User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 9:20:14 PM EDT
Early in the program, the United States was publicly telling the world that the shuttle would reduce the cost of space travel, but the soviets could see that this was clearly bullshit and that it would ultimately be more expensive than rockets. Because of this, the soviets were convinced that the shuttle was actually being built for military purposes. The main reason was that the shuttle was able to land with it's full payload capacity. In other words, it was able to bring cargo both to and from space. The soviets believed that it's real purpose was to bring weapons such as lasers into space, test them, and return them to earth. They thought that the shuttle would be able to intercept soviet spy satellites and bring them back to earth. I did not know it was able to land with a payload. This actually makes a lot of sense to me. Do you think this was the true reason it was built?
Obviously the Buran was built to counter this perceived military threat. What do you think?  Did The Soviets Build A Better Space Shuttle? The Buran Story ETA: This channel is great by the way. His videos are incredibly professionally done and very educational. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 9:21:55 PM EDT
[#1]
The Space Shuttle swamp was far, far too big to hide an ulterior motive like that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 9:23:10 PM EDT
[#2]
if buran was so good why didn't it get sold by a oligarch? China might find something like that useful.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 9:24:30 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Space Shuttle swamp was far, far too big to hide an ulterior motive like that. Yep. this is true. The Shuttle probably yeeted some spy satelites but that's about it |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 9:29:20 PM EDT
[#4]
"This Video Caused An International Incident! ( Spaceship Discovery )"
  This Video Caused An International Incident! ( Spaceship Discovery ) |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 9:31:54 PM EDT
[#5]
The shuttle was able to land with its full payload aboard because the pre-orbit emergency plans involved returning to earth either by gliding back to the launch site or over to Europe.
The doors couldn’t be opened in the atmosphere, so they would have had to carry their payload back with them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 9:33:57 PM EDT
[#6]
New a couple guys that worked at the cape building the original space shuttle. Neither one of them believed it would survive it's first mission
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 9:34:20 PM EDT
[#7]
I think the commies watched Moonraker a few too many times.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 9:40:55 PM EDT
[#8]
There was a long duration exposure satellite that had many different types of materials on it designed to catalog orbital debris impacts. It damn near filled up the shuttle's payload bay. The intent was to bring it home for study. So I guess I always assumed that was the case.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 9:42:17 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The shuttle was able to land with its full payload aboard because the pre-orbit emergency plans involved returning to earth either by gliding back to the launch site or over to Europe. The doors couldn’t be opened in the atmosphere, so they would have had to carry their payload back with them. Yes, that is what google says. But, that doesn't explain anything. If the US was saying reusable craft would be cheaper and the soviets could clearly see that they would be more expensive, what is our reasoning for pursuing reusable craft? Maybe it is as simple as terrible up front cost analysis and budget overruns. Or maybe it's not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 9:44:29 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes, that is what google says. But, that doesn't explain anything. If the US was saying reusable craft would be cheaper and the soviets could clearly see that they would be more expensive, what is our reasoning for pursuing reusable craft? Maybe it is as simple as terrible up front cost analysis and budget overruns. Or maybe it's not. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The shuttle was able to land with its full payload aboard because the pre-orbit emergency plans involved returning to earth either by gliding back to the launch site or over to Europe. The doors couldn’t be opened in the atmosphere, so they would have had to carry their payload back with them. Yes, that is what google says. But, that doesn't explain anything. If the US was saying reusable craft would be cheaper and the soviets could clearly see that they would be more expensive, what is our reasoning for pursuing reusable craft? Maybe it is as simple as terrible up front cost analysis and budget overruns. Or maybe it's not. It’s pretty much that simple. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 9:46:55 PM EDT
[#11]
The thing I find myself saying about The Shuttle a lot lately.
