Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Posted: 4/13/2006 6:25:06 PM EST
[Last Edit: 4/13/2006 6:25:06 PM EST by CockedandLocked]
The military 1911 pistols went through reliability testing to be sure that they would function properly when subjected to sand, dirt, water, cold, heat, no lube, no cleaning and so on. The clearances built into the pistol were probably the result of the requirement to function under these conditions. From this point of view does anyone have experience with the current 1911's such as rock river, baer, springfield ... Accuracy aside, how would these compare to the original units?
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 3:40:50 AM EST

Originally Posted By Coolio:
Thanks, JW.
I'm thinking of saving up for one.
Also, good tip about the checkering. Front strap checkering has always appealed to me, but I'll definately rethink that.



Baer's guns are expensive, but they are very well built.

And definately skip the checkering. Baer's checkering was done by hand when I bought my gun (a rare thing at the time) and it was absolutely perfect.....but it still was a gigantic pain in the neck.
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 1:59:05 PM EST

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By Coolio:
Thanks, JW.
I'm thinking of saving up for one.
Also, good tip about the checkering. Front strap checkering has always appealed to me, but I'll definately rethink that.



Baer's guns are expensive, but they are very well built.

And definately skip the checkering. Baer's checkering was done by hand when I bought my gun (a rare thing at the time) and it was absolutely perfect.....but it still was a gigantic pain in the neck.


What's checkering?
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 3:06:28 PM EST

Originally Posted By MT-Gun-Nut:
What's checkering?



A process of cutting a checkered surface into a piece of metal, namely the front strap of the 1911 in question.

It looks like this:

Link Posted: 4/11/2006 4:22:44 PM EST
tag for good reading
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 7:03:06 PM EST

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By MT-Gun-Nut:
What's checkering?



A process of cutting a checkered surface into a piece of metal, namely the front strap of the 1911 in question.

It looks like this: www.heinie.com/images/1911magwellsm.jpg



SO you dont like it?
Link Posted: 4/12/2006 2:15:28 PM EST

Originally Posted By MT-Gun-Nut:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Serrations are a good frontstrap texture that is easy on the hand.


oh, they are good?



Serrations, yes. Checkering....I have a gun with 25 LPI handcut checkering. I shot a 100 round match with it--no blood, but I had 25 LPI marks on my hands. I wouldn't want to take it to a long class.
Link Posted: 4/12/2006 3:29:29 PM EST

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:

Originally Posted By MT-Gun-Nut:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Serrations are a good frontstrap texture that is easy on the hand.


oh, they are good?



Serrations, yes. Checkering....I have a gun with 25 LPI handcut checkering. I shot a 100 round match with it--no blood, but I had 25 LPI marks on my hands. I wouldn't want to take it to a long class.


A the wraparound grips any good?
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 7:37:47 AM EST
JasonBurton has 35,000 rounds through a Les Baer with 2 malfunctions. Granted it hasn't been spending a lot of time in mud, but that is damn good.
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 7:38:21 AM EST

I bought a Colt 1991A1 in 1998 - the stainless model - and it is by far the LEAST reliable handgun I own. In contrast, my 1945 Remington Rand 1911A1 is the most reliable handgun I've ever owned.

However, many people agree that the newer Colt 1991A1s are very good now, so my bad experience my not be an indication of current Colt production (plus, it is possible that the Stainless models were less good than regular blued steel ones - I've heard the ally might be a little softer, or some such argument. Don't know if it's true.).
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 7:40:52 AM EST

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
JasonBurton has 35,000 rounds through a Les Baer with 2 malfunctions. Granted it hasn't been spending a lot of time in mud, but that is damn good.



