if the gov't let anybody just make their idea of improvements to a standard without authorization, there wouldn't be a gov't standard would there. The same for sights, shovels, camo, shoes, and aircraft.
Jack |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2003 10:32:18 PM EDT
[#9]
Sinstral,
I responded to the statment that the rail was to the mil standard 1913, what's the problem with pointing out that it isn't and why. Jack |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2003 10:40:54 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted: Sinstral, I responded to the statment that the rail was to the mil standard 1913, what's the problem with pointing out that it isn't and why. Jack Jack the only things I've ever seen you say were M1913 mil-spec or to spec at all are ARMS products. If the feature is not called for in the print, but does not effect or hinder the use of the pieces that are to be used with it, why does it matter? If the added features make for a lighter rail system that the government is requesting, why does it matter? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2003 10:43:51 PM EDT
[#11]
Dif. sighting devices are used for dif. aplications, enviroments, etc., hence they had dif NSN numbers, but they all do require a standard male rail to attach to, and have to work with everything else. The irons are at a standard mil spec ht. What company you or anyone buy from makes no dif. to me in the least. Some times facts on weapons equipment need to be compared to claims, just like cars in the civ marketplace.
Jack |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2003 10:48:06 PM EDT
[#12]
3rdtk,
Our rails external features meet the 1913 mil-spec dimensions. I should have explained this better. Our internal features are not to the mil-spec dimensions. We beleive we have inproved upon the 1913 picitinnay design. We now have internal reference planes, reduced weight, and 2-3 times more surface area to disapeat/reduce heat. This is why we feel we have improved upon the 1913 mil-spec pictinnay rail design. We believe our design will also help to improve mounts/adapters used on our rail design to be smaller and lighter in size. Example: our sling/bi-pod (rotating stud), mount fills the internal area of our rail, and is no larger then the 1913 picitinnay rail design. This helps us reduce the weight of accessories that mount to our system. By the way, who pay's you to evaluate there systems? Best regards, Frank POF-USA |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2003 10:54:51 PM EDT
[#13]
This is a Doctor optic with OKO on top, came directly off of my Alexander Arms Beowolf without moving either ring. mounted right up...oh, those are ARMS 22L mounts, I like this height.
[img]http://photos.ar15.com/ImageGallery/Attachments/DownloadAttach.asp?iImageUnq=15109[/img] This is a leupold 6.5x20, it came right off of my Bushmaster A3 upper. Again, did not have to move either mount on the scope, clamped right on, nice and tight. [img]http://photos.ar15.com/ImageGallery/Attachments/DownloadAttach.asp?iImageUnq=15111[/img] |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2003 10:56:14 PM EDT
[#14]
I can't help what someone has seen, I have pointed out time and again that the gov't issues troops equipment, good or bad, to a mil standard. I assumed that all members realise that (all) those that do make for the military were to mil spec., or they wouldn't be selling to the military I can assure you. Those that have been in the military understand that if you are going to supply hundreds of thousands of men/women with equipment, they have to be the same for logistical, interoperable, and be compatible for fielding deployments. If they didn't, what a cluster F. If someone has a better way, the gov't have many ways you can submit your idea and they encourage it, that's why we have such a good and well supplied military. That's why we don'r carry flint locks!
Good shooti, Jack |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2003 11:11:19 PM EDT
[#15]
3rdtk,
I'm not trying to bash you or anyone else. You are correct, the military has a standard. The military also evaluates new product designs. They always test new technology. This is why our arm forces kick serious butt, and fast. If we were to stop looking at and testing new technologies, our enemies would be at our front door. At one time, I'm sure there was a spec for a diesel engine for tanks, now we have a jet engine in our tanks. . Advancements in new technology is awesome. My offer still stands, to send you one of our hand guard systems for evaluation. Can you please tell me who pay's you to evaluate systems? Are you a manufacture? Do you work in the military (Picitinnay Aresnal)? Are you a paid consultant? Best regards, Frank POF-USA |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2003 11:28:36 PM EDT
[#16]
At this point, I personally dont care if the military accepts this, I know others do care, I am not trying to offend anyone here with that comment. We wont be selling it to the military (others may, but not us), but we could be selling it to the civilan market, which has the potental of being a large market for this product.
