User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/25/2018 3:22:35 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TripleC:
Hey OP Have you thought about testing the Hornady Critical Duty in 45? It is supposed to be more of a perpetrator hence the harder compound lead used. I think of it as the next gen XTP and think it may be decent for a woods round. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2018 11:06:45 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 5pins:
I have not tried it in .45 but I have in 9 and 10mm. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 5pins:
Originally Posted By TripleC:
Hey OP Have you thought about testing the Hornady Critical Duty in 45? It is supposed to be more of a perpetrator hence the harder compound lead used. I think of it as the next gen XTP and think it may be decent for a woods round. Seems they worked as intended but many arent fond of their performance since they sacrifice expansion for penetration |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2018 3:02:20 PM EDT
[#3]
I have always liked HST, and it was my agency duty issue ammo for years. I would like to see a comparison between HST, Speer's "flying ashtray" load, and Hornady Critical Duty ammo.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2018 3:43:46 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Genin:
I have always liked HST, and it was my agency duty issue ammo for years. I would like to see a comparison between HST, Speer's "flying ashtray" load, and Hornady Critical Duty ammo. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2018 3:54:11 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Zhukov:
HST has been scientifically tested many times. What is the Speer bullet you mentioned? Hornady's CD is a sub-par performer when compared to HST. It offers very little expansion. http://www.general-cartridge.com/blog/speer-flying-ashtray-in-clear-ballistics-gel |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2018 4:19:25 PM EDT
[#6]
My nightstand gun has 13+1 230gr HST and my carry gun has 6+1 of ‘em.
The glovebox gun gets fed 15+1 9mm HST though. Been carrying HSTs probably since it came out. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 8/7/2018 11:31:11 PM EDT
[#7]
Great test that’s amazing, really makes me want to carry a .45 again !!
I wonder how much better the +p version is ? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2018 12:56:40 PM EDT
[#8]
I wonder how far it penetrates before turning to the side for the remainder of the penetration.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/9/2018 9:27:26 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 5pins: I think he is talking about the old 200gr Speer JHP. Speer stopped making them some time ago, mid 90’s I think. https://www.sgammo.com/product/45-auto-acp-ammo/50-round-box-speer-gold-dot-45-auto-p-200-grain-gdhp-ammo-53969 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2018 6:53:20 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5pins]
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By sherm8404: They're still making it. https://www.sgammo.com/product/45-auto-acp-ammo/50-round-box-speer-gold-dot-45-auto-p-200-grain-gdhp-ammo-53969 |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 10/4/2018 7:01:14 AM EDT
[#11]
Flying ashtray?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2018 9:13:57 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By banzai794:
Flying ashtray? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2018 10:48:47 AM EDT
[#13]
Used to reload the Speer 200 gr JHP "Flying Ashtray" back in the late 80s-90s.
CD |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2018 9:34:52 AM EDT
[#14]
Question for you guys ? I like the 45 round and I've studied the ballistic data for the 45 and other calibers. I carry the Remington golden Saber 185g +p ammo and here's why. It's moving at a velocity of 1150 FPS with a 185 grain bullet with muzzle energy @ 540 ft-lbs. That's 10mm performance and out performs the HST ammo. Am I missing something ? Why the HST ?
|
|
|
|
WI, USA
|
Posted: 11/15/2018 11:30:56 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By cubanchurchill: It's moving at a velocity of 1150 FPS with a 185 grain bullet with muzzle energy @ 540 ft-lbs. That's 10mm performance and out performs the HST ammo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2018 2:05:48 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By the_professional: Watered down 10mm... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2018 1:31:19 PM EDT
[#17]
Have you tested it in gel? Do you know it's penetration vs. expansion? What happens when clothing gets in the way?
Does it really hit the numbers on the box? I don't know myself, do you? Not picking nits here, just asking questions you should be asking as well. There is more to a self defense load than just muzzle velocity and energy. |
|
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 8:34:35 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By cubanchurchill:
Question for you guys ? I like the 45 round and I've studied the ballistic data for the 45 and other calibers. I carry the Remington golden Saber 185g +p ammo and here's why. It's moving at a velocity of 1150 FPS with a 185 grain bullet with muzzle energy @ 540 ft-lbs. That's 10mm performance and out performs the HST ammo. Am I missing something ? Why the HST ? |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 12/27/2018 10:05:40 PM EDT
[#19]
Do you save the projectiles that you fire?