Is that Jack Burtons brother?? If it is I can beleve that!
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 7:42:36 AM EST
remember that the 1911 went through this testing almost 100 years ago. standards probably werent quite as high as today
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 7:43:04 AM EST
My El Cheapo RIA, using GI magazines goes bang EVERY TIME. I wouldn't hessitate to carry it into 'the shit'.
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 8:05:14 AM EST
[Last Edit: 4/8/2006 8:14:25 AM EST by fxntime]
I have 4 different makes of 1911A1s from WW2. I would not hesitate to grab any of them to defend myself using HARDBALL. I would NOT trust them with SOME of the hollowpoint ammunition of today. They were NOT designed for it and can cause feeding problems.

I have pretty good luck with Colts, less so with another major make. Colt is making some very good 1911s right now, probably the best in 30 years. The WW2 USGI Colts seem to me to be a bit better put together as far as tolerences over RR, Ithica, and US&S. They are not sloppy in any sense of the word when it comes to BBL lockup, the frame/slide fit is just about perfect, a bit loose but nice and slick. Accuracy of the 1911 has NOTHING to do with looseness of the frame/slide anyways, but it does with cycling reliability when it is muddy, dirty, and grungy.

I probably would not use a USGI 1911 as a defensive weapon nowadays as a personal choice because of the value of an undicked with one and because some of the newer HP ammunition would require alterations [feed ramp and BBL chamber throating] that would destroy the intrinsic value. If you had to use it defensivly you would probably lose it for a long period of time if not for good. If it is a reasonably good condition piece or one with some rarity to it [were talking some serious $$$$s for some anymore] you will be out of luck and a replacement is not going to be found at Joe Blows gunz and gifts for $500 to $700 bucks anymore.

However, if thats all you have, it would still be a viable defensive weapon WITH the correct ammo design.

The newer 1911s are hit and miss. A Baer will be built with high quality parts and will probably be reliable. The cheap makes are less so ,SOMETIMES. The parts are cheaply made, they are built to tight or to loose sometimes, [I'd prefer loose over overly tight anyday on a defensive 1911 pistol] The middle of the road [say $650 to $1000] ones can be excellent, good, or flat out lemons. I have seen WAY to many problems with a certain make that seems to change extractordesign every other month trying to fix their problems. Stupid thing is, in the beginning, it ran very nicely as it was originally designed. Any of the middle of the road 1911s will have a pretty good warrenty and some offer a LIFETIME warrenty on breakage, not a bad deal in my book.

In the end, you have to shoot it til you are satisfied with it's reliability, just as any other make or model of pistol be it Glock, Sig, HK, Ruger or whatever. It's a piece of machinery and NO piece of machinery made by man is perfect every time.
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 11:34:56 AM EST
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 11:35:17 AM EST

Originally Posted By ED_P:
Had a Springfield GI model. Would stovepipe and eject rounds right back in my face. Plus the sights completely sucked.

Though newer commercial models have improved the problems with the horrible sights of the original, and incorporated other improvements like increasing the size of the ejection port, the anemic magazine capacity still turns me off.

They are a part of history, and certainly are a handsome gun, but I'm glad they're not a major part of the US military anymore.

They were a good gun up through WW2, but have been surpassed by more modern designs long ago.




Sights on handguns ALL sucked, save a very few back when the 1911 was designed.
Since the SA GI was designed to be a reasonable copy of a mid 40's GI gun the sights are about the same. Hence the MIL SPEC.

It was not so much that the sights sucked, they are capable of very good accuracy, it is that they are very slow to pick up and align. They were intended for close in work, and were never intended for long distance shooting. Hence, the issue rifle.
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 11:35:50 AM EST

Originally Posted By SrBenelli:

Originally Posted By ED_P:

They are a part of history, and certainly are a handsome gun, but I'm glad they're not a major part of the US military anymore.




Ever see a Marine Corp MEUSOC 1911? They're soldering on as we speak in both Afghanistan and Iraq.



I've seen them, they are not nearly as prolific as 1911 owners make them out to be. Nearly all the Marines who were over there had Berettas if they have any handgun.

