User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/16/2003 8:46:59 PM EDT
[#1]
my parachute instructor was hit by eight AK rounds in Vietnam and is still going strong...
[b]DAMN![/b] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2003 8:52:49 PM EDT
[#2]
He was being extracted from a LRRP patrol and was hit while dangling from a Huey...I've seen the bullet holes and associated surgical scars!
But please let us not get sucked in by the fad (and a fad it is; there has been none of the theoretical statistical analysis done like that which gave us the 5.56)... There will not be a good reason to drop the 5.56 until we have laser rifles in the terawatt range... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2003 8:59:51 PM EDT
[#3]
I wouldn't mind seeing something along the lines of a 6mm. Kind of a middle ground between the penetration of .308 and the light weight of .223.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2003 9:37:26 PM EDT
[#4]
77gr Mk262 Mod 1...................
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2003 9:50:00 PM EDT
[#5]
I didn't vote because nothing really applies to my views.
I am happy with the 5.56, but I have an open mind and wont automatically shut down any alternative/replacement if it proves to be a better caliber. And surplus ammo is plentiful and cheap [:D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2003 10:23:34 PM EDT
[#6]
I really can't see the 5.56 usurped in terms of CQB, period. THe question is then, have the dynamics of battle changed since the vietnam combat studies. If the vast majorities of firefights are occuring at ranges beyond the 5.56 fragmentation then I can certainly see the adoption of another round. THe thing is that I find it hard to believe that has changed.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2003 11:10:36 PM EDT
[#7]
I think M855 needs replacing, most likely with the round KevinB suggested, but the 5.56mm is still effective as a general issue military cartridge.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2003 11:11:03 PM EDT
[#8]
No.
5.56mm doesn't have that much longer to run before it becomes obsolete in the face of improving body armor. These new cartridges may be marginally superior on paper against unarmored targets. But they are not any better against armor. And sooner or later places like China, Russia, India or Pakistan are going to figure out how to make the kind of plates we have today. Then the third worlders will be as well armored as our guys are now. While we will probably have even better stuff in the armor department by then, we have as yet nothing on the horizon in the way of weapons to counter someone ELSE having that kind of good body armor. If you want to work on something, develop something that can penetrate a Level IV plate. And yet be light enough to fire from the shoulder off hand. That is going to be a hard technical challenge to meet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2003 12:09:37 AM EDT
[#9]
What does body armor have over marksmanship...
(2) to the head - none to the body... We have people training the new Iraqi army, and these trainers said the recruits knew nothing about zeroing their rifles - probably one of the reasons we had fewer casualties in the war... On the other hand - our soldiers are trained in marksmanship... [sniper2] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2003 12:54:02 AM EDT
[#10]
Quoted: No. 5.56mm doesn't have that much longer to run before it becomes obsolete in the face of improving body armor. sooner or later places like China, Russia, India or Pakistan are going to figure out how to make the kind of plates we have today. Then the third worlders will be as well armored as our guys are now. Are you for real? The Miriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines Third World nations as "Contries populated with bastards so damn poor that they can't afford level IV body armor." If the people can't afford to nourish themselves properly how in the hell will they afford this on a mass scale, let alone hump the extra weight on their malnourushed bodies? If we had a superpower counterweight your argument would make more sense. Until then all you have is a clandestine set of groups performing guerilla warfare, or nations in which massive waves of humans are their secret weapon. At best they would go on elite units, which could be countered by air strikes or our own elite units. EDIT: For the record China & Russia fall under the second world nation category. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2003 3:36:49 AM EDT
[#11]
The 5.56 is notorious as not doing it's job as well as the combat experinced soldiers in actual combat have reported they need. For the last 30 years they have been complaing.
