Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 1/5/2005 3:07:03 PM EDT
This is a question I posted to the Bushy folks in the Industry forum:
----
Did you folks enter the M17 into the competition the Army's having to select a new service rifle? It seems like a pretty good design, and it's from the DOD's current supplier, so why wouldn't they consider the Bullpup instead of some weird HK XM8 with a short barrel?

You know, the Krauts aren't all that friendly to us now; it would seem to be a good idea to award the production of a new firearm to an American company...
-----
Link Posted: 1/5/2005 3:07:43 PM EDT
are you high?
Link Posted: 1/5/2005 3:13:24 PM EDT
To make a long answer short............No. I love Bushy, but the M17 wasn't designed for battle.
Link Posted: 1/5/2005 3:15:04 PM EDT
[Jose Jimenez] Oh, I hope not. [/Jose Jimenez]
Link Posted: 1/5/2005 3:15:41 PM EDT
August 2004.

M17 as a military weapon.
Link Posted: 1/5/2005 3:24:43 PM EDT
I never liked the bullpup design. I think it is an ugly looking Euro design. Also, something about having brass ejecting from behind my firing hand instead of forward of it doesn't seem quite right. Never fired one, though..
Link Posted: 1/5/2005 3:24:55 PM EDT
I hate bullpup designs. I shoot left-handed.
Link Posted: 1/5/2005 3:25:51 PM EDT
Bushie is a DOD vendor?
Link Posted: 1/5/2005 3:27:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2005 3:36:05 PM EDT by samsong]
I see that the typically constructive criticism of ARFCOM members is evident. I shouldn't have expected anything different.

Since I must be "high" or whatever, perhaps, with your grand and glorious knowledge and my obvious, stultifying stupidity, perhaps you folks could deign to tell me why the M17 is such a roaring piece of crap that could not function in a battle environment.
Link Posted: 1/5/2005 3:29:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/5/2005 3:29:26 PM EDT by DK-Prof]

Originally Posted By xinflt:
I never liked the bullpup design. I think it is an ugly looking Euro design. Also, something about having brass ejecting from behind my firing hand instead of forward of it doesn't seem quite right. Never fired one, though..






Bullpups are great.

The M17S is not a viable miltary design.. It requires extensive modifications to be a good firearm, and there ARE good bullpup designs out there that could compete for a military contract (like the SteyrAug, the Tavor, that Singaporian one, and the upgrades SA80 - and maybe even the FAMAS) - but the Bushmaster is not one of them.
Link Posted: 1/5/2005 3:29:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tommytrauma:
Bushie is a DOD vendor?


They already are, dude.
Link Posted: 1/5/2005 3:31:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By jbombelli:
I hate bullpup designs. I shoot left-handed.



I can appreciate that. The M16 is no wonder-beauty itself, but the M17's overall length would seem to make it an ideal weapon for CQB, as it retains velocity due to the 20" BBL. As far as the lefty shooting issue, it would be even more of a hindrance/danger than the current solution.

Really, I like the op-rod aspect, the short OAL, and the 20" BBL if we are forced to retain the .223 and don't pick up the 6.8SPC.
Link Posted: 1/5/2005 3:35:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
... there ARE good bullpup designs out there that could compete for a military contract (like the SteyrAug, the Tavor, that Singaporian one, and the upgrades SA80 - and maybe even the FAMAS) - but the Bushmaster is not one of them.



OK, so why don't we have our eyes on the Tavor? Israel makes some damnned nice firearms, and the design appears to be pretty well thought out.

I just hate the thought of us buying anything from the Germans. That relationship will only degrade in the future.
Link Posted: 1/5/2005 3:36:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:


Bullpups are great.
.



Aside from their poor ergonomics, difficult reloads and that most of them are not left had capable.. YEAH Theyre AWSOME!


The Bushmaster M17 is a fine plinker but its just not up to the task of being a "Battle Rifle"

The requirements that the military puts on these rifles are extreme and it just does not even qualify for them, yet alone compete against any of the others.

