Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 2/14/2007 10:48:41 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/14/2007 10:49:45 AM EST by ipschoser1]
Ya'll feel free to comment or critique...

Philosophical mode "on"

When we started out with the 556 decades ago, the system was realized by it's designers to be velocity dependant due to the small projectiles fired. They chose 20 inch barrels and 55 grain bullets to achieve the terminal results required. Muzzle velocities on this combo ran as high as 3300fps.

As time passed we adopted the NATO 62 grain tungsten core bullet which was intended to offer better penetration at long range for SAW use. The 62 grain bullet reduced muzzle velocity to approx 3100fps out of a 20" barrel M16. Terminal performance began to suffer.

Due to the increasingly urban nature of engagements, it was soon decided that barrels shorter than 20" were needed. 16" barrels were out due to problems with the fitment of issue bayonets, so 14.5" barrels were installed on the new M4. Heavy bullets/short barrels, a worst case senario for a 22 caliber weapon.

What can be done? Glad you asked. Personally, I like the idea of 16" barrels and 55 grain bullets, though the 20' rifle isn't the boat ore some would have us believe. In fact, a 20' gov't or A1 profile barrel is quite light and reasonably handy in all but the tightest situations. It does maximize much needed velocity.

Philosophical mode off...
Link Posted: 2/14/2007 11:07:04 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/14/2007 11:09:28 AM EST by MajorAR]
Have you ever tried to...mount and dismount out of a vehicle in a hurry while underfire with a 20" barrel? Times have changed my friend...and so has the battlefield.

Didn't think so....

MajorAR

Link Posted: 2/14/2007 11:09:00 AM EST

Originally Posted By MajorAR:
Have you ever tried to...mount and dismount out of a vehicle in a hurry while underfire with a 20" barrel?

Didn't think so....

MajorAR



Actually I have and don't think it's that bad...
Link Posted: 2/14/2007 11:42:06 AM EST

Originally Posted By ipschoser1:

Originally Posted By MajorAR:
Have you ever tried to...mount and dismount out of a vehicle in a hurry while underfire with a 20" barrel?

Didn't think so....

MajorAR



Actually I have and don't think it's that bad...

+1 and add a M203
Link Posted: 2/14/2007 11:44:33 AM EST
Well, if you install a carbine telescoping stock on the 20 incher, it wouldn't be that bad.
Link Posted: 2/14/2007 11:57:21 AM EST

Originally Posted By army_eod:
Well, if you install a carbine telescoping stock on the 20 incher, it wouldn't be that bad.


I'm currently running a telestock on my 20" gun. It would seem to be a much better option than reducing the weapons terminal effectiveness by shortening the barrel.

Still, my 16" AR spits 55 grain bullets at 3150fps. That ain't to bad...
Link Posted: 2/14/2007 11:57:40 AM EST

Originally Posted By army_eod:
Well, if you install a carbine telescoping stock on the 20 incher, it wouldn't be that bad.


Yeah, but then all the guys on arfcom would make fun of you.
Link Posted: 2/14/2007 12:06:34 PM EST
I do not envy at all those people who have to get in an out of a HMMWV in a hurry. Why not have both available? Cary the M4, with 20 inchers in the vehicle? Get OUT, grab one or 5 if needed. In ARFCom style, carry both.
Link Posted: 2/14/2007 12:48:35 PM EST
urban answer is the 50 beowulf. to quote, "Knock and the door shall be opened." if they don't open kick it in.
Link Posted: 2/14/2007 12:57:24 PM EST

Originally Posted By mzdaffyd:
urban answer is the 50 beowulf. to quote, "Knock and the door shall be opened." if they don't open kick it in.


OK, that's a point taken. Maybe the larger calibers are the answer for our military needs if the short barrel is required. The 6.8, for example, provides a heavier round and decent mag capacity.

For average Joe, shtf use, I still lean toward a longer barreled 556.
Link Posted: 2/14/2007 1:05:38 PM EST
they could design a new bullet with a thinner jacket that will fragment at a lower velocity. problem solved.
Link Posted: 2/14/2007 1:14:40 PM EST

Originally Posted By MajorAR:
Have you ever tried to...mount and dismount out of a vehicle in a hurry while underfire with a 20" barrel? Times have changed my friend...and so has the battlefield.