The 6.8 will be the 5.56 replacement, in gerneral issue, if it proves out to be as good as it is so far reported. I personally expect it to be the next rd., as we have to do something. Good shootin, Jack |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2003 4:05:41 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted: The 5.56 is notorious as not doing it's job as well as the combat experinced soldiers in actual combat have reported they need. It would be more accurate to say the 5.56mm is notorious for not being as effective as inexperianced soldiers expected it would be. I never found M855 from an M16A2 lacking. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2003 4:08:50 AM EDT
[#13]
It still comes down to basic marksmanship. If you can't hit a target with 5.56, you can't hit it with 6.8 With that said, and with most of todays engagements taking place within 100m,what's the advantage of changing ammo? Lots of cost to us, the taxpayers, more confusion to the military and our allies, and probably lining the pockets of some manufacturer that will give our troops a half-baked chunk of plastic rifle that will fail them when most needed. The AR has evolved into a fine weapon. Don't f*#k with it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2003 4:14:03 AM EDT
[#14]
So then, the adoption of this new 6.8mm round in 2006 will put us right back to where the British were in 1948 with their 7x43 round in a scaled-down FAL rifle? Sounds like progress to me! I think the quest should be for the cartridge that works best for ALL services in ALL situations (Nirvana?). There wouldn't have been so many FALs and M14s un-retired by special forces in Afghanistan and Iraq if the 5.56 was doing the job. Seems like every news story on TV shows a grunt armed with a Minimi/SAW just in case someone has to be shot 6 or 8 times.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2003 5:21:44 AM EDT
[#15]
No, dont change...
Cuz then all the cheap milsurp will go away... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2003 5:27:17 AM EDT
[#16]
Either upgrade the 'standard' to Mk262 Mod1 or just go ahead and upgrade all the 5.56 weapons to 6.8x43.
Both are improvements over the M855. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2003 5:55:39 AM EDT
[#17]
6.8 for me please. Best of both worlds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2003 5:56:17 AM EDT
[#18]
StormSurge, Don't put the 7.62 x 39 AK round down too much. I had 11 of the steel core AK rounds go through my UH-1 "Huey" while on final to an LZ. It got the job done for the NVA and VC!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2003 7:55:12 AM EDT
[#19]
What kind of muzzle velocity can we expect with the 6.8X43? How many grains will the bullet weigh? Cartridge OAL?
Granted the 6.8 may work with the M16/AR15 platform, but now you are talking about changing out barrels (think the military is going to buy all new rifles) and mostlikely mags as well. Sounds like a costly and certainly not a garanteed solution. I do not know why the military has not taken a deeper looking into the success of the heavier 5.56 bullet (ie. 77gr Mk262 Mod 1) as seen in Service Rifle competition. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2003 8:35:50 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: The 5.56 is notorious as not doing it's job as well as the combat experinced soldiers in actual combat have reported they need. For the last 30 years they have been complaing. The 6.8 will be the 5.56 replacement, in gerneral issue, if it proves out to be as good as it is so far reported. I personally expect it to be the next rd., as we have to do something. Good shootin, Jack I do NOT believe the 6.8 will be the general issue replacement for the 5.56. Some few 'may' be purchased by the Special Forces community. The M-16 platform was, obviously, designed for the 5.56 round and not built for the added stress of the 6.8. I do believe the one-caliber-fits-all-situations type thinking must go. The M-16 was, finally, a fine weapon for the jungles of Southeast Asia. However, for the mountains and deserts of the Afghan and Iraq the .308 was often more suitable. I fully realize the .308 is not nearly as exciting to us as something new like the 6.8, however, I believe the .308 is where the military should move. Not a wholesale shift but a .308/5.56 mix. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2003 8:46:26 AM EDT
[#21]
KISS! 243Win. The Air Farce should be able to handle the recoil of the 243. Or is it still too much for them?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2003 8:55:28 AM EDT
[#22]
The AK round is well known as a mediocre man-stopper...my parachute instructor was hit by eight AK rounds in Vietnam and is still going strong... Wow, my hat is off to your Instructor, he is VERY lucky. But how many hundreds if not thousands of people have been hit with just 1 ak round and are now dead. A 7.62x39 to a vital will make you take a dirt nap just as quickly as a .223. I do like the idea of having mixed calibers for our military. 5.56 for some and something in 6.5 or 6.8mm for others, and a few .308's added in for good measure. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2003 11:21:13 AM EDT
[#23]
I personally think it should be dropped.
Reports of 'stopping power' have been pretty good, but off-center hits and the advance in body armor technology will soon catch up. The .223, however good it may be, still has some performance limitations. I think we should replace it with the .308. The cartrdige has the energy to kill out to 1900 yards ( been done in Vietnam ), with an effective range ( service rifle ) of around 800 yards. There are not many vests that can stop the 7.62, and we are not dealing with sociteties which value life. These days, we are dealing with people who don't care about their wounded - they just keep going. One of the original 5.56 concepts was to wound one, and take three out of battle to help him. Our enemies today do not do this, so why not just get something that will knock them flat the first time around? You don't necessarily have to deal with recoil. Existing muzzle breaks for rifles can reduce the kick of a .270Win to that of a .22LR - the same could be done for a .308. The AR10A2/4 platform is perfect for this role. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2003 12:40:51 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: KISS! 243Win. The Air Farce should be able to handle the recoil of the 243. Or is it still too much for them? wolf, my first AR-10 was in .243 and I loved that rifle ! (Now one of my brothers loves that rifle. It does not pay to be the oldest brother !) |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2003 12:57:47 PM EDT
[#25]
I'm loving my DSA STG58. It's heavy, but man it's got horse power.