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 5/22/2019 1:39:33 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ITCHY-FINGER:
More is....well, more. Just as the 9mm benefited from modern bullet design (most especially with the HST) so have all the other calibers. The 9mm loaded with the best modern ammo is good enough while the larger calibers, also benefiting are still better performers terminally. The pro's and con's havnt changed. [edited] This ammo test compares favorably with ballistics gelatin testing I've seen on YouTube and elsewhere |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2022 1:10:44 AM EDT
[#21]
230 grain HST JHP vs 230 grain HST JHP +P would be ( nostalgic ?? ) .
Are there current 230 grain JHP’s that penetrate barriers and still expand above 3/4 inch ? |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 8/26/2022 10:13:13 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By feudist: It's hard to believe the Subject Matter Experts who tell us that there is no difference in handgun rounds. But, they are adamant about it. I mean, they see more bullets pulled out of dead people than probably anyone, and Robert’s still contends there’s no difference in humans. |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 8/26/2022 10:19:25 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Zhukov: HST has been scientifically tested many times. What is the Speer bullet you mentioned? Hornady's CD is a sub-par performer when compared to HST. It offers very little expansion. Critical Duty expanded enough to be chosen by the FBI. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 8/26/2022 11:50:58 PM EDT
[#24]
My 1911 won’t run HST but it’s what I use in my G41
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2022 12:09:27 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By StevenH: My 1911 won't run HST but it's what I use in my G41 |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 8/27/2022 3:08:17 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Zhukov: HST has been scientifically tested many times. What is the Speer bullet you mentioned? Hornady's CD is a sub-par performer when compared to HST. It offers very little expansion. And the 200gr Flying Ashtray has the opposite problem of over expanding and penetrating under 12" iirc. It was a good load back in the 80's, compared to many others, but eclipsed by modern designs like the HST. I also like the Win. Ranger 230gr. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2022 4:32:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1stID]
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By joglee: Critical Duty expanded enough to be chosen by the FBI. Governments award contracts based on meeting minimum standards, and then being the cheapest. Guns and ammo selected by them will be fine to use, as there are almost always decent technical requirements that have to be met. But once met, there are usually no extra points for something being better, even far better. It makes sense if you need to outfit a million man army, or a 100 man department with a set budget. You select something that will do what you consider the job, and costs the least. But for the hobbyist, who's buying a scope or a red dot or 100 rounds of carry ammo, there's not a huge cost difference between something that meets a minimum standard, and something that is substantially better. So don't necessary use the fact that a government agency has selected a gun / ammo / mag / scope, as it being "the best", as that's not what they are looking for. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2022 7:01:46 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 1stID: Governments award contracts based on meeting minimum standards, and then being the cheapest. Guns and ammo selected by them will be fine to use, as there are almost always decent technical requirements that have to be met. But once met, there are usually no extra points for something being better, even far better. It makes sense if you need to outfit a million man army, or a 100 man department with a set budget. You select something that will do what you consider the job, and costs the least. But for the hobbyist, who's buying a scope or a red dot or 100 rounds of carry ammo, there's not a huge cost difference between something that meets a minimum standard, and something that is substantially better. So don't necessary use the fact that a government agency has selected a gun / ammo / mag / scope, as it being "the best", as that's not what they are looking for. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 1stID: Originally Posted By joglee: Critical Duty expanded enough to be chosen by the FBI. Governments award contracts based on meeting minimum standards, and then being the cheapest. Guns and ammo selected by them will be fine to use, as there are almost always decent technical requirements that have to be met. But once met, there are usually no extra points for something being better, even far better. It makes sense if you need to outfit a million man army, or a 100 man department with a set budget. You select something that will do what you consider the job, and costs the least. But for the hobbyist, who's buying a scope or a red dot or 100 rounds of carry ammo, there's not a huge cost difference between something that meets a minimum standard, and something that is substantially better. So don't necessary use the fact that a government agency has selected a gun / ammo / mag / scope, as it being "the best", as that's not what they are looking for. That's not the case here. Critical Duty penatrates more across the board and expands less than HSTs. That's what the agency wanted. Critical Duty Bare organic gel-14"/ 0.71" Heavy clothing-14.5"/ 0.69" Steel-17.75"/0.54" Wallboard- 13.5"/0.70" Plywood- 15"/ 0.66" Auto Glass- 13.75"- 0.53" HST Bare organic gel- 12.5"/ 0.98" Heavy clothing- 13"/ 0.89" Steel- 17.5"/ 0.51" Wallboard- 13"/ 0.91" Plywood- 13"/ 0.92" Auto Glass- 10.5"/ 0.72" I'm carrying HST as we speak but I'm more impressed with the Critical duty ammo. I'd rather have 1-3" deeper penetration and 0.2 less expansion. |
