User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 9:40:12 AM EDT
Only $250 in 1906. Pictured is a model with the $25 rubber tire option.
Advertised fuel economy of 105 miles per gallon. I'm sure with a little more government help, and the support of the UAW, the state of the industry can reach this pinnacle of automotive technology once again. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 9:41:21 AM EDT
[#1]
probably would get about 20mpg on the shit gas we have now
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 9:41:30 AM EDT
[#2]
Quoted: Only $250 in 1906. Pictured is a model with the $25 rubber tire option. http://lh3.ggpht.com/-QrxgWHlkTu8/TkgG74fn-4I/AAAAAAAADyw/oRSIBXm2Nyw/s640/autos2386.jpg Advertised fuel economy of 105 miles per gallon. I'm sure with a little more government help, and the support of the UAW, the state of the industry can reach this pinnacle of automotive technology once again. That is where we are headed.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 9:42:12 AM EDT
[#3]
Sure, but after we put all that tree hugging emissions bs on it, it will be down to 20mpg.
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 9:43:34 AM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
Only $250 in 1906. Pictured is a model with the $25 rubber tire option. http://lh3.ggpht.com/-QrxgWHlkTu8/TkgG74fn-4I/AAAAAAAADyw/oRSIBXm2Nyw/s640/autos2386.jpg Advertised fuel economy of 105 miles per gallon. I'm sure with a little more government help, and the support of the UAW, the state of the industry can reach this pinnacle of automotive technology once again.
Could you imagine drive by shootings in those? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 9:44:25 AM EDT
[#5]
Meh, if people were serious about mileage, they'd be driving bicycles with 4 stroke weed whacker motors.... those things push 200mpg and top out around 30mph.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 9:45:44 AM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Only $250 in 1906. Pictured is a model with the $25 rubber tire option. http://lh3.ggpht.com/-QrxgWHlkTu8/TkgG74fn-4I/AAAAAAAADyw/oRSIBXm2Nyw/s640/autos2386.jpg Advertised fuel economy of 105 miles per gallon. I'm sure with a little more government help, and the support of the UAW, the state of the industry can reach this pinnacle of automotive technology once again.
Could you imagine drive by shootings in those? The top speed was only 18 mph. But in 1906, most police departments probably didn't have any cars. At 18 mph, a horse could probably chase you down. But then, that flivver was probably a much more stable shooting platform than a galloping horse. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 9:46:13 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted: Only $250 in 1906. Pictured is a model with the $25 rubber tire option. http://lh3.ggpht.com/-QrxgWHlkTu8/TkgG74fn-4I/AAAAAAAADyw/oRSIBXm2Nyw/s640/autos2386.jpg Advertised fuel economy of 105 miles per gallon. I'm sure with a little more government help, and the support of the UAW, the state of the industry can reach this pinnacle of automotive technology once again. If someone would make them for $250, I'd buy a couple of them. I wouldn't want a red one, though. You know how the po-po target red cars to pull over for speeding.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 9:46:16 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Only $250 in 1906. Pictured is a model with the $25 rubber tire option. http://lh3.ggpht.com/-QrxgWHlkTu8/TkgG74fn-4I/AAAAAAAADyw/oRSIBXm2Nyw/s640/autos2386.jpg Advertised fuel economy of 105 miles per gallon. I'm sure with a little more government help, and the support of the UAW, the state of the industry can reach this pinnacle of automotive technology once again.
Could you imagine drive by shootings in those? The top speed was only 18 mph. But in 1906, most police departments probably didn't have any cars. At 18 mph, a horse could probably chase you down. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 9:49:11 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
Sure, but after we put all that tree hugging emissions bs on it, it will be down to 20mpg. Don't forget tire pressure sensors. Government mandated, because we are too stupid to check tire pressure. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 9:49:29 AM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Only $250 in 1906. Pictured is a model with the $25 rubber tire option. http://lh3.ggpht.com/-QrxgWHlkTu8/TkgG74fn-4I/AAAAAAAADyw/oRSIBXm2Nyw/s640/autos2386.jpg Advertised fuel economy of 105 miles per gallon. I'm sure with a little more government help, and the support of the UAW, the state of the industry can reach this pinnacle of automotive technology once again.