Didn't think so....

MajorAR



Or trying to get in and out of a Blackhawk.

Also, the M16 is a PITAAAAAAA!!!!!!! to get in and out of armored suburbans with. M4s are much handier, lighter and more mobile.

Not too mention the range at what we engage Tangos at now. I would venture that of all the CQB fights in Iraq so far, 90% of them were fought within 50m.
Anything longer and thats why we have Designated Marksmen with M14's and beyond that, Snipers with M24s....and god forbid we need longer than that, the .50cal.
Link Posted: 2/14/2007 1:28:25 PM EST

Originally Posted By ipschoser1:
Ya'll feel free to comment or critique...

Philosophical mode "on"

When we started out with the 556 decades ago, the system was realized by it's designers to be velocity dependant due to the small projectiles fired. They chose 20 inch barrels and 55 grain bullets to achieve the terminal results required. Muzzle velocities on this combo ran as high as 3300fps.

As time passed we adopted the NATO 62 grain tungsten core bullet which was intended to offer better penetration at long range for SAW use. The 62 grain bullet reduced muzzle velocity to approx 3100fps out of a 20" barrel M16. Terminal performance began to suffer.

Due to the increasingly urban nature of engagements, it was soon decided that barrels shorter than 20" were needed. 16" barrels were out due to problems with the fitment of issue bayonets, so 14.5" barrels were installed on the new M4. Heavy bullets/short barrels, a worst case senario for a 22 caliber weapon.

What can be done? Glad you asked. Personally, I like the idea of 16" barrels and 55 grain bullets, though the 20' rifle isn't the boat ore some would have us believe. In fact, a 20' gov't or A1 profile barrel is quite light and reasonably handy in all but the tightest situations. It does maximize much needed velocity.

Philosophical mode off...


The only thing I would disagree is that I never heard any complaints about the M-16/M855 combo. I heard of complaints about the M-4/M855 combo with the reduced velocity. I do agree that the M-16 should come with the collapsible stock and I have said that several times in the past.

For me, the ideal Combat AR would be an AR with a 14.5" barrel, 1-4x optic, 6.8mm.
Link Posted: 2/14/2007 1:31:13 PM EST
I have wondered about just that myself. Keep in mind that I have no real world experience other than being a chairbourn ranger.
The other thing I look at is that most action seems to be with at least squad level and there seems to be some heavier weapons available, be it SAWs,DMs or that great old standby,a fifty mounted on a truck to tear the living s*** out of whatever needs to be torn up.
I remember a year or so back a guard unit from my state of CT was on line to go to A-Stan at fairly short notice and a big stink was raised by some familiys as they had been told that due to shortages they were going with their "old" 20" M16s instead of the "beter" M4s. Not sure what their jobs were to be when they got there but except for the in close work and bailing out of vehicles I am not so sure that they wouldn't have been better off with what they had been training with. After the dust setteled they ended up getting M4s .
In the same note I just finished watching "Flags of Our Fathers" and assuming that the movie folks got it correct (usually a leap of faith) it showed the beaches at Iwo and it seemed that fully half the guys had M1 Carbines or Thompson SMGs. Compared to the Garand a M4 is giving up lots of pure power with the ability to deliver more rounds but the M4 against the Carbine and the Thompson is a no-brainer!
Link Posted: 2/14/2007 2:21:27 PM EST
I love my 20"s they are just too long IMO, I love the handiness of my M4orgery, and it was easier to carry, but the loss of terminal velocity does concern me, so for me, from now on its Mid Lengths
Link Posted: 2/14/2007 3:16:42 PM EST

Originally Posted By fegsa85:
they could design a new bullet with a thinner jacket that will fragment at a lower velocity. problem solved.