The XM8 is dead.. We will be using the M-16 platform for a long time. Its just logistically impossible not to use it.
Link Posted: 1/5/2005 3:39:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By samsong:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
... there ARE good bullpup designs out there that could compete for a military contract (like the SteyrAug, the Tavor, that Singaporian one, and the upgrades SA80 - and maybe even the FAMAS) - but the Bushmaster is not one of them.



OK, so why don't we have our eyes on the Tavor? Israel makes some damnned nice firearms, and the design appears to be pretty well thought out.

I just hate the thought of us buying anything from the Germans. That relationship will only degrade in the future.



The Tavor is unbalanced at best and the Germans would be much better to deal with than the Izzy's.

If we do change over to a new rifle for the entire military I would bet that it would either be a gas piston M-16 or the SCAR rifle that was just awarded to FN.
Link Posted: 1/5/2005 3:47:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheFNG:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:


Bullpups are great.
.



Aside from their poor ergonomics, difficult reloads and that most of them are not left had capable.. YEAH Theyre AWSOME!



In my opinion, the ergonomics of a bullpup are BETTER than regular rifles, because they are well-balanced, and not front-heavy. I can fire a bullpup accurately one-handed standing, something that is impossible with a 20" AR-15.

The reloads are only "difficult" for someone who is not used to it. If you'd been trained on a FAMAS or an SA-80 in basic, you'd probably find the AR-15/M-15 reloads "difficult"

Absolutely some bullpups have lefy issues - those would be the SHITTY bullpups. There are shitty bullpups just like there are shitty rifles of all design. The good bullpups - like the FAMAS and SteyrAUG are quite easily switchable from right ejection to left ejection, and the FN2000 has downward ejection.

In my opinion, bullpups are the only real significant development in automatic rifles in the last 40 years. Having longer barrels (and muzzle velocity) in a shorter overall rifle is a big step forward - and overcomes the shortcomings of compromise rifles like the 14.5" barrelled M16 that doesn't have sufficient muzzle velocity.




The Bushmaster M17 is a fine plinker but its just not up to the task of being a "Battle Rifle"

The requirements that the military puts on these rifles are extreme and it just does not even qualify for them, yet alone compete against any of the others.

The XM8 is dead.. We will be using the M-16 platform for a long time. Its just logistically impossible not to use it.



I completely agree! The M17 will never be a battle rifle. It is nothing but a plinker - and with extensive mods can be a fun "utility rifle" - but never a battle rifle (in part because the receiver design means it cannot be switched to left eject). I also agree that the M16 will continue for a long time - if it aint broke, don't fix it!

Link Posted: 1/5/2005 4:01:07 PM EDT
You can accuratley shoot them one handed ehh?

Now I get it! Thats why the British Special Forces us the SA-80's.

Oh wait, they use M4's..

Whatever its your taste bud. But its good points definately do not out weigh its bad.
Link Posted: 1/5/2005 4:02:28 PM EDT
Do you own an M17?

If you do, you already know the answer to your question.

If you don't, buy one the let us kow what you think.

I don't own one but have fired one a few times right handed, being that I'm left handed.

Wasn't impressed with the handling.

Ergonomics really suck. Round surfaces feel better and are easier for beings with opposable thumbs to grasp.

Definitely didn't like the sights. Can you say sight radius?

I wouldn't mount any optics to the 'carry handle' unless I wanted to loose them.

You have to completely unshoulder the rifle to reliably reload it without making some awkard contortions to pull the charging handle.

Safety status is hard to identify if you're not holding it in your hands.

Hey it's almost as good as a Mini-14 in a Muzzlelite stock.

Of course all these defects would probably be able to be corrected with some multimillion dollar funding for research.
Link Posted: 1/5/2005 4:07:57 PM EDT
I'm glad BM is making them, as they are (to my knowledge) the only domestically-produced bullpup. However, it really isn't battle-rifle capable.