Could you imagine drive by shootings in those? The top speed was only 18 mph. But in 1906, most police departments probably didn't have any cars. At 18 mph, a horse could probably chase you down. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0f/Lancaster_County_Amish_03.jpg/200px-Lancaster_County_Amish_03.jpg Damn amish and their drivebys... 
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sure, but after we put all that tree hugging emissions bs on it, it will be down to 20mpg. Don't forget tire pressure sensors. Government mandated, because we are too stupid to check tire pressure. Those tires aren't even pneumatic, I don't think. I think they're probably solid rubber. The standard wheels are just flat steel, like an old turn of the century tractor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 9:50:47 AM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Only $250 in 1906. Pictured is a model with the $25 rubber tire option. http://lh3.ggpht.com/-QrxgWHlkTu8/TkgG74fn-4I/AAAAAAAADyw/oRSIBXm2Nyw/s640/autos2386.jpg Advertised fuel economy of 105 miles per gallon. I'm sure with a little more government help, and the support of the UAW, the state of the industry can reach this pinnacle of automotive technology once again.
Could you imagine drive by shootings in those? The top speed was only 18 mph. But in 1906, most police departments probably didn't have any cars. At 18 mph, a horse could probably chase you down. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0f/Lancaster_County_Amish_03.jpg/200px-Lancaster_County_Amish_03.jpg Damn amish and their drivebys... "Jebediah was a bull frog good man... " |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 9:55:19 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted: Only $250 in 1906. Pictured is a model with the $25 rubber tire option. http://lh3.ggpht.com/-QrxgWHlkTu8/TkgG74fn-4I/AAAAAAAADyw/oRSIBXm2Nyw/s640/autos2386.jpg Advertised fuel economy of 105 miles per gallon. I'm sure with a little more government help, and the support of the UAW, the state of the industry can reach this pinnacle of automotive technology once again. That (gold-backed) $250 then is approximately $12,500 now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 9:55:43 AM EDT
[#13]
Looks dangerous. that tire height wouldn't even go over a puddle. My Chevy 7500 Duramax DuraMadMax edition went to the grocery store just fine during Katrina.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 9:57:16 AM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Only $250 in 1906. Pictured is a model with the $25 rubber tire option. http://lh3.ggpht.com/-QrxgWHlkTu8/TkgG74fn-4I/AAAAAAAADyw/oRSIBXm2Nyw/s640/autos2386.jpg Advertised fuel economy of 105 miles per gallon. I'm sure with a little more government help, and the support of the UAW, the state of the industry can reach this pinnacle of automotive technology once again.
Could you imagine drive by shootings in those? The top speed was only 18 mph. But in 1906, most police departments probably didn't have any cars. At 18 mph, a horse could probably chase you down. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0f/Lancaster_County_Amish_03.jpg/200px-Lancaster_County_Amish_03.jpg Damn amish and their drivebys...
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sure, but after we put all that tree hugging emissions bs on it, it will be down to 20mpg. Don't forget tire pressure sensors. Government mandated, because we are too stupid to check tire pressure. Those tires aren't even pneumatic, I don't think. I think they're probably solid rubber. The standard wheels are just flat steel, like an old turn of the century tractor. I know they aren't, but the car would have to have them anyway wouldn't it? Gotta love .gov. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 10:01:19 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Only $250 in 1906. Pictured is a model with the $25 rubber tire option. http://lh3.ggpht.com/-QrxgWHlkTu8/TkgG74fn-4I/AAAAAAAADyw/oRSIBXm2Nyw/s640/autos2386.jpg Advertised fuel economy of 105 miles per gallon. I'm sure with a little more government help, and the support of the UAW, the state of the industry can reach this pinnacle of automotive technology once again.