I do know that I like it, so far it seems to be very functional for the things I want to do with it. Everything I have tried to put on it mounts up very well. It is cheaper then equivelent rail systems out there, both for us to purchase and for the end user to purchase, that I do care about. We are about to start extensive testing on this product, including alot of Full-Auto use. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2003 11:31:20 PM EDT
[#17]
3rdtk,
Please reply. Our offer still stands for you to evaluate our product at no cost to you. We have asked you several times who pays you to evaluate systems? No reply We asked if you are a manufacture? No reply We ask you are a consultant/3rd party to evaluate systems? No reply We also asked if you worked for the military (Picitinnay Aresnal)? No reply Please send us your name, address, and phone number. Please understand we are not trying to bash anyone. We do want a constructive evaluation of our product. But we need to know who we are sending our product too. Please reply. Best regards, Frank POF-USA |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2003 6:04:46 AM EDT
[#18]
Ilove2shoot, that red dot sight looks like an OKO, not a Docter [;)]
3rdtk's comments are always to the point and at time hard harsh, he certainly doesn't beat around the bush, they're based on his vast experience. Like most professionals, I agree he's opinionated. Whether you like him or not, and he's not infallable, to be sure, he does know his business. His preference for ARMS products may not be what some of us allege, he likes them. I like KAC, so what. POF you might have gathered by now that 3rdtk is in the armed forces, but I'll let him tell you more if he wishes [;)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2003 7:09:21 AM EDT
[#19]
I think what 3rdtk is talking about is:
THE ARMS THROWLEVER IS VERY PICKY IF THE RAIL IS NOT PERFECT IT WILL NOT WORK. DO ARMS THROWLEVERS WORK ON THE POF SYS??? I don't think improving on a Picatinny rail is possible (the idea is to have a single spec so that all accessories are compatible any change in the dimensions will only hurt it's ability to be compatible with accessories.) If you are talking about a mod to the under side that does not matter as it does not have anything to do with mounting options. [b]The front sight issue is simple: Your rail is not at the height of the upper rail (as you said it is 3/8 higher) so that rules out a KAC Rail mounted front flip sight and makes it neccassary to use:either a barrel mounted flip sight or your proprietary front sight. No problem but I would consider a front sight to be a neccassary part of the kit. (with your rail mounted front sight it should be no problem using any aftermarket flip up rear sight.)[/b] Now just my opinion: The lightning cuts look a little strange for anything the military will ever accept. A simple redesign to large holes or larger rounded rectangles would make it look a lot more conventional and less like a flashy competition rifle accessory. Plus the larger vents might be quicker to produce. [b]Is the RROC availible for civilian or personal (non unit purchase) sale to military personel??? I know it is unconventional but the ease of maintenance and bbl heat sink and buffer system make it the farthest advancement in the Armalite system to date I would be in the market for it.[/b] |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2003 8:27:32 AM EDT
[#20]
Frank,
I'll be happy to test and evaluate your product. But.......I'll need at least six months to give it the old long term durability test. Also, If I give it a good review I'd expect a big discount on buying it. [8D] What compay do I represent? Why it's "Rambosky Tactical Custom Precision Weapons Systems, Inc." |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2003 8:46:24 AM EDT
[#21]
I like the looks and the price of this system.