For one, it is not meant to be disassembled for cleaning/maintenance. The gas system is "self-cleaning", which is nice until some sand gets in there and you can't disassemble it easily. Also, the barrel is tensioned inside of the receiver, so it would be much more difficult (compared to the M16/M4) to remove/replace. The aluminum forearm also heats up to much to hold normally on semi; I'd hate to touch it after extended full-auto fire.

The sights are probably the weapon's most significant flaw. The BUIS are basically useless and the rail mount is very high above the bore axis. However, this can be fixed by KKF.

If they did adopt a bullpup, it would probably be the FN 2000. The M17S is an interesting and unique gun, but (to my knowledge) the military has never even considered it.
Link Posted: 1/5/2005 4:13:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By samsong:
This is a question I posted to the Bushy folks in the Industry forum:
----
Did you folks enter the M17 into the competition the Army's having to select a new service rifle? It seems like a pretty good design, and it's from the DOD's current supplier, so why wouldn't they consider the Bullpup instead of some weird HK XM8 with a short barrel?

You know, the Krauts aren't all that friendly to us now; it would seem to be a good idea to award the production of a new firearm to an American company...
-----



Link Posted: 1/5/2005 4:20:10 PM EDT
The M-17 has got to be the crappiest rifle ever built. Maybe they need it for an example of what not to build.
Link Posted: 1/5/2005 4:22:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By cyanide:

Originally Posted By samsong:
This is a question I posted to the Bushy folks in the Industry forum:
----
Did you folks enter the M17 into the competition the Army's having to select a new service rifle? It seems like a pretty good design, and it's from the DOD's current supplier, so why wouldn't they consider the Bullpup instead of some weird HK XM8 with a short barrel?

You know, the Krauts aren't all that friendly to us now; it would seem to be a good idea to award the production of a new firearm to an American company...
-----






Hey not everyone understands the industry and or the competition... How many people on this board do you think have even seen in person or even held/fired ANY of the guns in this thread other than the M17 or MAYBE a Steyr Aug?
Link Posted: 1/5/2005 4:23:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By lonegunman:
The M-17 has got to be the crappiest rifle ever built. Maybe they need it for an example of what not to build.



I woudlnt say that it was the crappiest, but its definately the most CREATIVE use of Rain Gutter I have ever seen.
Link Posted: 1/5/2005 4:26:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheFNG:
You can accuratley shoot them one handed ehh?



With a red-dot sight, yes - absolutely.

Why do you ask? Have you not found that to be true among the many bullpups you've obviously fired?



Now I get it! Thats why the British Special Forces us the SA-80's.



Good lord Are you deliberately being obtuse, or is your reading comprehension really that bad?

I wasn't making any point other than the fact that BALANCE (related to your point about ergonomics), is actually superior on a bullpup compared to a traditional rifle. That is a specific, and verrifiable, technical issue.

How you somehow turned that into a question of what rifle the brits use when the have a choice between a shitty bullpup and a weell-developed regular rifle is beyond me.



Oh wait, they use M4's..



That's because the SA-80 is one of the more shitty bullpup designs. Does that mean that all bullpups are shitty? No.




Whatever its your taste bud. But its good points definately do not out weigh its bad.



I'm not your bud, junior and I cannot even comprehend what your point is, if you even have one?

Are you somehow getting the impression that I am defending the M17S? If so, again I have to wonder about your reading comprehension skills.


You and I appear to completely agree that the M16 will not be replaced anytime soon, because it is an awesome and superior weapons system. We also seem to completely agree that the M17 would be a compelte no-starter in any military contract competition.

I am merely pointing out that a well-designed bullpup is actually a very good principle, and in several ways superior to a tradtional rifle.

You, on the other hand, seem to have some irrational knee-jerk reaction against bull-pups. Did one bite you as a child or something? . Either way, I'm done discussing it with you - since you've obviously got strong opinions about it (no doubt based on your vast experiences with all sorts of bullpups and other military arms) - and it's not really a big deal to me.
Link Posted: 1/5/2005 4:42:07 PM EDT
Ok I was under the impression that we were debating whether a bullpup design in general was better than a conventional rifle.

I did not at any point write that you were defending the M17.