Link Posted: 4/8/2006 11:37:16 AM EST

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:

Originally Posted By SGB:

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:
so why not go with a SIG, or a Glock in order to be able to run damn near any hollowpoint ammo reliably? the standard unmodified 1911a1 is all fine and dandy but it has been obsolete for a while.




Old doesn't mean obsolete. And I've seen Sigs and Glocks choke on Hollowpoint ammo as well.



no? then why are nearly none of the 1911s I see on this board basic 1911a1s?



Same reason that you don't see many stock AR-15's it's not "tacti-cool", that and most manufacturors only make the new gimmicky commercial ones, unless ofcourse your saying that a stock AR-15 is a POS to....
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 11:37:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:

Originally Posted By SGB:

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:
funny, my glock does, my hipower does. and my loose as a goose Llama 1911 that I had years ago would as well. hell even my commie CZ52 has gone into the 500+ range in one day without cleaning without so much as a problem.




Please articulate to me why reasonable person would claim that any pistol design capable of 350 rounds of sustained use without cleaning would be deemed unreliable?



because there are so many other pistols that will go beyond 350 rounds without cleaning reliably. back in 1911, that might have seemed unreasonable, nowadays however standards have been raised.

in the 1920s a yugo would have been considered reliable due to the cars availible, doesnt mean that it is reliable by todays standards



My current Colt has gone aprox. 600+ rounds before I ran out of ammo......then I came home and cleaned her. No stovepipes, mis-feeds, chokes, bobbles, balks, trips, etc.........

I guess I've got a "lemon".....
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 11:38:02 AM EST

Originally Posted By SGB:

Originally Posted By ED_P:
Had a Springfield GI model.


They were a good gun up through WW2, but have been surpassed by more modern designs long ago.




............ surpassed how and by who? Care to add some facts to that generalization?



It's not hard to surpass a gun with the above mentioned issues. Pick any modern, quality handgun that has better sights and higher magazine capacity. Sig, Beretta and Glock all come to mind instantly.


Link Posted: 4/8/2006 11:38:04 AM EST

Originally Posted By SrBenelli:
My current Colt has gone aprox. 600+ rounds before I ran out of ammo......then I came home and cleaned her. No stovepipes, mis-feeds, chokes, bobbles, balks, trips, etc.........

I guess I've got a "lemon".....



I saw a yugo driving around the other day, doesnt mean they are a good car as a whole
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 11:45:18 AM EST
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 11:48:30 AM EST

Originally Posted By SGB:

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:

Originally Posted By SGB:

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:
funny, my glock does, my hipower does. and my loose as a goose Llama 1911 that I had years ago would as well. hell even my commie CZ52 has gone into the 500+ range in one day without cleaning without so much as a problem.




Please articulate to me why reasonable person would claim that any pistol design capable of 350 rounds of sustained use without cleaning would be deemed unreliable?



because there are so many other pistols that will go beyond 350 rounds without cleaning reliably. back in 1911, that might have seemed unreasonable, nowadays however standards have been raised.

in the 1920s a yugo would have been considered reliable due to the cars availible, doesnt mean that it is reliable by todays standards



You evade the question instead of trying to answer it.

A design that will continue to function beyond 350 rounds of sustained use while nice doesn't make that design superior for self defense.

It has no application in a gunfight. It does nothing to increase your survivability.

It only applies IF you are the type that never cleans or cares for your equipment but demands that it work despite your neglect.



yes it does make it superior for self defense. to me it is the height of stupidity to sacrifice reliability for asthetics. and if I cant rely on it to go 350 or more rounds without screwing up on me how can I rely on it to work when I need it most? fighting off Mr. Murphy is a good thing.
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 11:52:38 AM EST

Originally Posted By SGB:

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:

Originally Posted By SGB:

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:
funny, my glock does, my hipower does. and my loose as a goose Llama 1911 that I had years ago would as well. hell even my commie CZ52 has gone into the 500+ range in one day without cleaning without so much as a problem.