It was intended when they were designing the thing that it would be flown once a week. The Shuttle never came anywhere near that cadence. Falcon 9 roughly achieved that cadence last year. Lessons learned I suppose... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 9:49:11 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It’s pretty much that simple. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: The shuttle was able to land with its full payload aboard because the pre-orbit emergency plans involved returning to earth either by gliding back to the launch site or over to Europe. The doors couldn’t be opened in the atmosphere, so they would have had to carry their payload back with them. Yes, that is what google says. But, that doesn't explain anything. If the US was saying reusable craft would be cheaper and the soviets could clearly see that they would be more expensive, what is our reasoning for pursuing reusable craft? Maybe it is as simple as terrible up front cost analysis and budget overruns. Or maybe it's not. It’s pretty much that simple. If it were obvious to the soviets from the beginning of the US shuttle program (or at least early on in the program) as the video claims, why wouldn't it be obvious to us? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 9:52:54 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The thing I find myself saying about The Shuttle a lot lately. It was intended when they were designing the thing that it would be flown once a week. The Shuttle never came anywhere near that cadence. Falcon 9 roughly achieved that cadence last year. Lessons learned I suppose... The video also makes note of that. He claims the soviets knew that the US would not launch at that frequency so that also led them to believe it had military reasoning behind it. There apparently was also supposed to be a second launch site in California planned that would put the shuttle over the populated cities in the USSR within one earth orbit and therefore able to deliver nuclear weapons faster than Russia's nuclear strike capabilities. At least that what the video says. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 9:53:42 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If it were obvious to the soviets from the beginning of the US shuttle program (or at least early on in the program) as the video claims, why wouldn't it be obvious to us? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The shuttle was able to land with its full payload aboard because the pre-orbit emergency plans involved returning to earth either by gliding back to the launch site or over to Europe. The doors couldn’t be opened in the atmosphere, so they would have had to carry their payload back with them. Yes, that is what google says. But, that doesn't explain anything. If the US was saying reusable craft would be cheaper and the soviets could clearly see that they would be more expensive, what is our reasoning for pursuing reusable craft? Maybe it is as simple as terrible up front cost analysis and budget overruns. Or maybe it's not. It’s pretty much that simple. If it were obvious to the soviets from the beginning of the US shuttle program (or at least early on in the program) as the video claims, why wouldn't it be obvious to us? Soviets didn’t have the cash flow to keep pumping into it. It flew once. If it were obvious that it’s not viable, they wouldn’t have built one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 9:55:38 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The shuttle was able to land with its full payload aboard because the pre-orbit emergency plans involved returning to earth either by gliding back to the launch site or over to Europe. The doors couldn’t be opened in the atmosphere, so they would have had to carry their payload back with them. Simple sounds true. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 9:56:45 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes, that is what google says. But, that doesn't explain anything. If the US was saying reusable craft would be cheaper and the soviets could clearly see that they would be more expensive, what is our reasoning for pursuing reusable craft? Maybe it is as simple as terrible up front cost analysis and budget overruns. Or maybe it's not. Terrible cost analysis and budget overruns? That sounds very likely. The space shuttle was supposed to be great, but it ended up holding us back for decades. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 9:57:49 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Soviets didn’t have the cash flow to keep pumping into it. It flew once. If it were obvious that it’s not viable, they wouldn’t have built one. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The shuttle was able to land with its full payload aboard because the pre-orbit emergency plans involved returning to earth either by gliding back to the launch site or over to Europe. The doors couldn’t be opened in the atmosphere, so they would have had to carry their payload back with them. Yes, that is what google says. But, that doesn't explain anything. If the US was saying reusable craft would be cheaper and the soviets could clearly see that they would be more expensive, what is our reasoning for pursuing reusable craft? Maybe it is as simple as terrible up front cost analysis and budget overruns. Or maybe it's not. It’s pretty much that simple. If it were obvious to the soviets from the beginning of the US shuttle program (or at least early on in the program) as the video claims, why wouldn't it be obvious to us? Soviets didn’t have the cash flow to keep pumping into it. It flew once. If it were obvious that it’s not viable, they wouldn’t have built one. Sorry...I'm not talking about the Buran. The video claims that early on in the US Space Shuttle program, it was obvious the the soviets that the US shuttle would be more expensive per launch than rockets...but the US was saying the opposite. This led them to believe it's true motives were military in nature. I'm asking how the Russians could see this discrepancy in our claims of cost, but we could not? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 9:59:11 PM EDT