How you would have any idea of what I have handled and what I have not is beyond me.

The point that you cant seem to comprehend is that the disadvantages in a bullpup style rifle are far worse than the disadvantages in a conventional rifle.

How were you pointing out that the bullpup is superior? How is the ability to "accuratley" shoot one handed with a rifle a superior advantage? It sounds silly to me.

So moving on now what is the Non-Shitty end all kickass bullpup rifle?
Link Posted: 1/5/2005 6:06:05 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/5/2005 6:18:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SHIPSNIPE1:


You have to completely unshoulder the rifle to reliably reload it without making some awkard contortions to pull the charging handle.





Why are you using the charging handle to reload? Use the bolt catch.



http://www.smallarmsreview.com/april.htm
Link Posted: 1/5/2005 6:27:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Troy:
2. Bushmaster generally does not bid on military contracts. They don't have the infrastructure available to service those contracts and still maintain their civilian/LEO sales. They also don't have the financial backing to survive waiting for the military to get around to paying them, which is often a problem that military contractors have to deal with. It's one of the reasons Colt has problems sometimes, and why it was easier to sell a big portion of the company to the state of Connecticut. It sucks to wait several years to get paid.
-Troy


It was on Bushmaster's website awhile back, but they also don't have the capacity to build rifles at the rate specified by the contract. They did supply a small number of rifles to the DoD, but it was very small, at least in DoD terms. Remember most of the commercial firearms companies are pretty much mom & pop type companies.
Link Posted: 1/5/2005 6:33:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheFNG:
Ok I was under the impression that we were debating whether a bullpup design in general was better than a conventional rifle.

I did not at any point write that you were defending the M17.



That's what I thought too - but I was a little unclear based on your wording. Glad we are talking about the same thing.



How you would have any idea of what I have handled and what I have not is beyond me.



Just curious. As other posters in this thread have illustrated, some people really don't like bullpups, but have neverr actually handled or fired one. Between my military experience and my collecting, I have some experience with multiple bullpups and conventional rifles - both civilian and military versions, so I just wanted to point out that my opinions are somewhat based on reality, not theory.



The point that you cant seem to comprehend is that the disadvantages in a bullpup style rifle are far worse than the disadvantages in a conventional rifle.



I understand that is YOUR OPINION, but I just don't agree.

I am not saying that all bullpups are great - but I am suggesting that a well-designed bullpup has advantages over a conventional rifle, and I thought the benefits outweight the downsides. I am not denying that there are downsides (among the more obvious being a longer trigger linkage) - but I think the benefits (primarily the longer barrel in a shorter rifle, and the better balance) outweight the downsides.



How were you pointing out that the bullpup is superior? How is the ability to "accuratley" shoot one handed with a rifle a superior advantage? It sounds silly to me.



I tried to point it out above. The main benefit is that you can have a +20" barrel in a 30" rifle. That is the primary point of a bullpup - the ability to have a SHORT rifle that is useful for CQB and house-to-house, but still retains the muzzle velocity and penetration of a long-barreled rifle. Superior balance is just a secondary benefit, and being able to shoot one-handed is just an ILLUSTRATION of how superior the balance is - not necessarily a benefit in itself.



So moving on now what is the Non-Shitty end all kickass bullpup rifle?



I dunno . I'm not an expert on bullpups, not have I ever handled or fired some of the more modern ones - like the FAMAS or the Singaporean one. I think the FN P2000 might be a superb rifle, but I've heard some skepticism about it's ejection system. A SteyrAUG with rails added might be a pretty kickass bullpup. The Aussies seem pretty happy with them.

I ALSO don't know what the "non-shitty end-all kickass" conventional rifle is. It might be the Sig 55x series, or a M16 with a piston upper - but it's not necessarily the current M16 either.

(Sorry if I was pissy in my earlier posts - glad I didn't offend you )
Link Posted: 1/5/2005 11:34:14 PM EDT
You know, after the intial guffawing and churlishness at my initial question, I actually learned a lot from the later posts about what challenges are faced by the M17 and by bullpups in general. Thanks a lot for educating me! My built-in predjudices towards bullpup design advantages are now countered by the very many valid points rasied by you gentlemen calling them into question.