What the heck, let's go back to a man's rifle and a man's cartridge. Let's go back to the m1 garand. With AP rounds, there ain't no plate an army can afford to hide behind from that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2003 1:12:51 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: Wow, my hat is off to your Instructor, he is VERY lucky. Not as lucky as you might think. But how many hundreds if not thousands of people have been hit with just 1 ak round and are now dead. Mostly due to a lack of good medical care (or any medical care). Remember the Stockton CA massacre? Only 5 out of the 35 that were hit died. That is 86% of the children survived their wounds. Dr. Fackler did a nice review of the 7.62x39 and its capabilities (or lack thereof) here: [url]http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/fl_aw_report2.txt[/url] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2003 1:13:54 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: Let's go back to the m1 garand. With AP rounds, there ain't no plate an army can afford to hide behind from that. Our current body armor is rated to stop .30-06 AP. You'll need to do better than that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2003 3:03:21 PM EDT
[#28]
Ah, yes, but there are two issues.
1. Who else currently has that type of armor ( enemies to the US ) 2. The cavitation caused by the thing would most PROBABLY kill the guy - kind of like getting hit with a blunt object, traveling at around 2,000 FPS... I say broken ribs, maybe ruptured organs... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2003 3:39:17 PM EDT
[#29]
We can't even get our own guys to wear their body armor all the time, much less wear the plates in it (hey, I can't blame them, that crap is hot and uncomfortable).
In virtually all of the countries we may be fighting against, they have enough trouble feeding their soldiers and providing them with ammo (much less training). Body armor isn't going to be an issue for decades. -Troy |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2003 4:01:45 PM EDT
[#30]
if they wanna keep it small....maybe i'm just bias because i shoot one, and LOVE it..but 22-250 Rem.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2003 4:56:25 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: KISS! 243Win. The Air Farce should be able to handle the recoil of the 243. Or is it still too much for them? The zoomies train with .22 LR since the 5.56 is so ferocious. For the anti-change arguments from history (AK and Brit); have you forgotten that the knowledge of bullet construction has changed dramatically? A 6.8 bullet designed to [b]work [/b] would beat the OTM bullets for effectiveness. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2003 5:44:02 PM EDT
[#32]
i'll keep my ak. you guys can use anything you like.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2003 7:32:03 PM EDT
[#33]
You're asking this question on an AR15 forum and expect an impartial opinion?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2003 7:45:03 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted: Dr. Fackler did a nice review of the 7.62x39 and its capabilities (or lack thereof) here: [url]http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/fl_aw_report2.txt[/url] Sounds like you want to shoot power points in 7.62x39. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2003 5:59:37 AM EDT
[#35]
The 5.56 is still doing the job within the average engagement range of most battles. It can create a wicked wound to a human within 300 yards and 300 yards is plenty with iron sights (even aimpoints)in a battlefield situation.
