User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/8/2021 11:58:34 PM EDT
[#1]
M193 killed many in AFG when I was there. Right now, hard to be picky. I’d buy whatever available.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2021 3:06:00 AM EDT
[#2]
It’s perfectly serviceable
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2021 3:16:15 AM EDT
[#3]
 Attached FileIt will kill. I don't have any data for you but I have some insight. Personally it gives me warm feeling to have such familiarity the reliability and repeatability of M193 ammo. I'm my case, usually Federal/American Eagle XM193. I'm certain a more effective bullet exists for terminal performance but dang it nowhere near the cost and nowhere near the comfort of the repeat performance I've had with M193. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2021 3:39:04 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: M193 killed many in AFG when I was there. Right now, hard to be picky. I’d buy whatever available. I think you mean M855. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2021 3:50:54 AM EDT
[#5]
Dead or alive nobody is going to continue fighting after a solid hit from M193, M855 or MK 262 Mod 1.
End of story. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2021 9:50:16 AM EDT
[#6]
It works as goood today as when it was invented.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2021 10:01:44 AM EDT
[#7]
It will probably work fine, velocity helps increase that likelihood. It doesn’t work as well as purpose built projectiles. Run it if it’s what you’ve got and don’t lose sleep over it, but don’t choose it over those purpose built offerings. Generally those recommendations are TMK for non-barrier bound or GD/Fusion for barrier blind. There are a litany of other options like Barnes etc that will perform great as well, and honestly they’re all going to have a similar end result so try not to chase this rabbit hole too much. A short range center-mass rifle hit is going to more or less work regardless.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2021 11:03:06 AM EDT
[#8]
Don’t over think it.
It will work just fine.. shot placement is more important. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2021 11:36:41 AM EDT
[#9]
Pretty sure it has been used in combat with more than acceptable results.
Biggest key would be knowing your effective range based on your barrel length. Full frag above 2700fps. Almost no frag below 2500 fps. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2021 12:32:09 PM EDT
[#10]
To ensure max effectiveness within 100yds and beyond, a 16in barrel (or longer) is recommended. At its intended impact velocity the results are impressive for a FMJ projectile.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2021 1:24:56 PM EDT
[#11]
No real new information that I am aware of.
Just remember, not all 55gr FMJ is M193 bullets.. so some FMJ may not fragment worth a hoot. And M193 / M855 has always been Yaw dependent... so Roberts and Fackler will recommend a non-yaw dependent bullet for a more consistent result. How much better % wise is a better design ? I don't know. Something often overlooked from ballistic gel testing ( gel is a great comparision tool ) is bone damage. A M193 bullet hitting a bone is gonna jack it up.... ribs , back bone, shoulder...etc |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2021 2:54:57 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Something often overlooked from ballistic gel testing ( gel is a great comparision tool ) is bone damage. A M193 bullet hitting a bone is gonna jack it up.... ribs , back bone, shoulder...etc This is 100% correct. This is when energy comes into play. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2021 4:16:05 PM EDT
[#13]
Velocity is a 'thing'. OP, for what you're talking about, nothing has changed. I'd use XM193 in a minute and even out of my 11.5" at repel-boarders distances. It has historically punched holes just fine and as Bfoosh mentions, man does it ever create some shrapnel if it encounters bone. Fugly. The quality stuff loaded to 5.56 pressures is good to go.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2021 11:19:17 AM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:What is the current consensus on the terminal effectiveness of M193? Same as it was back in 1965. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2021 11:36:04 AM EDT
[#15]
Don't forget that twist rate is a factor, some of my older weapons are 1:12 so it is only M193 in them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2021 11:43:14 AM EDT
[#16]
It will KEAL
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2021 9:42:52 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Don't forget that twist rate is a factor, some of my older weapons are 1:12 so it is only M193 in them. Why? I shoot quite a bit of 55 and even up to 62gr gold dots and other pills with increased terminal performance through my 1:12. As has been beaten to death in this forum, M193 is fantastic WHEN IT WORKS. Sometimes it doesn't, even at across the room distances. That's why Doc et. al. don't recommend it. If you're late to the party, and it's all you can get, you're in good shape. If you're loaded with a modern barrier blind expanding projectile, you're in great shape. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2021 10:45:26 AM EDT
[#18]
It works great. Especially at 2600fps and faster. Its what I will used once all my Fusion/MSR/Gold Dots are gone.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2021 1:37:57 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Same as it was back in 1965. Yep |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2021 7:32:19 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why? I shoot quite a bit of 55 and even up to 62gr gold dots and other pills with increased terminal performance through my 1:12. As has been beaten to death in this forum, M193 is fantastic WHEN IT WORKS. Sometimes it doesn't, even at across the room distances. That's why Doc et. al. don't recommend it. If you're late to the party, and it's all you can get, you're in good shape. If you're loaded with a modern barrier blind expanding projectile, you're in great shape. This x1000 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2021 7:33:20 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Don't forget that twist rate is a factor, some of my older weapons are 1:12 so it is only M193 in them. If yours is a 1/12 look into the 55gr Gold Dot or the 55gr LE223T1. Bone frog has both or at least the T1 last I checked. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2021 7:54:53 PM EDT
[#22]
It has a better reputation for putting down bad guys than green tip. When M193 works it works well. The issue is that sometimes it has a long neck. If you get the combo of a long neck and an unobstructed hit on a thin target you might not get the violent fragmentation that makes the round so effective.