|
|
|
OK, USA
|
Posted: 10/10/2022 12:14:25 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GSL: 380 and 38 leave a bad taste. The 9, 40, or 45 is where it really shines. But still no 10mm HST from Federal  There is now. But like most factory 10mm ammo, they forgot to fill the case with powder. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 10/11/2022 1:51:55 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 03RN: That's not the case here. Critical Duty penatrates more across the board and expands less than HSTs. That's what the agency wanted. Critical Duty Bare organic gel-14"/ 0.71" Heavy clothing-14.5"/ 0.69" Steel-17.75"/0.54" Wallboard- 13.5"/0.70" Plywood- 15"/ 0.66" Auto Glass- 13.75"- 0.53" HST Bare organic gel- 12.5"/ 0.98" Heavy clothing- 13"/ 0.89" Steel- 17.5"/ 0.51" Wallboard- 13"/ 0.91" Plywood- 13"/ 0.92" Auto Glass- 10.5"/ 0.72" I'm carrying HST as we speak but I'm more impressed with the Critical duty ammo. I'd rather have 1-3" deeper penetration and 0.2 less expansion. Le.Vista Outdoor's HST gel tests are outdated, they haven't been updated in likely over a decade. The HST projectiles have undergone rolling changes since - the 124 gr HST on the le.vista tests doesn't even reach 12" in bare gel while Federal themselves listed a 13.1" figure for the same product and the same test in 2022. When tested in 2013, 230 gr HST +P penetrated to 13.8" in bare gel and 14.5" in 4LD-covered gel out of a 5" barrel. Through auto glass, penetration averaged 13.5". This performance is likely very similar to current day 230 gr HST +P performance, as the projectile design does not appear to have underwent significant change. The generation of Critical Duty tested in the 2013 link is likewise outdated; current gen Critical Duty penetrates less but likely expands only slightly more. The Hornady Catalog and Le.Vista's tests list maximum expansion (widest span between 2 bullet points), the pistol-forum post lists average expansion (average of widest and narrowest diameters at the face of the bullet), which is a better measure of frontal area. Increasing bullet diameter from 0.65 to 0.80 results in an approximate 50% increase in frontal area. |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 10/11/2022 2:30:21 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 45custom: Le.Vista Outdoor's HST gel tests are outdated, they haven't been updated in likely over a decade. The HST projectiles have undergone rolling changes since - the 124 gr HST on the le.vista tests doesn't even reach 12" in bare gel while Federal themselves listed a 13.1" figure for the same product and the same test in 2022. When tested in 2013, 230 gr HST +P penetrated to 13.8" in bare gel and 14.5" in 4LD-covered gel out of a 5" barrel. Through auto glass, penetration averaged 13.5". This performance is likely very similar to current day 230 gr HST +P performance, as the projectile design does not appear to have underwent significant change. The generation of Critical Duty tested in the 2013 link is likewise outdated; current gen Critical Duty penetrates less but likely expands only slightly more. The Hornady Catalog and Le.Vista's tests list maximum expansion (widest span between 2 bullet points), the pistol-forum post lists average expansion (average of widest and narrowest diameters at the face of the bullet), which is a better measure of frontal area. Increasing bullet diameter from 0.65 to 0.80 results in an approximate 50% increase in frontal area. As we’ve found, that increase in frontal area doesn’t make any diffetence in real world shootings. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 10/11/2022 4:17:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 45custom]
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By joglee: As we’ve found, that increase in frontal area doesn’t make any diffetence in real world shootings. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By joglee: As we’ve found, that increase in frontal area doesn’t make any diffetence in real world shootings. That's funny, because Dr. Roberts himself seems to have had a different assessment of the 2013 test results: The CD loads penetrate deeper than needed, don't crush as much tissue as the could, and are not as sharp on the leading edge as other projectiles. In general, the Hornady Critical Duty ammunition did NOT perform as well as several current JHP loads. As for this: I mean, they see more bullets pulled out of dead people than probably anyone, and Robert’s still contends there’s no difference in humans. I had hoped to avoid getting stuck in another one of these stupid discussions, but I guess I'll address this since I suppose it forms much of the basis of your reply. Dr. Roberts does not deny that .45 ACP inflicts larger wounds given comparable bullet design, either now or before. That is an objective fact. He does not think the difference in effectiveness is significant. That is a matter of subjective opinion. Now, I'll point out the following:
Hopefully I don't need to comment further on this topic, frankly at this point I consider it quite tiresome. |
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 10/13/2022 3:07:29 PM EDT
[#33]
@5pins What does "heavy clothing" mean, exactly? Four layers of denim? A Carhartt jacket, the bane of NYPD-issued hollow-points?