The only thing I would like is some kind of back up iron sights that would be made for this system, maybe something like the GGG flip up front. p.s. I am also marking this so I can follow this thread, I am almost out of projects and need to start a new one soon :) |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2003 9:14:04 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: ...THE ARMS THROWLEVER IS VERY PICKY IF THE RAIL IS NOT PERFECT IT WILL NOT WORK. DO ARMS THROWLEVERS WORK ON THE POF SYS??? Yes. The outer measurements of the POF rail is made to Picatinny spec. It's the center part where nothing makes contact with it that's been changed to favor light weight. ARMS throw levers work fine on it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2003 10:37:28 AM EDT
[#23]
GreenO: did you look at the last two pics I posted and read what I said? I have tried two diferent sets of ARMS #22 rings, one low and one medium. took them right off of a Beowolf and a Bushmaster. the locked on perfectly, did not have to reposition the rings at all. Guess that settles that part of the arguement.
I was also able to put a GG&G flip up rear sight on a different upper (bushmaster milspec upper) behind another predator unit we have, worked fine. Duffy: the red dot is an OKO, the magnified optic it is mounted above is a Doctor optic (6X). |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2003 5:43:24 PM EDT
[#24]
3rdtk,
As you quoted:, "I get paid to evaluate and also train personel on harware/devices, I report the results, and when I can, I also share some on this forum." It would make perfect sense for us to send our product to you for evaluation, since you do this for a living. Please reply. Our offer still stands for you to evaluate our product at no cost to you. We have asked you several times who pays you to evaluate systems? No reply We asked if you are a manufacture? No reply We ask you are a consultant/3rd party to evaluate systems? No reply We also asked if you worked for the military (Picitinnay Aresnal)? No reply Please send us your name, address, and phone number. Please understand we are not trying to bash anyone. We do want a constructive evaluation of our product. But we need to know who we are sending our product too. Please reply. Best regards, Frank POF-USA PS: Rambosky, thanks for the offer, but we requested 3rdth to do an evaluation of our product since he does this for a living. If 3rdth doesn't reply to our offer, stay in touch so we can talk to you about testing our tactical hand guard system. Thanks |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2003 6:09:00 PM EDT
[#25]
Frank, thank you for your very kind offer. However I am not soliciting work, just providing basic factual constructive obsevations to you and the membership. New AR GUY does a good job on civilian hardware evaluations as shown at the top of this thread. I'm sure you will agree if you read it, and I can comment on it from there to stir things up with annoying facts. I hope this could be helpfull.
Good shootin, Jack |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2003 8:51:51 PM EDT
[#26]
I would be happy to continue with our testing. A good friend of mine just obtained one of only a very few full length SIR's. We could do a side by side between the two of POF is interested. IM me for more details if this is something you would consider.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2003 9:58:03 PM EDT
[#27]
Frank, if you want an honest answer on a handguard, there is no better person the New-ARguy, his review on the FIRSH vs the SIR is superb. you will not regret sendhim a handguard if it really lives up to what you have told us.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2003 10:29:51 PM EDT
[#28]
3rdtk,
I'm shocked that you wouldn't evaluate our system? We understand you are not soliciting work, but we would be will to pay you for your services since you do this for a living. We wouldn't expect you to work for free. What prevents you from answering our questions? We have tried to answer all of your questions about our system. Isn't it your job to evaluate new products available on the market? Why would you offer the services of another person to evaluate product without asking them first? Quote: "I get paid to evaluate and also train personel on harware/devices, I report the results, and when I can, I also share some on this forum." It would be great for the members of this forum if you would compare our rail design and other companies products, against the mil-spec systems you evaluate for a living. This would give the people of this forum a true comparison, since you do this for a living. I hope you will answer all of our questions. Best regards, Frank POF-USA PS: Is the SIR (ARMS) and the Firsh systems civilian products? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2003 11:04:58 PM EDT
[#29]
Frank,
All joking aside, [b]new-arguy[/b] would be an excellent canidate for an evaluation of your rail system. I am very interested and would be in the market for buying one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2003 3:50:55 AM EDT
[#30]
Frank, not to put words in any ofthe 3rdtk's mouth... [:P], but all this has been tried before when we were debating the FIRSH system. Budam from Triple Brake Products attempted to get 3rdtk to evaluate the FIRSH. 3rdtk was not in the least bit interested.