it does benefit from speed. I personally wouldn't go under 11.5 inches with it if I had a choice. If I was under 16inches I would feel ok with short ranges. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/12/2021 7:27:32 AM EDT
[#23]
At this point, it's run whatcha brung for SD.
M193 is fine. Doc and Fackler point to other options, but those options aren't available to a lot of us right now. And their main preference is for rounds that have greater consistency, either with or without barriers. It's not that M193 is bad, it's that their are better options (when available). Remember, even a .22 is better then sharp sticks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2021 9:48:17 PM EDT
[#24]
It would not surprise me if the above poster did use M193 as mentioned. One of my friends in SF early in the GWOT said his team ditched M855 due to poor performance against the living and was able secure M193 for his team and said the results were immediately better.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2021 12:06:38 AM EDT
[#25]
Had it put 2 holes through a AR500 popper plate at 40 yards from a 20" AR.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2021 12:06:11 AM EDT
[#26]
NO personal experience but was shown many hundreds of photos during quals in the USAF. Horrific destruction from high velocity projos. Of course this is without body armor.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2021 4:13:45 AM EDT
[#27]
The thing to remember with discussions of terminal performance of various .223/5.56 rounds is that they're all being graded as good or bad in comparison to other .223/5.56 rounds.
There really are no .223/5.56 rounds that actually have bad terminal performance, aside from maybe frangibles. The main issue with M193 is that a lot of its terminal performance is dependent on yawing and fragmenting, both of which are somewhat inconsistent and unpredictable. Assuming an adequately high impact velocity, M193 will usually frag fairly well, but sometimes it won't. Whereas a softpoint bullet, whose terminal performance depends on expansion, is going to be a lot more consistent and predictable and less dependent on high impact velocities. Either way, any discussion of a 5.56 round being "bad" is only in comparison to other available 5.56 rounds. Rifle rounds are rifle rounds, and rifle rounds are good. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2021 10:58:33 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The thing to remember with discussions of terminal performance of various .223/5.56 rounds is that they're all being graded as good or bad in comparison to other .223/5.56 rounds. There really are no .223/5.56 rounds that actually have bad terminal performance, aside from maybe frangibles. The main issue with M193 is that a lot of its terminal performance is dependent on yawing and fragmenting, both of which are somewhat inconsistent and unpredictable. Assuming an adequately high impact velocity, M193 will usually frag fairly well, but sometimes it won't. Whereas a softpoint bullet, whose terminal performance depends on expansion, is going to be a lot more consistent and predictable and less dependent on high impact velocities. Either way, any discussion of a 5.56 round being "bad" is only in comparison to other available 5.56 rounds. Rifle rounds are rifle rounds, and rifle rounds are good. Frang, varmint, green tip and steel case is are not good. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2021 1:40:41 PM EDT
[#29]
I will never understand this forums obsession with M193.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2021 2:02:47 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I will never understand this forums obsession with M193. It’s so much worse in GD. The peanut gallery at large has a cult like obsession with 193. Go ahead and ask about the most effective round there, see how it goes. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2021 2:34:36 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I will never understand this forums obsession with M193. It’s a devastating round, especially for its price (pre - COVID at least) that has been shown to work properly around 85% of the time. I’m not obsessed with it at all, but I can see why people are. I can’t think of many other FMJ rounds even in far larger calibers that perform like it. I’m a 77gr TMK guy, but one of my biggest regrets is not stocking up on m193 while it was cheap. The cost to performance ratio was unreal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2021 2:40:46 PM EDT