That sounds good on the surface but can create other problems. The 556 was always light on barrier penetration and would be even more so with more frangible bullets. Also, if such a round was ever fired from 20" barrels at close range, bullet blow up and underpenetration might be encountered. I'm sure there's more to it than that, but those are off the top of my head.
Link Posted: 2/14/2007 5:34:42 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/15/2007 1:53:34 AM EST by ffhounddog]
I have like the Canadian C7A2. The best of both worlds or split it and get a collasable stock and a 17 inch barrel.
Link Posted: 2/14/2007 7:20:20 PM EST
If your standard round was a 62 gr. OTM type, along the same lines as the Mk 262 that would be a vast improvement. In my experience if you need to punch through cover you use a 240 or an M2. I'm of the firm opinion that ball ammo should be used for training or MG use only. If we're going to stick with M16 platform in 5.56, we need to maximize it's effectiveness. But Geneva limits us severely. Cost may have something to do with it also, not sure. I just wonder sometimes why I can shoot an American citizen with a HP pistol round or an OTM rifle round but I can't shoot some Hajii or other enemy combatant with it. Just my .02.
Link Posted: 2/14/2007 7:31:23 PM EST
We need recoil assisted 50 caliber pistols!

Seriously I have a 16" carbine and stock 55g FMJ... but the military unfortunately is using equipment primarily (and with good reason) designed to fight a major war against a Soviet style army. I think the easy and best answer is JHP ammo of some sort.
Link Posted: 2/14/2007 7:39:16 PM EST
I think something with NBT would serve well, or just have the tip of the cartridge with a cavity like the russian 5.45
Link Posted: 2/14/2007 7:53:58 PM EST
Link Posted: 2/14/2007 7:59:41 PM EST
The mission drives the gear, not the other way around.
Link Posted: 2/15/2007 5:06:26 AM EST
Link Posted: 2/15/2007 5:22:28 AM EST

Originally Posted By FALARAK:


You have a mix of bad info - and revisionist history there.


You could always elaborate and clear things up...

When I typed the original post there was no intent to cover 40+ years of AR history in detail. I just wanted a brief overview to focus on ever shorter barrels and trends toward heavier bullets and their effect on a small bore systems effectiveness.

Link Posted: 2/15/2007 5:34:20 AM EST
For what I'd expect to to use mine, I'm quite satisfied my 14.5" with M193 will do the job out to 100m.
I like to think of it as a short range offensive weapon (whereas an M1 carbine or Thompson would best be a short range defensive weapon).

I do agree that military M4s with M855 is not the best combination, but necessary because of logistical reasons. Fielding two types of 5.56mm en masse is just too much I guess.
Link Posted: 2/15/2007 5:44:42 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/15/2007 5:51:51 AM EST by DevL]

Originally Posted By SERTDS03:
If your standard round was a 62 gr. OTM type, along the same lines as the Mk 262 that would be a vast improvement. In my experience if you need to punch through cover you use a 240 or an M2. I'm of the firm opinion that ball ammo should be used for training or MG use only. If we're going to stick with M16 platform in 5.56, we need to maximize it's effectiveness. But Geneva limits us severely. Cost may have something to do with it also, not sure. I just wonder sometimes why I can shoot an American citizen with a HP pistol round or an OTM rifle round but I can't shoot some Hajii or other enemy combatant with it. Just my .02.


It would not be a vast improvement. Look at the 68 and 69 grain rounds. They dont have the range of the 75 and 77 grain rounds becuase of less stress on the jacket during yaw because of shorter length. You are saying we should go to a bullet with less mass to fragment and will fragment at higher velocities thus reducing its range. I just dont see the wisdom in that. OTM are used by the military currently so I dont understand the "I cant shoot Haji with it" comment either. In fact OTM is a military term to designate land warefare legal boat tail hollow point match bullets.
Link Posted: 2/15/2007 5:48:56 AM EST
To the original poster I think what needs to be done is continue the trend and go to all 75 grain ammo. Reduce velocity further to gain terminal effectiveness and precision and effective range from the shorter barreled weapons.

A 14.5" barrel with 75 grain pills is more effective than the 16" barrel with 55 grain ammo on human targets.
Link Posted: 2/15/2007 5:57:52 AM EST

Originally Posted By DevL:
To the original poster I think what needs to be done is continue the trend and go to all 75 grain ammo. Reduce velocity further to gain terminal effectiveness and precision and effective range from the shorter barreled weapons.

A 14.5" barrel with 75 grain pills is more effective than the 16" barrel with 55 grain ammo on human targets.


Now add 3.5 inches and a hot load and your perfect. With collapsable stock of coarse.