[#18]
The shuttle was supposed to be a little different and cheaper but the Air Force wanted to do [CLASSIFIED] stuff with it
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 10:01:13 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sorry...I'm not talking about the Buran. The video claims that early on in the US Space Shuttle program, it was obvious the the soviets that the US shuttle would be more expensive per launch than rockets...but the US was saying the opposite. This led them to believe it's true motives were military in nature. I'm asking how the Russians could see this discrepancy in our claims of cost, but we could not? It could be many things. Maybe we knew the costs but kept writing the checks until it was too late for anything but to proceed forward. Our government has shown precedence of doing that with many projects, after all. Maybe Russia was just posturing and was as paranoid as ever. It was the Cold War after all, both sides were assuming everything had to be weaponized in one way or another. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 10:01:48 PM EDT
[#20]
One of the big advertisements for the shuttle was the ability to supposedly bring satellites back down for repair and reuse. It was designed to accommodate the largest satellites on the drawing boards at the time.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 10:03:42 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes, that is what google says. But, that doesn't explain anything. If the US was saying reusable craft would be cheaper and the soviets could clearly see that they would be more expensive, what is our reasoning for pursuing reusable craft? Maybe it is as simple as terrible up front cost analysis and budget overruns. Or maybe it's not. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The shuttle was able to land with its full payload aboard because the pre-orbit emergency plans involved returning to earth either by gliding back to the launch site or over to Europe. The doors couldn’t be opened in the atmosphere, so they would have had to carry their payload back with them. Yes, that is what google says. But, that doesn't explain anything. If the US was saying reusable craft would be cheaper and the soviets could clearly see that they would be more expensive, what is our reasoning for pursuing reusable craft? Maybe it is as simple as terrible up front cost analysis and budget overruns. Or maybe it's not. There were many ideas and plans, most of them were never pursued. Maintenance of spy satellites alone was enough to justify its budget. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 10:03:43 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sorry...I'm not talking about the Buran. The video claims that early on in the US Space Shuttle program, it was obvious the the soviets that the US shuttle would be more expensive per launch than rockets...but the US was saying the opposite. This led them to believe it's true motives were military in nature. I'm asking how the Russians could see this discrepancy in our claims of cost, but we could not? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The shuttle was able to land with its full payload aboard because the pre-orbit emergency plans involved returning to earth either by gliding back to the launch site or over to Europe. The doors couldn’t be opened in the atmosphere, so they would have had to carry their payload back with them. Yes, that is what google says. But, that doesn't explain anything. If the US was saying reusable craft would be cheaper and the soviets could clearly see that they would be more expensive, what is our reasoning for pursuing reusable craft? Maybe it is as simple as terrible up front cost analysis and budget overruns. Or maybe it's not. It’s pretty much that simple. If it were obvious to the soviets from the beginning of the US shuttle program (or at least early on in the program) as the video claims, why wouldn't it be obvious to us? Soviets didn’t have the cash flow to keep pumping into it. It flew once. If it were obvious that it’s not viable, they wouldn’t have built one. Sorry...I'm not talking about the Buran. The video claims that early on in the US Space Shuttle program, it was obvious the the soviets that the US shuttle would be more expensive per launch than rockets...but the US was saying the opposite. This led them to believe it's true motives were military in nature. I'm asking how the Russians could see this discrepancy in our claims of cost, but we could not? I guess I can only speculate. I suspect the optimists within the bloated Shuttle program believed that with enough volume, costs would come down per launch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 10:07:41 PM EDT
[#23]
Too bad the roof fell on Russia's version.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 10:08:40 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I guess I can only speculate. I suspect the optimists within the bloated Shuttle program believed that with enough volume, costs would come down per launch. Or NASA brass who wanted it to happen told Congress whatever they wanted to hear. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 10:09:02 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sorry...I'm not talking about the Buran. The video claims that early on in the US Space Shuttle program, it was obvious the the soviets that the US shuttle would be more expensive per launch than rockets...but the US was saying the opposite. This led them to believe it's true motives were military in nature. I'm asking how the Russians could see this discrepancy in our claims of cost, but we could not? Lies that Congress wanted to believe. The Apollo program also claimed that they would reduce the cost of payload to $10,000/lb. The exact same number claimed for the Shuttle and again for the Venture Star. Pure speculation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 10:10:33 PM EDT
[#26]
The Shuttle HAD to be able to land with its full payload capacity as to do otherwise would make any max payload abort impossible.