Please articulate to me why reasonable person would claim that any pistol design capable of 350 rounds of sustained use without cleaning would be deemed unreliable?



because there are so many other pistols that will go beyond 350 rounds without cleaning reliably. back in 1911, that might have seemed unreasonable, nowadays however standards have been raised.

in the 1920s a yugo would have been considered reliable due to the cars availible, doesnt mean that it is reliable by todays standards



You evade the question instead of trying to answer it.

A design that will continue to function beyond 350 rounds of sustained use while nice doesn't make that design superior for self defense.

It has no application in a gunfight. It does nothing to increase your survivability.

It only applies IF you are the type that never cleans or cares for your equipment but demands that it work despite your neglect.




So, I should spend hundreds of dollars on a gun that I can't shoot as much as I think I should?

Further, if I can't trust it to go 350 rounds, why should I trust it to go 100, or 50 or even 1? As a self-defense gun, it gets dirty. I carry my pistol everywhere. By your logic, I should be cleaning it every couple of hours. I'm sorry, but I don't have the time to do that anymore, I have a job.
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 11:55:03 AM EST
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 12:04:25 PM EST
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 12:06:24 PM EST

Originally Posted By SGB:

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:
yes it does make it superior for self defense. to me it is the height of stupidity to sacrifice reliability for asthetics. and if I cant rely on it to go 350 or more rounds without screwing up on me how can I rely on it to work when I need it most? fighting off Mr. Murphy is a good thing.



Your argument is weak and without merit.

Any firearm that is reliable for 350 rounds of continuous use is reliable for self defense.

A weapon capable of continuous use beyond that while nice is no more reliable for the first 350 rounds.



yes it very well can be, as a carry piece it is likely to get dirty, and a handgun that is more tolerant to fouling/dirt/sand/etc will be more likely to go bang in the right direction when you need it most.
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 12:06:44 PM EST

Originally Posted By SGB:

Originally Posted By ED_P:
It's not hard to surpass a gun with the above mentioned issues.

Pick any modern, quality handgun that has better sights and higher magazine capacity. Sig, Beretta and Glock all come to mind instantly.

What issues? Anecdotes.............. "and once upon a time I knew a guy"........?

Originally Posted By ED_P:
Pick any modern, quality handgun that has better sights and higher magazine capacity. Sig, Beretta and Glock all come to mind instantly.

Better sights? Do you know how many sight manufactures their are for the 1911? I personaly like Novaks and sights don't get no better than that IMHO. Much nicer than the PLASTIC glock sights that break off.

Magazine capacity?.................. Maybe you haven't noticed but several companies make HI cap 1911's



Not anecdotes. There are plenty of tutorials on how to "tune" your 1911. More modern designs don't need endless articles on "tuning" because they either work, or don't work, and if they don't work, you replace one part and they do. I have noticed some highcap 1911's being made, but in a post I originated myself months ago, enquiring about highcap 1911's, many posters replied that the current offerings on the market had issues.

I'm not dismissing the 1911 as a pile. They are a historic gun, but they are at best like a classic car. One can appreciate them, and enjoy driving them, but if usage and reliability are the main concern, there are much better offerings on the new car lot in 2006.



Link Posted: 4/8/2006 12:07:59 PM EST
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 12:08:34 PM EST

Originally Posted By MT-Gun-Nut:
So, then should I get a Glock 22 over a 1911 for my next pistol?



Hell no. 1911 in .45ACP. You wont have to worry about a KABOOM!
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 3:28:54 AM EST

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By Coolio:
Nice Baer, JW.
What model is it?



I believe he calls it the Concept IV now.....

The only regret I have is the checkering on the front strap. Conventional wisdom at the time was that it was needed to help you keep control of the weapon under recoil. Conventional wisdom was wrong, as I discovered the first time I took it to a training class.