Link Posted: 2/15/2007 6:05:56 AM EST

Originally Posted By DevL:
To the original poster I think what needs to be done is continue the trend and go to all 75 grain ammo. Reduce velocity further to gain terminal effectiveness and precision and effective range from the shorter barreled weapons.

A 14.5" barrel with 75 grain pills is more effective than the 16" barrel with 55 grain ammo on human targets.




I understand the concept of increasing frag range, but won't that also have adverse effects on bullet drop at longer range? It seems to me that if short barreled weapons are a requirement (and I'm not entirely convinced they are required, as I said a 20" AR ain't no boat anchor ), then we certainly need to look at larger calibers. At the very least, lighter bullets would maintain some of the velocity loss due to the short barrel. I could understand a trend toward 55 grain OTM loads...

I also look at cost factor. While it may not matter to Uncle Sam, 75 grain OTM ammo is expensive, especially nowadays. How can the average working man afford to stock and practice with it?



Link Posted: 2/15/2007 6:23:55 AM EST

Originally Posted By ipschoser1:

Originally Posted By DevL:
To the original poster I think what needs to be done is continue the trend and go to all 75 grain ammo. Reduce velocity further to gain terminal effectiveness and precision and effective range from the shorter barreled weapons.

A 14.5" barrel with 75 grain pills is more effective than the 16" barrel with 55 grain ammo on human targets.




I understand the concept of increasing frag range, but won't that also have adverse effects on bullet drop at longer range? It seems to me that if short barreled weapons are a requirement (and I'm not entirely convinced they are required, as I said a 20" AR ain't no boat anchor ), then we certainly need to look at larger calibers. At the very least, lighter bullets would maintain some of the velocity loss due to the short barrel. I could understand a trend toward 55 grain OTM loads...

I also look at cost factor. While it may not matter to Uncle Sam, 75 grain OTM ammo is expensive, especially nowadays. How can the average working man afford to stock and practice with it?





The heavier bullets also have a higher BC than the lighter bullets so the bullet drop is not as much as you think. The 5.56 75 Gr. BTHP and M855 have a close enough bullet drop. Unfortunately the Military will never switch to a BTHP because of the price. The only thing you will see is what you have now with the MK262, which is being used in small quantities compared to the M855.
Link Posted: 2/15/2007 6:25:44 AM EST
Link Posted: 2/15/2007 6:46:10 AM EST

Originally Posted By Forest:

Originally Posted By ipschoser1:
I understand the concept of increasing frag range, but won't that also have adverse effects on bullet drop at longer range? ..


No. Notice when people compete in High-Power at longer range they are all using heavier bullets (which run much slower than the lighter bullets).

Why do you think that is?



I know for sure, the hi power crowd isn't into 14.5" barrels.

The longer (heavy) bullets do have higher BCs, that's a fact. The 556 case would seem to be marginal to properly boost 75 grain bullets out of a short barrel. Bullet drop is a function of several factors, velocity and BC topping the list. My thought is that maybe we're working at the edge of the envelope with short barrels and heavy bullets.

Just for discussion, it would be possible to make a higher BC (longer), tungsten core 55 grain bullet. Now that might be a real improvement, higher BC and low weight to keep the velocity up.

I do see clearly that the 75 grain bullets have better sectional density. That may well be a substantial advantage.
Link Posted: 2/15/2007 6:51:35 AM EST
After the discussion so far, let's throw this out there for ya'll to kick around.

Would the optimal AR platform possibly have an 18" barrel, telestock and shoot a new, sleek tungsten core 55 grain bullet? Things to think about...
Link Posted: 2/15/2007 7:09:44 AM EST

Originally Posted By ipschoser1:
After the discussion so far, let's throw this out there for ya'll to kick around.

Would the optimal AR platform possibly have an 18" barrel, telestock and shoot a new, sleek tungsten core 55 grain bullet? Things to think about...


The best combo would probably be the 18" barrel with the MK262 or Hornady 5.56 75 Gr. TAP. Kind of like the MK12 Rifle the Military is using.
Link Posted: 2/15/2007 7:14:14 AM EST

Originally Posted By paulosantos:

Originally Posted By ipschoser1:
After the discussion so far, let's throw this out there for ya'll to kick around.

Would the optimal AR platform possibly have an 18" barrel, telestock and shoot a new, sleek tungsten core 55 grain bullet? Things to think about...