I have more meat on my plate. Time to eat up!
Link Posted: 1/5/2005 11:37:20 PM EDT
Well I got one, it has some neat points, but if it came down to to SHTF Id grab something else first.
Link Posted: 1/5/2005 11:54:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By peekay:
are you high?




Link Posted: 1/5/2005 11:59:26 PM EDT
The M17 will never be a service rifle in any country on this planet.
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 12:08:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By jbombelli:
I hate bullpup designs. I shoot left-handed.



Being left handed is not a handicap, it is a gift from God

Link Posted: 1/6/2005 12:10:53 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 12:22:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By TheFNG:
Originally Posted By DK-Prof:


Bullpups are great.
.



Absolutely some bullpups have lefy issues - those would be the SHITTY bullpups. There are shitty bullpups just like there are shitty rifles of all design. The good bullpups - like the FAMAS and SteyrAUG are quite easily switchable from right ejection to left ejection, and the FN2000 has downward ejection.




Unfortunately if you need to do a 'battlefield pickup' in combat you will not have the time to strip the weapon and switch it to lefty…

ANdy
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 6:33:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:
Why did this thread go past the 1st reply?



God only knows. Since we all already know everything about the AR platform, guns in general, God, and politics, I guess that we should :

1.) Never talk again about anything. Nothing needs further discussion.
2.) Never invite anyone new to our little playground, since they have the capacity to irritate you with their idiotic questions.
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 6:41:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By samsong:
You know, after the intial guffawing and churlishness at my initial question, I actually learned a lot from the later posts about what challenges are faced by the M17 and by bullpups in general. Thanks a lot for educating me! My built-in predjudices towards bullpup design advantages are now countered by the very many valid points rasied by you gentlemen calling them into question.

I have more meat on my plate. Time to eat up!



What a great attitude! Some of the OGs need to take a cue from this. Not everyone has been shooting for the past 30 years.
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 6:56:41 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 7:15:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By warlord:

It was on Bushmaster's website awhile back, but they also don't have the capacity to build rifles at the rate specified by the contract. They did supply a small number of rifles to the DoD, but it was very small, at least in DoD terms. Remember most of the commercial firearms companies are pretty much mom & pop type companies.


I'd be interested in exactly who in the "DOD" contracted and bought the rifles.

Just because the DOD Police at Ft Dix(or any such equivelent) bought 12 rifles does not make one a government contractor.
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 8:06:41 PM EDT
Bushmaster has an active CAGE code.
They do not supply any COMPLETE M16 type weapons to the federal supply system.
They do supply some parts.

Someone with FEDLOG or HAYSTACK access look up Bushmaster or Quality Parts out of Windham, ME.
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 8:43:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KA3B:
Bushmaster has an active CAGE code.
They do not supply any COMPLETE M16 type weapons to the federal supply system.
They do supply some parts.

Someone with FEDLOG or HAYSTACK access look up Bushmaster or Quality Parts out of Windham, ME.



7Z500 Bushmaster Firearms DBA Quality parts Co.

19 NSNs in Fedlog, but the only active ones are:

Cartridge Extractor
Charging Handle

So thats all they currentley sell to the DOD. And on both items they are listed as a secondary, not primary, supplier.

There are two rifle NSN's, one for the XM15E2, on for an M4... neither is active, and are listed as ISC-5:


5 An item authorized for procurement that has
not yet been subject to item standardization,
or items under the specification control of
National Security Agency (NSA).


It looks to me like they have been cleared as a contigency supplier, but never used or used very, very, very little. You definitly cannot order any Bushmaster products other that the two mentioned above through the supply system, and even then you may get one from them or somebody else (Colt is listed as primary supplier on both items)

So there ya go, FWIW.


Link Posted: 1/6/2005 9:31:12 PM EDT
I would like to see our boys using Bullpup rifles...
but from what I've herd of the Bushmaster's M17S it is not ment for combat.
It's verry reliable, quite accurate and light, but the dourability and accessability for military use is not there.