The checkering did not help me control the weapon under recoil, but 4,000 rounds of shooting in a week DID manage to remove skin and render my hands almost useless for a couple of weeks.

That's when I learned one of the most necessary things to take on any training......Medical tape.

If I had it to do over again, I would get what he calls the Concept II, an all blued weapon with no checkering.




Thanks, JW.
I'm thinking of saving up for one.
Also, good tip about the checkering. Front strap checkering has always appealed to me, but I'll definately rethink that.
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 6:28:41 PM EST

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:

Originally Posted By MT-Gun-Nut:
What's checkering?



A process of cutting a checkered surface into a piece of metal, namely the front strap of the 1911 in question.

It looks like this: www.heinie.com/images/1911magwellsm.jpg



OH. Thank you.
Link Posted: 4/11/2006 8:07:22 PM EST

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Serrations are a good frontstrap texture that is easy on the hand.


oh, they are good?
Link Posted: 4/12/2006 2:24:33 AM EST

Originally Posted By MT-Gun-Nut:
SO you dont like it?



No.

It doesn't help with controlling recoil, but DOES do a good job of tearing your hand up after a lot of shooting.
Link Posted: 4/13/2006 6:23:42 PM EST
bumpeth.
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 10:18:25 AM EST

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:

Originally Posted By 9245:

Originally Posted By MT-Gun-Nut:
So, then should I get a Glock 22 over a 1911 for my next pistol?



You tell me:

Glock:

rds.yahoo.com/S=96062883/K=nuclear+bomb/v=2/SID=e/l=IVI/;_ylt=A9gnMiBh_jdEJHcBqf.jzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTA4NDgyNWN0BHNlYwNwcm9m/SIG=12dmce0mg/EXP=1144606689/*-http%3A//www.netoriginals.com/uss/images/resources/bomb.jpg

1911:

rds.yahoo.com/S=96062883/K=1911a1/v=2/SID=e/l=IVI/;_ylt=A9gnMiHl_zdER3sAD9CjzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTA4NDgyNWN0BHNlYwNwcm9m/SIG=12mohg0s1/EXP=1144607077/*-http%3A//www.desertshooting.com/desert_news.files/d_gun/1911a1_1.jpg

Seriously the 1911 is battle proven it was a frontline weapon from 1911-1986?, and is still a favoret of special forces, there is no substitute, just get a surplus millitary 1911A1, and not one of the junky Comercial ones....



have you even looked at the price of a milsurp one these days?
and by the way any gun will blow up if you put bad ammo in it, even the 1911



No more than a "high end" commercial one, but in this case it's WELL worth the extra cost, a defensive handgun probably isn't an area where you want to skimp, the commercial ones are CHEAPer for a reason, and the non 1911's while some are good just are not as proven, and are not as reliable, so ask yourself do you want the newest unproven desighn with all the latest gimmicks "tactical features", that is built in the cheapest way possible with quantity, and cost over quality, to save a few bucks or a compat proven desighn built to rigid millitary specifications, that had all it's bugs worked out 60 years ago?....


Origionaly Posted By MT-Gun-Nut:


Where do I get a Mil-surp one?



www.gunbroker.com/?AID=10359852&PID=615655

www.gunsamerica.com/

www.auctionarms.com/

www.ar15.com/forums/forum.html?b=7&f=88

Look around....


Origionaly Posted By mcantu:

Yeah, but battle proven with FMJ ammo, not modern HP rounds



I wouldn't balk at .45 ACP FMJ or not, but I'm sure HP's will feed just try another brand or, if you have no other option swap parts, and store the origionals, but whos to say you have to use HP,s there are other non FMJ options available if HP's wont work for you.... The desighn is solid, and proven didmissing it based on ammo is a mistake....
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 10:21:22 AM EST
Just get a Sig 220 and you'll never have to worry about reliability.
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 10:21:52 AM EST
you're so set on a 1911 that you will use inferior performing ammo just to so you can carry one?