That (gold-backed) $250 then is approximately $12,500 now. True, adjusted for inflation. But it's simple enough and manufacturing techniques have come such a long way, I'll bet it (or something equivalent) could be built for even less than that in current dollars. Alot of that stuff that was hand made then could be substituted with mass-produced hardware store parts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 10:12:16 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
probably would get about 20mpg on the shit gas we have now 
Todays gas is 1000x better than what they had 100 years ago. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 10:16:34 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
probably would get about 20mpg on the shit gas we have now Gas wouldn't be a problem, in those days gas was a major issue, sometimes you got good stuff, some times you got gas scented sewer water, octane ratings didn't exist at the consumer level. The problem with that would be the safety and emissions crap that would have to be added, it would weight 4500lbs, and be twelve feet longer, and get 6MPG. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 10:20:11 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: Quoted: probably would get about 20mpg on the shit gas we have now Todays gas is 1000x better than what they had 100 years ago. And a few years ago it was 2000x better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 10:20:16 AM EDT
[#19]
Where do you put the side curtain airbags?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 10:27:51 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Only $250 in 1906. Pictured is a model with the $25 rubber tire option. http://lh3.ggpht.com/-QrxgWHlkTu8/TkgG74fn-4I/AAAAAAAADyw/oRSIBXm2Nyw/s640/autos2386.jpg Advertised fuel economy of 105 miles per gallon. I'm sure with a little more government help, and the support of the UAW, the state of the industry can reach this pinnacle of automotive technology once again. That (gold-backed) $250 then is approximately $12,500 now. True, adjusted for inflation. But it's simple enough and manufacturing techniques have come such a long way, I'll bet it (or something equivalent) could be built for even less than that in current dollars. Alot of that stuff that was hand made then could be substituted with mass-produced hardware store parts. That's true. Actually, it would be easy to build an updated, diesel-powered model T that would get over 100 mpg and would qualify for the low speed neighborhood cars that don't require licensing in some jurisdictions. Lots of people would pay $8-10,000 for something like that. Just look at what people pay for golf carts and UTVs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 10:29:16 AM EDT
[#21]
Ogle fuel system. Read up on it, guy had a 1950's Buick Roadmaster getting 100mpg 60 years ago. Shell wanted to buy the patent but he wouldn't sell. He was found dead in the desert not to long after. Interesting stuff.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 10:37:06 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
Ogle fuel system. Read up on it, guy had a 1950's Buick Roadmaster getting 100mpg 60 years ago. Shell wanted to buy the patent but he wouldn't sell. He was found dead in the desert not to long after. Interesting stuff. So... it should be public domain now, correct? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 10:37:26 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
probably would get about 20mpg on the shit gas we have now The ethanol would destroy the fuel lines and rubber seals and gaskets. The lack of lead would probably erode the valve seats. Our gasoline is shit, Thanks EPA. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 11:00:42 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: Quoted: Ogle fuel system. Read up on it, guy had a 1950's Buick Roadmaster getting 100mpg 60 years ago. Shell wanted to buy the patent but he wouldn't sell. He was found dead in the desert not to long after. Interesting stuff. So... it should be public domain now, correct? It's cetainly interesting, to say the least. (By the way, what I read about Tom Ogle was from 1978, not quite 60 years yet.) There's a patent with diagrams and everything. I would think the patent would have expired by now, so why isn't it being used? Makes you wonder. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 11:16:45 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ogle fuel system. Read up on it, guy had a 1950's Buick Roadmaster getting 100mpg 60 years ago. Shell wanted to buy the patent but he wouldn't sell. He was found dead in the desert not to long after. Interesting stuff. So... it should be public domain now, correct? It's cetainly interesting, to say the least. (By the way, what I read about Tom Ogle was from 1978, not quite 60 years yet.) There's a patent with diagrams and everything. I would think the patent would have expired by now, so why isn't it being used? Makes you wonder. Because it probably doesn't increase mileage. There's a fixed amount of energy in a gallon of gasoline. The energy from it's combustion is turned into motion and heat. I'm not sure how a fuel delivery system could lower the ratio of heat to motion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 11:20:44 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
Quoted:
probably would get about 20mpg on the shit gas we have now The ethanol would destroy the fuel lines and rubber seals and gaskets. The lack of lead would probably erode the valve seats. Our gasoline is shit, Thanks EPA. You want to go back to leaded gasoline? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 11:22:36 AM EDT
[#27]
Everyone seems to think that the whole concept of fuel economy is a recent development.
The Volt and all the others like it are not new technologies, although the computer management now possible helps range. The principals are the same. The first Prius... http://hybridreview.blogspot.com/2006/04/woods-dual-power-hybrid-car-of-1917.html The same basic premise seems to occur. Too much money for too little performance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 11:23:59 AM EDT
[#28]
No seatbelts and therefore cannot be approved.