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 10/13/2022 8:33:32 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: @5pins What does "heavy clothing" mean, exactly? Four layers of denim? A Carhartt jacket, the bane of NYPD-issued hollow-points? Heavy clothing test is 1x layer of denim, 1x layer of fleece, 1x layer of cotton dress shirt, 1x layer of cotton tshirt. |
|
|
WV, USA
|
Posted: 10/14/2022 6:40:05 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By joglee: Heavy clothing test is 1x layer of denim, 1x layer of fleece, 1x layer of cotton dress shirt, 1x layer of cotton tshirt. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By joglee: Originally Posted By CherokeeGunslinger: @5pins What does "heavy clothing" mean, exactly? Four layers of denim? A Carhartt jacket, the bane of NYPD-issued hollow-points? Heavy clothing test is 1x layer of denim, 1x layer of fleece, 1x layer of cotton dress shirt, 1x layer of cotton tshirt. What he said. https://general-cartridge.com/2017/11/23/what-is-heavy-clothing/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/15/2022 9:57:05 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Melvin_Johnson: Calibration BB should probably be a part of the drill even if Clear Gel and Ordnance Gel are not the same stuff. If nothing else it would help verify that the synthetic gel is comparable from one melting to the next. The scientific standard for terminal ballistic test media validation is not firing a standard .177 caliber (4.5 mm) steel BB from an air gun over a chronograph at 590 feet per second (fps), plus or minus +/- 15 fps into whatever shit you can con ignorant people into buying, resulting in 8.5 centimeters (cm), plus or minus 1 cm, penetration (2.95" - 3.74"). The scientific standard for terminal ballistic test media validation is firing a standard .177 caliber (4.5 mm) steel BB from an air gun over a chronograph at 590 feet per second (fps), plus or minus +/- 15 fps into properly prepared 10% Kind & Knox or Vyse 250-A ordnance gelatin, resulting in 8.5 centimeters (cm), plus or minus 1 cm, penetration (2.95" - 3.74"). Period. Anyone who doesn't understand this, doesn't understand what a scientific standard is. ... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/15/2022 11:31:28 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Molon: The scientific standard for terminal ballistic test media validation is not firing a standard .177 caliber (4.5 mm) steel BB from an air gun over a chronograph at 590 feet per second (fps), plus or minus +/- 15 fps into whatever shit you can con ignorant people into buying, resulting in 8.5 centimeters (cm), plus or minus 1 cm, penetration (2.95" - 3.74"). The scientific standard for terminal ballistic test media validation is firing a standard .177 caliber (4.5 mm) steel BB from an air gun over a chronograph at 590 feet per second (fps), plus or minus +/- 15 fps into properly prepared 10% Kind & Knox or Vyse 250-A ordnance gelatin, resulting in 8.5 centimeters (cm), plus or minus 1 cm, penetration (2.95" - 3.74"). Period. Anyone who doesn't understand this, doesn't understand what a scientific standard is. ... I know what the verification protocol is. Thank you. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2022 5:40:18 AM EDT
[#38]
Bullet technology has truly evolved over the last 30+ years I’ve been a student.