Some folks are absolutely outraged to simply annoyed that 3rdtk does not talk more about who he is. I can understand their frustration. He comes online and without question shares his opinions with a very critical eye. He is extremely opinionated and at times quite merciless when it comes to talking about a lot of manufacturers gear. He/they clearly love ARMS stuff. While all of the above is true, I have to say that all the while he has been here, all of his opinions have been based upon fact and I do not recall him ever, EVER saying anything that was blatantly false... well, except the time he said the Leupold CQ/T was a good optic! Hahaha! It is also interesting to note that whomever 3rdtk is, the info they have given have prooven to me and to many others, that he/they are the read deal even if we dont ever know exactly who they are. Myself, I dont need to know exactly who they are. I appreciate and value the opinions they give even if they are offered in a way other than I would offer. In the end, I dont care how something is said, only that whats said is factual. Finally, I know there are a LOT of representatives from A LOT of top shelf manufactuers here on line. Some of them post and some of them dont. But VERY few of them post that they work for the companies they work for. I can almost understand why. If they did, they would be absolutely SWAMPED with questions, emails, praises and critics. Most of them come on here to check out whats going on in the AR world, not turn into a customer service rep for their company via AR15.com. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2003 5:11:43 AM EDT
[#31]
New-ARGuy, as usual, well said.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2003 5:34:12 AM EDT
[#32]
Another vote for letting [b]new_arguy[/b] do the evaluation.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2003 6:54:15 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: Another vote for letting [b]new_arguy[/b] do the evaluation. Ditto |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2003 7:52:07 AM EDT
[#34]
Yes, new_arguy's opinion is pretty respected by most people and always objective (unless you are discussing ACOGs [:D])
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2003 8:08:39 AM EDT
[#35]
PLEASE let ARguy do the eval. I used his eval fo the firsh/sir, etc to make my decision to get my carbine project finished. His report was unbiased and fair.
Arguy, or anyone else who reviews the Predator, please tell us what rear BUIS work with what type of front sights. I'm still a little confused about what "irons" will work with this rail system. POF-USA, I have an aow/AR projects coming up and I feel this system may work. The project will have a 10'bbl with milled sight block. I plan on having a set of sl8/g36 sights on it, but that may change...i have to see if they will work. I'm very interested to see what BUISs work with this system. thanks |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2003 9:35:11 AM EDT
[#36]
I think he's a ARMS employee and his aggressive stance of "If it's not ARMS it's Crap!" has made me not want anything to do with ARMS (that and I've had nothing but trouble with ARMS "gear"). I look at anything he says as biased bull shit and if he isn't going to say who he is or how he is connected with the industry, that makes me even more suspect of his motives in these discussions.
My name is Shawn Nealon and I'm with Cavalry Arms Corp. We make guns and accessories. Anyone who wants to call me at our shop can do so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2003 11:32:01 AM EDT
[#37]
any plans for shortening the portion of the rail that is on the flat top so it can be used with an acog and not be too high
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2003 12:42:39 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: ...However, the gov't will not accept as mil std., those cuts along the side of the dovetail and some other things I see, they are not called for on the gov't print. Jack, you make claims that are not necessarily true. What FAR are you operating under? Are you implying the Government never deviates from a specification on a drawing? Don't bash me for pointing out a gov't requirement not being met by your product, I didn't make the rules. What specification are you referring to? If and when the gov't decide to accept your device in competition and evaluations for pos gov't use, I could then be looking at it. Hell if the gov't let anybody just make their idea of improvements to a standard without authorization, there wouldn't be a gov't standard would there. How long have you been evaluating government contracts? You must not work for TACOM or DLA. The same for sights, shovels, camo, shoes, and aircraft. Jack See above. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2003 1:31:57 PM EDT
[#39]
QCMRG - Your correct.