In fact, its payload was either capped by the amount it could abort or the inclination it flew. IT could have been a cheaper option if it didn't throw stuff away and had a fly-back booster. The cheapening-out in development meant it would never operate cheaply. Plus, they got locked-into the design instead of testing, upgrading and replacing. What we needed was a two-stage to orbit shuttle with the ability to make frequent upgrades. The original design goals of the shuttle program for reliability and cost, except the downmass requirements, were finally met by the Falcon 9 family. We are finally on the cusp of a true fully-reusable, two-stage to orbit space shuttle design: 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 10:11:14 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Too bad the roof fell on Russia's version. https://www.buran.fr/bourane-buran/img/hangar12-grand.jpg They really don't care about preserving stuff like we do. I did enjoy my time at the Kennedy Space Center, even if the rest of the family wasn't as amused at looking at old rockets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 10:12:53 PM EDT
[#28]
Some shuttle missions and payloads are still classified so they probably were not completely wrong.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 10:14:01 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I guess I can only speculate. I suspect the optimists within the bloated Shuttle program believed that with enough volume, costs would come down per launch. Studies said yes, with a high-enough flight rate, even STS would become relatively cheap. It was the fixed facility and personnel costs that mostly made the shuttle so expensive. You need to divide those over a high flight rate to justify them. You could have thrown away the ET and used the SRBs and still have greatly reduced the cost if you could have flown enough. The problem is the shuttle design as executed was insufficiently operationally robust to meet that flight rate even if it had the payloads to justify the launches. And since you couldn't fly it unmanned, you can't work the bugs out without killing crews. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 10:14:24 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The video also makes note of that. He claims the soviets knew that the US would not launch at that frequency so that also led them to believe it had military reasoning behind it. There apparently was also supposed to be a second launch site in California planned that would put the shuttle over the populated cities in the USSR within one earth orbit and therefore able to deliver nuclear weapons faster than Russia's nuclear strike capabilities. At least that what the video says. They built that second launch site at Vandenberg at great expense. Shuttle never launched out of there. SpaceX is launching literal metric tons of stuff out of Vandenberg these days. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 10:17:45 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The shuttle was able to land with its full payload aboard because the pre-orbit emergency plans involved returning to earth either by gliding back to the launch site or over to Europe. The doors couldn’t be opened in the atmosphere, so they would have had to carry their payload back with them. Beat me to it. Without any kind of payload separation or crew ejection, a mid-launch abort means landing with full payload and fuel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 10:18:05 PM EDT
[#32]
The shuttle program was largely funded by the USAF/CIA to repair/retrieve our spy satellites. The bay of the shuttle and the CANADA arm was sized and built for that task. Space exploration/experimentation was NASA's side of the equation. They knew from the beginning it wasnt going to save money.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 10:20:36 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sorry...I'm not talking about the Buran. The video claims that early on in the US Space Shuttle program, it was obvious the the soviets that the US shuttle would be more expensive per launch than rockets...but the US was saying the opposite. This led them to believe it's true motives were military in nature. I'm asking how the Russians could see this discrepancy in our claims of cost, but we could not? Because it was designed to be a grift machine, just like everything else the government did after the 60s. We knew it. But saving money doesn't fill the offshore bank accounts of all involved in the project |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 10:24:21 PM EDT
[#34]
Not Shuttle, but a craft that used some Shuttle tech.
 Delta IV - a very expensive pleasure  Delta IV Heavy NROL-91 Launch Highlights |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 10:26:52 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not Shuttle, but a craft that used some Shuttle tech.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPEorvDcLIs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXifOiq56uwThat's what became of the Vandy Shuttle Pad. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 10:27:03 PM EDT
[#36]
Let me put my way back hat on and get all the important facts wrong.