Now if they use the same technology that they used on the barrel for the M17S to make it as accurate as a heavy bull barrel (from what I've herd) and still be a light barrel in a diffrent more military design then I would have to think Bushmaster would have a chance at a military contract.
Yet a shot and if they will take it are two diffrent things.
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 9:39:51 PM EDT
I wouldn't want one in battle, I picked one up at the gunshop out of curiosity and opened the action of it and shouldered it!!!

No, offense it may be the best gun on the planet to some of you, and no disrespect to bushmaster god, knows i own 2, "XM-15's" but the M-17 bullpup felt like i was holding something with the ergonomics of a "three foot long Brick!"
Link Posted: 1/6/2005 10:32:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Top_Secret:

Originally Posted By SHIPSNIPE1:


You have to completely unshoulder the rifle to reliably reload it without making some awkard contortions to pull the charging handle.





Why are you using the charging handle to reload? Use the bolt catch.

www.smallarmsreview.com/ibus3.jpg

http://www.smallarmsreview.com/april.htm



OK say you're using a shitty surplus magazine whose follower dosen't engage the bolt hold open like I was, you might just notice these things.

Shoulder the rifle and try charging it using the charging handle.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 4:19:08 AM EDT
The same can be said with the AR platform. If you have to work the charging handle, you have to either unshoulder the weapon or severly contort yourself.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 6:49:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:

7Z500 Bushmaster Firearms DBA Quality parts Co.

19 NSNs in Fedlog, but the only active ones are:

Cartridge Extractor
Charging Handle

So thats all they currentley sell to the DOD. And on both items they are listed as a secondary, not primary, supplier.

There are two rifle NSN's, one for the XM15E2, on for an M4... neither is active, and are listed as ISC-5:


5 An item authorized for procurement that has
not yet been subject to item standardization,
or items under the specification control of
National Security Agency (NSA).


It looks to me like they have been cleared as a contigency supplier, but never used or used very, very, very little. You definitly cannot order any Bushmaster products other that the two mentioned above through the supply system, and even then you may get one from them or somebody else (Colt is listed as primary supplier on both items)

So there ya go, FWIW.





Whoa! That's pretty cool!I thought that Bushy was providing M4 profile BBLS to the DoD, and that's why they had such a long backorder time. Now, I suspect that it's just that they didn't prepare for the end of the AWB, and were caught with their pants looped down around their ankles.

In any case, I'm betting it will be a while before I see a chrome-line M4 barrel out of Bushy. Maybe I'll see one at the show tomorrow! If so, I'll buy it...
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 6:51:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:
snip
What a great attitude! Some of the OGs need to take a cue from this. Not everyone has been shooting for the past 30 years.



thank you.
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 7:37:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/7/2005 7:38:57 PM EDT by bobbyjack]
I see one M-17 posted that has a Brass Deflector,good thing as it is imposible to fire left handed without it!!!

But another really bad point is no ejection port cover,and anything at all that lands there goes directly into the magazine!!!! I sold mine because of these reasons and the very usless sight radius!!


It will gobble up anything you put in it also!!!


Bob
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 9:56:51 PM EDT
As an M17 owner I also would say that it would require a lot of modification to become a battle rifle. That said, if permitted to, I would have brought it to iraq with me in place of the M-4 I currently have. I prefer the balance and the long barrel. (Plus it's shorter). The odd forward grip can be fixed with a collapsible pistol-type grip, such as on the AUG. I happen to like bullpups, and thing that the US military's conservatism on the matter is un-necessarily narrowing the choices.

SA-80s are much improved these days, some say to a point better than the M-16 series, I hear from some brits that the SAS are re-evaluating them. Having played with SA-80 and AUG in addition to my M-17, I find them much handier to use, though a little odd until you get used to them.

NTM
Link Posted: 1/7/2005 10:53:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:
Why did this thread go past the 1st reply?



Why has it gotten this far?
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top