I agree that the 7.62x51 is the better round for instant stopping power, penetration and longer range. Although the 7.62 is effective to 800 yards, most grunts won't be shooting that from an iron sight. In addition, you can get 30 5.56 rounds for the same weight as 20 7.62 rounds. I have AR-15's and AR-10's. They each have their perspective jobs, but the 15 takes most of the CQB's. (edited) I am for forward thinking, but I don't think we have a concern about potential enemies using body armor for the next 30 years. As others have said, if they can't feed, clothe, and supply their troops with appropriate uniforms / equipment now, they certainly cannot afford body armor. I see China as our most serious threat. They currently have 2.5 million ground troops with a downsized expectation of 1.8 million by '05. Their military budget is 22.4 billion $ which doesn't go very far when feeding that many troops. Besides, would you trust your life to a Chinese made vest? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2003 7:10:39 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted: Quoted: KISS! 243Win. The Air Farce should be able to handle the recoil of the 243. Or is it still too much for them? The zoomies train with .22 LR since the 5.56 is so ferocious. For the anti-change arguments from history (AK and Brit); have you forgotten that the knowledge of bullet construction has changed dramatically? A 6.8 bullet designed to [b]work [/b] would beat the OTM bullets for effectiveness. Funny, when I went through basic we shot 5.56... Where'd you get your info... I for one will grant you that the Air Force is probably the least military of the military branches, but we service our country with just as much dedication as the rest of you - our kill ratio is higher too {grin} In Vietnam - Air Force personal also got into the fray when they had too, from what I hear... When a base was being overrun, for example, everyone got on the firing line... EVERYONE... [sniper2] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2003 7:52:29 AM EDT
[#37]
Quoted: Funny, when I went through basic we shot 5.56... Where'd you get your info... [sniper2] In Basic. At Lackland AFB. Now, this was in the 1980's, but I know it continued for a long time. When were you in Basic? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2003 8:23:50 AM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: Quoted: Let's go back to the m1 garand. With AP rounds, there ain't no plate an army can afford to hide behind from that. Our current body armor is rated to stop .30-06 AP. You'll need to do better than that. Its all about the ammo, the .223 is a fine round for the ar15 of course. If you want to pierce armor just buy a box of AP rounds I can get them for fifty cents a piece! Also if you want more stopping power maybee the military should tell the Geneva convention to screw off and start using the ammo that were allowed to buy! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2003 8:37:05 AM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: Quoted: Wow, my hat is off to your Instructor, he is VERY lucky. Not as lucky as you might think. But how many hundreds if not thousands of people have been hit with just 1 ak round and are now dead. Mostly due to a lack of good medical care (or any medical care). Remember the Stockton CA massacre? Only 5 out of the 35 that were hit died. That is 86% of the children survived their wounds. Dr. Fackler did a nice review of the 7.62x39 and its capabilities (or lack thereof) here: [url]http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/fl_aw_report2.txt[/url] Forest (All), I was fortunate enough to meet one of the Rangers that was in the Somalia fight and survived. He took three AK rounds across the stomach - I saw the scars - and kept fighting, then he took another AK round through the shoulder and kept fighting, finally he took an AK round laterally through the shoulders and that put him out of the fight. Now the stomach rounds didn't go through so I'm guessing those shots were fired from a pretty good distance. I met with this guy probably half a dozen times. Kinda funny.........the way he says they got out differs dramatically from both the book and the movie. 5sub |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2003 10:03:44 AM EDT
[#40]
I think the 5.56mm Mk262 Mod1 is the way to go - with the excepetion of thre M249/C9 belts.
The 6.8 is an outstandign round and for limited SOF usage and LE it is juts the ticket. However I cannot see NATO crossing over - please remember you brought us 7.62 and the 5.56mm round... For the added increase in lethality is the value added worth the logistical nigthmare? I woudl suggest the MK262 Mod1 shoudl be adopted as the NATO standard loose 'ball' round. This will cause a monor hi-cup as the new ammo is phased in - but nothing like the advent of a new calibre. Revolutionary not Evolutionary Change? I think not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2003 10:13:37 AM EDT
[#41]
5.56 of any kind was not originally intended to become the one end-all caliber for combat weapons. It was supposed to replace .45ACP and .30 carbine. Robert McNamara was well known for applying his business experience to the military. In many cases it makes sense to standardize everyone's gear (issue underwear or socks for example). In other cases, such as weaponry, it makes more sense to me to have the right tool for the job.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2003 10:17:35 AM EDT
[#42]
Quoted: Also if you want more stopping power maybee the military should tell the Geneva convention to screw off and start using the ammo that were allowed to buy! It was the Hague Accord, and we are not a signatory. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2003 10:25:44 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted: 5.56 of any kind was not originally intended to become the one end-all caliber for combat weapons. It was supposed to replace .45ACP and .30 carbine. Robert McNamara was well known for applying his business experience to the military. In many cases it makes sense to standardize everyone's gear (issue underwear or socks for example). In other cases, such as weaponry, it makes more sense to me to have the right tool for the job. I agree - use the proper tool for the proper job, wouldn't hammer a nail with a screwdriver - well, if you have to you probably could, but it won't be as easy a job... Quoted: I think the 5.56mm Mk262 Mod1 is the way to go - with the excepetion of thre M249/C9 belts. The 6.8 is an outstandign round and for limited SOF usage and LE it is juts the ticket. However I cannot see NATO crossing over - please remember you brought us 7.62 and the 5.56mm round... For the added increase in lethality is the value added worth the logistical nigthmare? I woudl suggest the MK262 Mod1 shoudl be adopted as the NATO standard loose 'ball' round. This will cause a monor hi-cup as the new ammo is phased in - but nothing like the advent of a new calibre. Revolutionary not Evolutionary Change? I think not. Excellant point also - migrate the 5.56 to a better, or more effective load, if that be the case... [sniper2] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2003 11:03:44 AM EDT
[#44]
The 5.56 isn't going anywhere, and as you can see from the conflict in the east the military is going to short barrel, lighter weight rifles.