I’ve been involved in my Dept testing over the years completed to FBI protocol. I remember the days of selective picks for caliber, bullet weight, design, etc... Based off what I’ve seen in testing and actual street performance I feel pretty confident in recommending HST or Gold Dot across the range of calibers and bullet weights. Both rounds perform excellent with a slight edge to GD on harder barriers and a slight edge to HST on muzzle to target shots (light or heavy clothing). As for other players in the game Hornady defensive ammo seems to penatrate more and expand less. Winchester doesn’t seem to be the player it once was in the market and I’ve heard of spotty QC in some cases. |
|
|
|
NH, USA
|
Posted: 10/17/2022 9:28:11 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 45custom: Le.Vista Outdoor's HST gel tests are outdated, they haven't been updated in likely over a decade. The HST projectiles have undergone rolling changes since - the 124 gr HST on the le.vista tests doesn't even reach 12" in bare gel while Federal themselves listed a 13.1" figure for the same product and the same test in 2022. When tested in 2013, 230 gr HST +P penetrated to 13.8" in bare gel and 14.5" in 4LD-covered gel out of a 5" barrel. Through auto glass, penetration averaged 13.5". This performance is likely very similar to current day 230 gr HST +P performance, as the projectile design does not appear to have underwent significant change. The generation of Critical Duty tested in the 2013 link is likewise outdated; current gen Critical Duty penetrates less but likely expands only slightly more. The Hornady Catalog and Le.Vista's tests list maximum expansion (widest span between 2 bullet points), the pistol-forum post lists average expansion (average of widest and narrowest diameters at the face of the bullet), which is a better measure of frontal area. Increasing bullet diameter from 0.65 to 0.80 results in an approximate 50% increase in frontal area. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 45custom: Originally Posted By 03RN: That's not the case here. Critical Duty penatrates more across the board and expands less than HSTs. That's what the agency wanted. Critical Duty Bare organic gel-14"/ 0.71" Heavy clothing-14.5"/ 0.69" Steel-17.75"/0.54" Wallboard- 13.5"/0.70" Plywood- 15"/ 0.66" Auto Glass- 13.75"- 0.53" HST Bare organic gel- 12.5"/ 0.98" Heavy clothing- 13"/ 0.89" Steel- 17.5"/ 0.51" Wallboard- 13"/ 0.91" Plywood- 13"/ 0.92" Auto Glass- 10.5"/ 0.72" I'm carrying HST as we speak but I'm more impressed with the Critical duty ammo. I'd rather have 1-3" deeper penetration and 0.2 less expansion. Le.Vista Outdoor's HST gel tests are outdated, they haven't been updated in likely over a decade. The HST projectiles have undergone rolling changes since - the 124 gr HST on the le.vista tests doesn't even reach 12" in bare gel while Federal themselves listed a 13.1" figure for the same product and the same test in 2022. When tested in 2013, 230 gr HST +P penetrated to 13.8" in bare gel and 14.5" in 4LD-covered gel out of a 5" barrel. Through auto glass, penetration averaged 13.5". This performance is likely very similar to current day 230 gr HST +P performance, as the projectile design does not appear to have underwent significant change. The generation of Critical Duty tested in the 2013 link is likewise outdated; current gen Critical Duty penetrates less but likely expands only slightly more. The Hornady Catalog and Le.Vista's tests list maximum expansion (widest span between 2 bullet points), the pistol-forum post lists average expansion (average of widest and narrowest diameters at the face of the bullet), which is a better measure of frontal area. Increasing bullet diameter from 0.65 to 0.80 results in an approximate 50% increase in frontal area. Thanks for the updated info |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2022 9:50:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: shortround]
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GSL: We need your threads saved. Like Molon has with a ton of valuable links. Who's the mod here in Ammunition? @Zhukov Don't forget Buffman_LT1 and the effort he goes through to test plates. Some of the members here go above and beyond testing products and then sharing it with the rest of us. Should be a place for all of that data. Hard to sift through all of the noise to find it sometimes. Thanks 5pins! |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 10/19/2022 9:36:11 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 45custom: That's funny, because Dr. Roberts himself seems to have had a different assessment of the 2013 test results: As for this: I had hoped to avoid getting stuck in another one of these stupid discussions, but I guess I'll address this since I suppose it forms much of the basis of your reply. Dr. Roberts does not deny that .45 ACP inflicts larger wounds given comparable bullet design, either now or before. That is an objective fact. He does not think the difference in effectiveness is significant. That is a matter of subjective opinion. Now, I'll point out the following:
Hopefully I don't need to comment further on this topic, frankly at this point I consider it quite tiresome. Posting data and/or educated opinions should always be welcomed and appreciated. Even if some may disagree on some aspects. |
|
|
OK, USA
|
Posted: 10/20/2022 3:01:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: K5FAL]
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 1911greg: Great test that’s amazing, really makes me want to carry a .45 again !! I wonder how much better the +p version is ? Yeah some of those pictures in the original post make me think that the commonly thrown around phase "All handgun rounds suck" is simply just not true anymore. |
|
|
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.