1. The Gov't has alternatives, They are shown on prints, I know of none for the mil-std. 1913 rail, do you? 2. The dimentions on the Mil-Std. 1913 rail. 3. Doesn't matter, what matters to the gov't inspectors is that the print is followed or you get rejected. I'm sure you know this. It does not matter if things attach, just don't offer the Gov't what you like better and think the inspectors can change the spec's cause you want them to, it doesn't work that way. A.The cuts on the sides are atractive, but they don't meat the print. From an engineering point, they reduce the amount of bearing surface that a device would attach to, maybe that's why the gov't prints and no other maker put less metal there to fasten to. Most attachment devices such as rings average 3/4" width for bearing surface on that lower 45 degree angle. Those side notch's take about 1/3 of what the gov't has specified as needed bearing surface away at each cross notch. Some people just don't like facts and can't defend thier engineering problem , so those types attack the messanger. I think Frank wants to know, so I am trying to help clarify detail as best I can and hope that it is usefull. For the other types, I wouldn't waste my time. Good Shootin, Jack |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2003 3:20:43 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted: ...A.The cuts on the sides are atractive, but they don't meat the print. I agree. From what I can see it does not meet the drawing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2003 3:37:50 PM EDT
[#41]
3rdtk......why don't you answer the mans questions?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2003 4:04:06 PM EDT
[#42]
POF - I don't mean to change the subject but, will you be manufacturing and/or selling the RROC system to the general public?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2003 5:21:38 PM EDT
[#43]
SGB
The questions were answered. 1. 2. 3. Plus extra info that will be helfull in meeting specs and why he needs to, if he wants to meet what the required standards. Iv'e done more than anyone else in offering some tech advise from the gov't standards perspective, and I'm sure he can/will follow up on it, depending if he wants to have hopes of selling to the gov't. Good shootin, Jack |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2003 5:38:07 PM EDT
[#44]
I dont know if I am feeling charitable this week or what, but...
3rdtk has knowledge/insight. He was proposing SOPMODII solutions/requirements long before they were public... Several on this board have a fair incling of who/where he(they?)/ is(are). I am no longer overly concerned who he is. His comments are his, and he is entitled to make them. [u]I[/u] think that he feels it would be inappropriate to reveal who he is and what he does. Not to mention some of his comments place some material/equiptment in a bad light. Then again WTF do I know |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2003 5:58:41 PM EDT
[#45]
Jersey Gunny
That's what we have have been discussing. If he ever intends to sell to the gov't, he has to meet Gov't standards. Currently he doesn't for reason described. Dimentions on gov't prints are not allowed to be changed without gov't programs that have to go thru justification, that usually takes years to validate. An ability to handle grenade launches such as the M203 is not something that can be ignored, so far this system doesn't have that ability. The rail must be able to put NV monoculars back to the shooter, this is not currently possible yet. The only real market at this time is the CIV and LE. Jack |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2003 6:26:36 PM EDT
[#46]
Someones mail box is full, needs fixin!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2003 6:35:45 PM EDT
[#47]
oops
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2003 6:59:07 PM EDT
[#48]
3rdtk -
I apreciate your insight, but that's not what I asked. I was referring to the WHOLE RROC conversion kit (force redirection brake, gas piston sys., heat sink, counterweighted bolt carrier, new buffer) and not just the rail system forend. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2003 7:06:27 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted: SGB The questions were answered. 1. 2. 3. Plus extra info that will be helfull in meeting specs and why he needs to, if he wants to meet what the required standards. Iv'e done more than anyone else in offering some tech advise from the gov't standards perspective, and I'm sure he can/will follow up on it, depending if he wants to have hopes of selling to the gov't. Good shootin, Jack Not taking sides, but I think SGB meant the questions asked by Frank regarding who you are, what testing you do, where you work, etc., etc., etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2003 7:35:45 PM EDT
[#50]
Jersey
I see what you mean, but what I said would apply to the everything and or anyone else that is has offered to Uncle. He can't sell for issue, any of it to the military unless there is a program that accepts it and only after validation as being suitable for troops. That takes years. Good Shootin, Jack |
|
|
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.