What I propose is a 5.56 with a 70gr boat tail bullet at 3200fps. and a muzzle brake to replace the flash hider. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2003 12:16:02 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted: Quoted: Also if you want more stopping power maybee the military should tell the Geneva convention to screw off and start using the ammo that were allowed to buy! It was the Hague Accord, and we are not a signatory. I have researched this and you seem to somewhat correct. Though we are not bound by the Hague Accord, we have purposely respected it and lived by it for almost 100 years. We have made exceptions only for snipers, counter terrorist opperations and special forces. The rest of the military is still stuck following the Hague accord by using FMJ's. The only reason that I mentioned the geneva convention, was because I could swear thats exactly what the history channel said the other night on its history of the bullet. Im 99 percent sure they screwed up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2003 1:06:44 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted: What I propose is a 5.56 with a 70gr boat tail bullet at 3200fps. Tests have been done with 70gr rounds. They are not as effective as the 75gr Hornady OTM or the 77gr Nosler. BWT trying to get a 5.56 70gr round to 3200fps - even out of a 20" barrel would probably blow the rifle up. Pressure is already very high when we have 55gr loads at 3200fps, make the round almost 50% heavier and the steel won't be able to take it. and a muzzle brake to replace the flash hider. Why? Its not needed 5.56 is weak enough. Geez I'd hate to be online with a bunch of soldiers with muzzle braked weapons and no hearing protection Flash supressor serves a purpose - muzzle brakes do not on a 5.56 rifle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2003 1:11:35 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted: A 6.8 bullet designed to [b]work [/b] would beat the OTM bullets for effectiveness. The 6.8 was designed to [b]Work[/b]. That's what makes it such an interesting round for military/leo use. If you want to pierce armor just buy a box of AP rounds I can get them for fifty cents a piece! Hey try re-reading what I wrote the first time. Current US body armor was designed to stop [b].30-06 Armor Piercing[/b]. So where are you going to find AP rounds for $0.50 that will defeat the armor? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2003 1:17:11 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted: Quoted: A 6.8 bullet designed to [b]work [/b] would beat the OTM bullets for effectiveness. The 6.8 was designed to [b]Work[/b]. That's what makes it such an interesting round for military/leo use. If you want to pierce armor just buy a box of AP rounds I can get them for fifty cents a piece! Hey try re-reading what I wrote the first time. Current US body armor was designed to stop [b].30-06 Armor Piercing[/b]. So where are you going to find AP rounds for $0.50 that will defeat the armor? Just a clarification, in the first quote I was agreeing, a new design using advances in bullet tech and design would be great; I can't wait to see it. I was answering people who said that 50 year old bullets suck, so this would too. The second quote is not mine. Larry |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2003 1:18:45 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Also if you want more stopping power maybee the military should tell the Geneva convention to screw off and start using the ammo that were allowed to buy! It was the Hague Accord, and we are not a signatory. I have researched this and you seem to somewhat correct. Though we are not bound by the Hague Accord, we have purposely respected it and lived by it for almost 100 years. We have made exceptions only for snipers, counter terrorist opperations and special forces. The rest of the military is still stuck following the Hague accord by using FMJ's. The only reason that I mentioned the geneva convention, was because I could swear thats exactly what the history channel said the other night on its history of the bullet. Im 99 percent sure they screwed up. I didn't say we didn't abide by it, only that we aren't bound by it. Semantics, my man [:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2003 2:36:25 PM EDT
[#50]
Whether we are bound by it or not has no effect on our selection of 5.56 ammo since the most effective 5.56 ammo is still legal for our current military.
Also, I would like to see who can get AP 5.56 for $.50 a piece. I dont believe this for even a second. Lets not forget it still wont penetrate the plates in the vest. So baisically I am saying MucdochsM4 is lying and cannot produce any AP 5.56 ammo and he is full of crap. Please prove me wrong. |
|
|
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.
.jpg)