The best combo would probably be the 18" barrel with the MK262 or Hornady 5.56 75 Gr. TAP. Kind of like the MK12 Rifle the Military is using.


My next build may be emerging from the concept stage.
Link Posted: 2/15/2007 8:38:00 AM EST
Link Posted: 2/15/2007 8:50:41 AM EST

Originally Posted By Forest:

Originally Posted By ipschoser1:
.. The 556 case would seem to be marginal to properly boost 75 grain bullets out of a short barrel.

MK 262 out of a 14.5" barrel has 5" more drop at 325y than a 20" shooting the same round using the military zeroing method.

Not enough difference to worry about. I'd rather have the lighter/shorter weapon than the extra 5".


Just for discussion, it would be possible to make a higher BC (longer), tungsten core 55 grain bullet. Now that might be a real improvement, higher BC and low weight to keep the velocity up.

Sure you could do that.

But what would terminal perfornce be like? How would having a lighter bullet help with penetration once it fragments (assuming it even fragments)?


Forest, thanks for your input on this.

A couple of things come to mind in reading your last post. First, while I know ranges beyond 300 yards are unlikely, if a round has 5 inches of additional drop at 325, it will have a LOT more beyond that. Second, I'm going on the premise that everyone was happy with the systems terminal performance with 55 grain bullets from 20" barrels. I've never heard that penetration was a problem with M193. Was it?
Link Posted: 2/15/2007 8:50:49 AM EST
the canadians use the c7 20 inch barrel with an m4 stock it works for them i put one together its ugly but it works for me
Link Posted: 2/15/2007 8:59:22 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/15/2007 9:00:30 AM EST by Forest]
Link Posted: 2/15/2007 9:09:03 AM EST

Originally Posted By Forest:

There are no problems with M193.

However,

M193 is made from lead, you switch to a material that is not as dense and you could very easily end up with those problems. A 1gr particle of lead has a smaller cross section than a 1gr particle of tungsten.


True, but M855 (tungsten) supposedly frags too when fired from rifle length weapons, right?
Link Posted: 2/15/2007 9:35:05 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/15/2007 9:37:24 AM EST by Zhukov]
Link Posted: 2/15/2007 9:44:31 AM EST
Link Posted: 2/15/2007 10:42:13 AM EST

Originally Posted By ipschoser1:
Ya'll feel free to comment or critique...

Philosophical mode "on"

When we started out with the 556 decades ago, the system was realized by it's designers to be velocity dependant due to the small projectiles fired. They chose 20 inch barrels and 55 grain bullets to achieve the terminal results required. Muzzle velocities on this combo ran as high as 3300fps.

As time passed we adopted the NATO 62 grain tungsten core bullet which was intended to offer better penetration at long range for SAW use. The 62 grain bullet reduced muzzle velocity to approx 3100fps out of a 20" barrel M16. Terminal performance began to suffer.

Due to the increasingly urban nature of engagements, it was soon decided that barrels shorter than 20" were needed. 16" barrels were out due to problems with the fitment of issue bayonets, so 14.5" barrels were installed on the new M4. Heavy bullets/short barrels, a worst case senario for a 22 caliber weapon.

What can be done? Glad you asked. Personally, I like the idea of 16" barrels and 55 grain bullets, though the 20' rifle isn't the boat ore some would have us believe. In fact, a 20' gov't or A1 profile barrel is quite light and reasonably handy in all but the tightest situations. It does maximize much needed velocity.

Philosophical mode off...



Try getting out of a heavily armored hmmwv loaded with gear with an a4 as I had to....


I still dont get why people continue to complain about the 5.56. If you place the bullets in the right place the target is going to go down in a hurry. If you shoot someone in the leg with a 460 weatherby they are still capable of shooting back. Its all about bullet placement folks....


And btw let me shoot you with my 7.5" and Ill use the heaviest bullets you can find too. See how well you do....
Link Posted: 2/15/2007 10:51:08 AM EST
Zhukov,

A tungsten penetrator could work as an additional stopgap, as per penetration, couldn't it?

As to terminal performance, why not the 6.5 Grendel? Better reach, better BC, and just as easy/cost effective to field, as the 6.8 SPC... Company that manufactures the .50 Beowulf makes the Grendel. Both have potential in today's, and near term, battlefields...