Second, man cannot go faster than a horse may run. Doing so will cause the physical body to disintegrate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 11:26:39 AM EDT
[#29]
I'd rather have one of these
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 11:31:42 AM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: Sure, but after we put all that tree hugging emissions bs on it, it will be down to 20mpg. The real beauty of that is that you now have to burn so much more fuel to go anywhere that the car now produces far more emissions than it would have. To counter this, more emissions restrictions are needed. The result is progress! |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 11:32:04 AM EDT
[#31]
Look at the heat cycle ( I believe that is what he called it ) engine Smokey Yunick built getting 60 mpg + with a carb
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 11:32:37 AM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: Meh, if people were serious about mileage, they'd be driving bicycles with 4 stroke weed whacker motors.... those things push 200mpg and top out around 30mph. Does a 4 stroke weed whakcer motor have enough HP and torque to haul the average balaena terrestris americanus*? *American Land Whale.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 11:33:02 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: Sure, but after we put all that tree hugging emissions bs on it, it will be down to 20mpg. Fucking bingo. Get rid of the emissions regulations and let the engines do their thing. They'll do it far more efficiently than they're allowed to now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 11:35:03 AM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sure, but after we put all that tree hugging emissions bs on it, it will be down to 20mpg. Fucking bingo. Get rid of the emissions regulations and let the engines do their thing. They'll do it far more efficiently than they're allowed to now. I think if you looked at the non-emissions engines that are out there, you'd see that this is completely false. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 11:37:29 AM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
Ogle fuel system. Read up on it, guy had a 1950's Buick Roadmaster getting 100mpg 60 years ago. Shell wanted to buy the patent but he wouldn't sell. He was found dead in the desert not to long after. Interesting stuff. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 11:38:57 AM EDT
[#36]
That thing could not come anywhere near 100 mpg, it would be lucky to get 15.
Google piston engine effiency, compression ratio and octane rating. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 11:42:32 AM EDT
[#37]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Sure, but after we put all that tree hugging emissions bs on it, it will be down to 20mpg. Fucking bingo. Get rid of the emissions regulations and let the engines do their thing. They'll do it far more efficiently than they're allowed to now. I think if you looked at the non-emissions engines that are out there, you'd see that this is completely false. Both sortof correct.. A well tuned engine produced low emmisions, however 80% of the drivers could give a shit less about preventative maintenance, so they ran like shit and resulted in high emissions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 11:42:49 AM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: probably would get about 20mpg on the shit gas we have now The ethanol would destroy the fuel lines and rubber seals and gaskets. The lack of lead would probably erode the valve seats. Our gasoline is shit, Thanks EPA. You want to go back to leaded gasoline? Why not? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 11:43:01 AM EDT
[#39]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sure, but after we put all that tree hugging emissions bs on it, it will be down to 20mpg. Fucking bingo. Get rid of the emissions regulations and let the engines do their thing. They'll do it far more efficiently than they're allowed to now. Go spend some time overseas where there are no regulations and see how you like breathing that shit in EVERYWHERE you go. There's no escape from it. The PI is a great example of this. Do I think the EPA does more harm than good? sure. Do I think the emissions regulations are a bit silly and overbearing? yep Do I think they should completely go away? Hell no. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 11:50:00 AM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
Both sortof correct.. A well tuned engine produced low emmisions, however 80% of the drivers could give a shit less about preventative maintenance, so they ran like shit and resulted in high emissions. Depends on what you mean by high emissions. A modern car emits something like 1% of the pollution that a new car did in 1970. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 11:50:12 AM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
Quoted:
You want to go back to leaded gasoline? Why not? Well, there is that whole bit about lead being a toxic heavy metal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 11:52:07 AM EDT
[#42]
holy shit, can you imagine how fucking big the ghetto aftermarket wheels would be for it