wow
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 10:32:50 AM EST
[Last Edit: 4/8/2006 10:33:47 AM EST by 9245]

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:
you're so set on a 1911 that you will use inferior performing ammo just to so you can carry one?


wow



You can get Hollow Points to feed fine if you don't it's eighther because it's one of the issues the commercial ones have, or your useing the wrong brand, try switching to a different brand of ammo, Hollow Points WILL work in 1911's, and even it they didn't there are other options besides FMJ, or Hollow Points, but to answer your question which would I rather use an unproven commercial desighn that may malfuction at an inconvient time, with the latest greatest wizband Hollow Point ammunition that may or may not actually work, or a proven reliable desighn with FMJ, then I'll go with the proven reliable desighn with FMJ....
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 10:47:01 AM EST
[Last Edit: 4/8/2006 10:47:20 AM EST by TheRedHorseman]
so why not go with a SIG, or a Glock in order to be able to run damn near any hollowpoint ammo reliably? the standard unmodified 1911a1 is all fine and dandy but it has been obsolete for a while.
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 10:47:05 AM EST
I'm sure if you put the bullett in the right spot it wont be much of an issue as to whether it's FMJ or HP. That being said my SA loaded shoots it all with no probs.
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 10:53:26 AM EST
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 10:55:02 AM EST

Originally Posted By SGB:

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:
probably because they are built the way a combat handgun should be, loose. super tight handbuilt guns are great for target but they suck ass for reliability



How many supertight handbuilt 1911's have you owned?



two, built one of them myself. they are great till they get dirty
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 10:57:01 AM EST
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 10:59:04 AM EST

Originally Posted By SGB:

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:
so why not go with a SIG, or a Glock in order to be able to run damn near any hollowpoint ammo reliably? the standard unmodified 1911a1 is all fine and dandy but it has been obsolete for a while.




Old doesn't mean obsolete. And I've seen Sigs and Glocks choke on Hollowpoint ammo as well.



no? then why are nearly none of the 1911s I see on this board basic 1911a1s?
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 11:00:55 AM EST
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 11:00:58 AM EST

Originally Posted By SGB:

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:
so why not go with a SIG, or a Glock in order to be able to run damn near any hollowpoint ammo reliably? the standard unmodified 1911a1 is all fine and dandy but it has been obsolete for a while.




Old doesn't mean obsolete. And I've seen Sigs and Glocks choke on Hollowpoint ammo as well.


GLOCKS NEVER fail!!

Link Posted: 4/8/2006 11:03:53 AM EST
[Last Edit: 4/8/2006 11:13:19 AM EST by SGB]
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 11:03:54 AM EST

Originally Posted By SGB:

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:

two, built one of them myself. they are great till they get dirty



Define dirty



dust, sand, 350+ rounds of shooting, combination of all three. general Arizona conditions
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 11:07:09 AM EST

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:

Originally Posted By SGB:

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:
so why not go with a SIG, or a Glock in order to be able to run damn near any hollowpoint ammo reliably? the standard unmodified 1911a1 is all fine and dandy but it has been obsolete for a while.




Old doesn't mean obsolete. And I've seen Sigs and Glocks choke on Hollowpoint ammo as well.



no? then why are nearly none of the 1911s I see on this board basic 1911a1s?



I've got about 28 basic 1911A1s, save a bad run of them from ONE company, they eat ammo up like a chocolate freak in Willy Wonkas factory. I also have several 1911s, they do fine also.

Link Posted: 4/8/2006 11:10:01 AM EST
[Last Edit: 4/8/2006 11:38:19 AM EST by MT-Gun-Nut]

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:

Originally Posted By SGB:

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:

two, built one of them myself. they are great till they get dirty



Define dirty



dust, sand, 350+ rounds of shooting, combination of all three. general Arizona conditions



I used to live in AZ. It was harsher than Montana.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Top Top