If the military is going to keep the AR platform, they will have to remember, "All engineering is a compromise." Right now, the compromise between 55gr and 77gr, seems to be either the 62gr or the 68/69gr rounds. I prefer the 5.56 in 75gr or 77gr weights, as the OTM makes it a contender throughout much of its potential flight envelope.

If I'm wrong, please educate me.

Thanks,

Carter
Link Posted: 2/15/2007 11:11:07 AM EST

Originally Posted By Belmont31R:

Originally Posted By ipschoser1:
Ya'll feel free to comment or critique...

Philosophical mode "on"

When we started out with the 556 decades ago, the system was realized by it's designers to be velocity dependant due to the small projectiles fired. They chose 20 inch barrels and 55 grain bullets to achieve the terminal results required. Muzzle velocities on this combo ran as high as 3300fps.

As time passed we adopted the NATO 62 grain tungsten core bullet which was intended to offer better penetration at long range for SAW use. The 62 grain bullet reduced muzzle velocity to approx 3100fps out of a 20" barrel M16. Terminal performance began to suffer.

Due to the increasingly urban nature of engagements, it was soon decided that barrels shorter than 20" were needed. 16" barrels were out due to problems with the fitment of issue bayonets, so 14.5" barrels were installed on the new M4. Heavy bullets/short barrels, a worst case senario for a 22 caliber weapon.

What can be done? Glad you asked. Personally, I like the idea of 16" barrels and 55 grain bullets, though the 20' rifle isn't the boat ore some would have us believe. In fact, a 20' gov't or A1 profile barrel is quite light and reasonably handy in all but the tightest situations. It does maximize much needed velocity.

Philosophical mode off...



Try getting out of a heavily armored hmmwv loaded with gear with an a4 as I had to....


I still dont get why people continue to complain about the 5.56. If you place the bullets in the right place the target is going to go down in a hurry. If you shoot someone in the leg with a 460 weatherby they are still capable of shooting back. Its all about bullet placement folks....


And btw let me shoot you with my 7.5" and Ill use the heaviest bullets you can find too. See how well you do....


Because as good as the 5.56 is there is better available ammo such as the 6.8 SPC.
Link Posted: 2/15/2007 11:11:38 AM EST
Link Posted: 2/15/2007 11:15:25 AM EST

Originally Posted By MajorAR:
Have you ever tried to...mount and dismount out of a vehicle in a hurry while underfire with a 20" barrel? Times have changed my friend...and so has the battlefield.

Didn't think so....

MajorAR




That's a lame excuse and response. Mounting an unmounting was not an issue with a 20" A2. Maybe a little easier with a 16" , but by no means difficult.
Link Posted: 2/15/2007 11:20:59 AM EST

Originally Posted By Firefoxammo:

Originally Posted By MajorAR:
Have you ever tried to...mount and dismount out of a vehicle in a hurry while underfire with a 20" barrel? Times have changed my friend...and so has the battlefield.

Didn't think so....

MajorAR




That's a lame excuse and response. Mounting an unmounting was not an issue with a 20" A2. Maybe a little easier with a 16" , but by no means difficult.


I agree. I carried an M-16 when I was in and no I never had to mount or unmount while getting shot at, but I never had any problems getting in and out of my HMMV and not even when I was the driver. When I drove, I placed the M-16 standing up on my left side right by my left knee and I was able to get in and out in a flash. If I was a passenger, it was even easier.
Link Posted: 2/15/2007 11:46:55 AM EST
Link Posted: 2/15/2007 11:56:38 AM EST
My use of the AR system in and around vehicles is all limited to competition, training and use around hunting leases. That said, I never had any real problems dismounting either. I guess that's why I tend to favor the longer barrels. Terminal performance doesn't seem like a good thing to trade away, but I understand there are folks who view things differently and respect that.

The 6.8 is a great concept. I wish it would become military mainstream. I looked online at ammo last night and the cheapest I saw was Remington FMJ loads for about $16 for 20 rounds! I suppose one could reload a stockpile and practice with the 556 (or better yet, a 9mm).

For now, I'm personally going to stick with 556 in 55 grain loadings from 16"+ barrels.
Link Posted: 2/15/2007 12:02:09 PM EST
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top