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 11:55:01 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted: Look at the heat cycle ( I believe that is what he called it ) engine Smokey Yunick built getting 60 mpg + with a carb Yeah, from a Pontiac Iron Duke 2.5l (151 cubic inch) 4 cylinder that also made about 300 horsepower, and ran more smoothly than a stocker. The way he did it was to run the engine very hot (around 300F IIRC) with ceramic coatings on the piston tops to withstand the heat; and he also used a turbocharger with the boost set at zero so it only acted as a one-way valve to prevent the intake charge from backing out as it heated and expanded. This engine was so efficient that it did not even require a radiator, although it did have an oil cooler to prevent the oil getting too hot. >"There's a fixed amount of energy in a gallon of gasoline. The energy from it's its combustion is turned into motion and heat. >I'm not sure how a fuel delivery system could lower the ratio of heat to motion." -1Andy2 That's true, there is only a fixed amount of energy in a given amount of gasoline. But the typical internal combustion engine is horribly inefficient and doesn't extract anywhere near the total available energy, which is why they need radiators to get rid of the excess heat. It is also why they emit so many combustion byproducts. Know why cars have catalytic converters? To burn combustible gasses that don't burn in the combustion chamber. That's why catalytic converters get so hot that you can't park your car where grass can contact the CC, for fear of starting a fire. Yunick's design achieved its efficiency by heating the intake charge enough to vaporize the fuel components that normally end up in the catalytic converter. Hence, the CC is also unnecessary. I'm surprised no automaker has picked the design up yet, but I fully expect that the technology will eventually become commonplace. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 11:59:00 AM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Look at the heat cycle ( I believe that is what he called it ) engine Smokey Yunick built getting 60 mpg + with a carb Yeah, from a Pontiac Iron Duke 2.5l (151 cubic inch) 4 cylinder that also made about 300 horsepower, and ran more smoothly than a stocker. The way he did it was to run the engine very hot (around 300F IIRC) with ceramic coatings on the piston tops to withstand the heat; and he also used a turbocharger with the boost set at zero so it only acted as a one-way valve to prevent the intake charge from backing out as it heated and expanded. This engine was so efficient that it did not even require a radiator, although it did have an oil cooler to prevent the oil getting too hot. >"There's a fixed amount of energy in a gallon of gasoline. The energy from it's its combustion is turned into motion and heat. >I'm not sure how a fuel delivery system could lower the ratio of heat to motion." -1Andy2 That's true, there is only a fixed amount of energy in a given amount of gasoline. But the typical internal combustion engine is horribly inefficient and doesn't extract anywhere near the total available energy, which is why they need radiators to get rid of the excess heat. It is also why they emit so many combustion byproducts. Know why cars have catalytic converters? To burn combustible gasses that don't burn in the combustion chamber. That's why catalytic converters get so hot that you can't park your car where grass can contact the CC, for fear of starting a fire. Yunick's design achieved its efficiency by heating the intake charge enough to vaporize the fuel components that normally end up in the catalytic converter. Hence, the CC is also unnecessary. I'm surprised no automaker has picked the design up yet, but I fully expect that the technology will eventually become commonplace. smokey was a badass there's probably still shit of his sitting on a shelf somewhere that is miles ahead of what anybody else has thought of up to this point |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 12:00:32 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
holy shit, can you imagine how fucking big the ghetto aftermarket wheels would be for it Spinners. Someone should photoshop some in there. With someone's last name in gothic scroll letters on the side of the carriage.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 12:01:20 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You want to go back to leaded gasoline? Why not? Well, there is that whole bit about lead being a toxic heavy metal. Just out of curiosity, how many pounds of lead were there in a gallon of old timey gasoline? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 12:07:32 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
Quoted:
holy shit, can you imagine how fucking big the ghetto aftermarket wheels would be for it Spinners. Someone should photoshop some in there. With someone's last name in gothic scroll letters on the side of the carriage. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 12:07:32 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
Just out of curiosity, how many pounds of lead were there in a gallon of old timey gasoline?
Does it matter? For the entire US population, during and after the TEL phaseout, the mean blood lead level dropped from 16 μg/dL in 1976 to only 3 μg/dL in 1991.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 12:11:55 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You want to go back to leaded gasoline? Why not? Well, there is that whole bit about lead being a toxic heavy metal. Just out of curiosity, how many pounds of lead were there in a gallon of old timey gasoline? About 0.1 ounce. The average car of today would use about a shotgun slug's worth of lead in 300 miles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2011 12:14:13 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
About 0.1 ounce. The average car of today would use about a shotgun slug's worth of lead in 300 miles. And how many millions of gallons do we use everyday? |
|
|
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.