The USAF had decided to provide additional money to NASA if they flew a design based on the lifting body. So what was learned on the X-20 Dyna-Soar (flown by the 6 million dollar man) was used for the shuttle. This allowed the design of the X-37B - or what I think as the mini-shuttle. The Buran was a failed copy of the shuttle; and my guess unless you are lifting a crazy amount of stuff to orbit on that beast would cost too much to sustain. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 10:27:57 PM EDT
[#37]
Trying to read some of the spelling in this thread is like
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 10:56:24 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Let me put my way back hat on and get all the important facts wrong. The USAF had decided to provide additional money to NASA if they flew a design based on the lifting body. So what was learned on the X-20 Dyna-Soar (flown by the 6 million dollar man) was used for the shuttle. This allowed the design of the X-37B - or what I think as the mini-shuttle. The Buran was a failed copy of the shuttle; and my guess unless you are lifting a crazy amount of stuff to orbit on that beast would cost too much to sustain. Not the X-20 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 10:57:55 PM EDT
[#39]
The fucking soviets put a 23mm cannon in one of their manned spy satellites.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 10:58:54 PM EDT
[#40]
Part of the reqs for the shuttle program and the reason it has such a large payload and giant fucking wings was specifically to steal soviet satellites and land with them in a single orbit so the soviets wouldnt even know it happened.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 11:00:58 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Part of the reqs for the shuttle program and the reason it has such a large payload and giant fucking wings was specifically to steal soviet satellites and land with them in a single orbit so the soviets wouldnt even know it happened. How the hell do you secure it in one orbit? It's not designed to interface with the locks in the payload bay! What if they start putting self-destructs onboard? It usually took several orbits to secure something actually DESIGNED to be carried by the shuttle. I have always thought that one to be more rumor than truth. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 11:01:12 PM EDT
[#42]
They were going to steal a malfunctioning Soviet space station. It got called off, but they were ready to go. I think the Soviets actually go wind of it.
Nude photos of Hillary Clinton -or- the shuttle article, take a chance? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 11:01:55 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The fucking soviets put a 23mm cannon in one of their manned spy satellites. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 11:04:41 PM EDT
[#44]
 URBEX | Abandoned Soviet Space Shuttles (Buran) in Baikonur |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 11:05:26 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How the hell do you secure it in one orbit? What if they start putting self-destructs onboard? I have always thought that one to be more rumor than truth. Adjusting to the orbit of an existing satellite isn't hard, if that's what you are asking. They repaired the Hubble a few times with the shuttle and it wouldn't have been that complicated to take the satellite down with them if they really needed to. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 11:09:39 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How the hell do you secure it in one orbit? It's not designed to interface with the locks in the payload bay! What if they start putting self-destructs onboard? It usually took several orbits to secure something actually DESIGNED to be carried by the shuttle. I have always thought that one to be more rumor than truth. I wont claim to have thoroughly researched it but I'll say that scott manley tends to research his videos pretty well and that is where i got it from. Pretty sure it was this vid  The Most Important Space Shuttle Mission Never Happened |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 11:12:38 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They were going to steal a malfunctioning Soviet space station. It got called off, but they were ready to go. I think the Soviets actually go wind of it. Nude photos of Hillary Clinton -or- the shuttle article, take a chance? You should have read down to the bottom of Hillary's tits... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 11:15:55 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Adjusting to the orbit of an existing satellite isn't hard, if that's what you are asking. They repaired the Hubble a few times with the shuttle and it wouldn't have been that complicated to take the satellite down with them if they really needed to. How do you secure the load inside the cargo bay? You have to know the exact dimensions and for something that large, you have to have interfaces designed to secure it to the payload bay. You can't just leave it laying loose because the doors close. You have to remove the solar arrays, the antennas and have a way to attach the remote manipulator arm too. It's fantasy. Might be barely possible with the cooperation of the Soviets and significant preparation. Likely take two flights at least including one to prep the station. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 11:16:06 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I wont claim to have thoroughly researched it but I'll say that scott manley tends to research his videos pretty well and that is where i got it from. Pretty sure it was this vid https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_q2i0eu35aYOk so watching again it wasnt necessarily to recover a soviet craft but a craft in a single orbit without the soviets knowing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2023 11:20:05 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I wont claim to have thoroughly researched it but I'll say that scott manley tends to research his videos pretty well and that is where i got it from. Pretty sure it was this vid https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_q2i0eu35aYThat's not talking about stealing soviet shit in less than one orbit. Did you actually watch it to the end? |
|
|
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.