[#32]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2021 4:58:39 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It’s a devastating round Except for all the times when it isn't. Here's what an actual expert in the field of terminal ballistics has to say about M193. Fackler, ML: “Literature Review”. Wound Ballistics Review; 5(2):40, Fall 2001 “In 1980, I treated a soldier shot accidentally with an M16 M193 bullet from a distance of about ten feet. The bullet entered his left thigh and traveled obliquely upward. It exited after passing through about 11 inches of muscle. The man walked in to my clinic with no limp whatsoever: the entrance and exit holes were about 4 mm across, and punctate. X-ray films showed intact bones, no bullet fragments, and no evidence of significant tissue disruption caused by the bullet’s temporary cavity. The bullet path passed well lateral to the femoral vessels. He was back on duty in a few days. Devastating? Hardly. The wound profile of the M193 bullet (page 29 of the Emergency War Surgery—NATO Handbook, GPO, Washington, D.C., 1988) shows that most often the bullet travels about five inches through flesh before beginning significant yaw. But about 15% of the time, it travels much farther than that before yawing—in which case it causes even milder wounds, if it missed bones, guts, lung, and major blood vessels. In my experience and research, at least as many M16 users in Vietnam concluded that it produced unacceptably minimal, rather than “massive”, wounds. After viewing the wound profile, recall that the Vietnamese were small people, and generally very slim. Many M16 bullets passed through their torsos traveling mostly point forward, and caused minimal damage. Most shots piercing an extremity, even in the heavier-built Americans, unless they hit bone, caused no more damage than a 22 caliber rimfire bullet.” ... |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2021 5:10:44 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Except for all the times when it isn't. Here's what an actual expert in the field of terminal ballistics has to say about M193. Fackler, ML: “Literature Review”. Wound Ballistics Review; 5(2):40, Fall 2001 “In 1980, I treated a soldier shot accidentally with an M16 M193 bullet from a distance of about ten feet. The bullet entered his left thigh and traveled obliquely upward. It exited after passing through about 11 inches of muscle. The man walked in to my clinic with no limp whatsoever: the entrance and exit holes were about 4 mm across, and punctate. X-ray films showed intact bones, no bullet fragments, and no evidence of significant tissue disruption caused by the bullet’s temporary cavity. The bullet path passed well lateral to the femoral vessels. He was back on duty in a few days. Devastating? Hardly. The wound profile of the M193 bullet (page 29 of the Emergency War Surgery—NATO Handbook, GPO, Washington, D.C., 1988) shows that most often the bullet travels about five inches through flesh before beginning significant yaw. But about 15% of the time, it travels much farther than that before yawing—in which case it causes even milder wounds, if it missed bones, guts, lung, and major blood vessels. In my experience and research, at least as many M16 users in Vietnam concluded that it produced unacceptably minimal, rather than “massive”, wounds. After viewing the wound profile, recall that the Vietnamese were small people, and generally very slim. Many M16 bullets passed through their torsos traveling mostly point forward, and caused minimal damage. Most shots piercing an extremity, even in the heavier-built Americans, unless they hit bone, caused no more damage than a 22 caliber rimfire bullet.” ... I've argued endlessly with people on this forum who believe that it isn't necessary for a 5.56 to yaw, expand, fragment, or any other form of upset, for it to be devastating simply because it moves so fast. Velocity is only part of the equation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2021 6:26:45 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Except for all the times when it isn't. Here's what an actual expert in the field of terminal ballistics has to say about M193. Fackler, ML: “Literature Review”. Wound Ballistics Review; 5(2):40, Fall 2001 “In 1980, I treated a soldier shot accidentally with an M16 M193 bullet from a distance of about ten feet. The bullet entered his left thigh and traveled obliquely upward. It exited after passing through about 11 inches of muscle. The man walked in to my clinic with no limp whatsoever: the entrance and exit holes were about 4 mm across, and punctate. X-ray films showed intact bones, no bullet fragments, and no evidence of significant tissue disruption caused by the bullet’s temporary cavity. The bullet path passed well lateral to the femoral vessels. He was back on duty in a few days. Devastating? Hardly. The wound profile of the M193 bullet (page 29 of the Emergency War Surgery—NATO Handbook, GPO, Washington, D.C., 1988) shows that most often the bullet travels about five inches through flesh before beginning significant yaw. But about 15% of the time, it travels much farther than that before yawing—in which case it causes even milder wounds, if it missed bones, guts, lung, and major blood vessels. In my experience and research, at least as many M16 users in Vietnam concluded that it produced unacceptably minimal, rather than “massive”, wounds. After viewing the wound profile, recall that the Vietnamese were small people, and generally very slim. Many M16 bullets passed through their torsos traveling mostly point forward, and caused minimal damage. Most shots piercing an extremity, even in the heavier-built Americans, unless they hit bone, caused no more damage than a 22 caliber rimfire bullet.” ... Yes, I’m aware of what Fackler thinks about m193. I clearly mentioned in my comment that it’s effective around 85% of the time. Sure it can occasionally make through and through wounds, but the vast majority of the time it fragments and is capable of causing horrific damage. I’m not saying that it’s the end all be all of 5.56 ammo (clearly it’s not), but it’s a very reasonable choice especially for the (pre COVID) price. I’m not sure why that seems to be a controversial opinion here? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2021 6:32:29 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I've argued endlessly with people on this forum who believe that it isn't necessary for a 5.56 to yaw, expand, fragment, or any other form of upset, for it to be devastating simply because it moves so fast. Velocity is only part of the equation. I’ve seen the opposite argument too, where a guy argued that TSC in rifles is insignificant, since non yawing M855 only made through and through wounds despite the velocity. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2021 7:14:13 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I will never understand this forums obsession with M193. Same reason the 5.45 fan boys are obsessed with 7n6, ignorance mostly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2021 9:36:45 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It’s a devastating round, especially for its price (pre - COVID at least) that has been shown to work properly around 85% of the time. I’m not obsessed with it at all, but I can see why people are. I can’t think of many other FMJ rounds even in far larger calibers that perform like it. I’m a 77gr TMK guy, but one of my biggest regrets is not stocking up on m193 while it was cheap. The cost to performance ratio was unreal. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I will never understand this forums obsession with M193. It’s a devastating round, especially for its price (pre - COVID at least) that has been shown to work properly around 85% of the time. I’m not obsessed with it at all, but I can see why people are. I can’t think of many other FMJ rounds even in far larger calibers that perform like it. I’m a 77gr TMK guy, but one of my biggest regrets is not stocking up on m193 while it was cheap. The cost to performance ratio was unreal. Came here to say this, pretty much word for word. TMKs and soft points work every time though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2021 10:40:32 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: . . . the vast majority of the time it fragments and is capable of causing horrific damage. Typical fabricated claim with no statistically significant data to support it. Conversely, we have statistically significant data from an actual expert in the field of terminal ballistics, (from both a ballistic testing standpoint as well as from being a Vietnam trauma surgeon performing surgery on humans with gun-shout wounds) showing us that 85% of the time M193 WILL FAIL to even begin to fragment until after it’s passed at least half way through the upper torso of an average adult American male.  ... |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2021 12:10:09 PM EDT
[#40]
To speak to the OP, M193 is fine ammunition. It has its shortcomings but it's perfectly fine.
As to the rest of the conversation, good shot placement and a shoot-to-stop mentality wins the day. If I could only fire one shot and had to depend on that shot to save my life, I wouldn't choose M193, nor would I choose 5.56. It's not the type of caliber you can shoot that way in a real world situation and expect results. Practice often, practice follow up shots, and plan to keep squeezing the trigger until there is no more threat. If it's only x% reliable on impact but you shoot 3x rounds, your terminal performance will be evident via the dead baddies on the ground. If you really want statistical terminal performance get a bigger gun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2021 1:29:56 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Typical fabricated claim with no statistically significant data to support it. Conversely, we have statistically significant data from an actual expert in the field of terminal ballistics, (from both a ballistic testing standpoint as well as from being a Vietnam trauma surgeon performing surgery on humans with gun-shout wounds) showing us that 85% of the time M193 WILL FAIL to even begin to fragment until after it's passed at least half way through the upper torso of an average adult American male. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/M193_yaw_variations_02-1845049.jpg ... This doesn't only apply to M193. It says so right in the caption: "Such variations in wound profiles are seen in all full metal jacket rifle bullets" Also, M193 was not designed with wounding effects in mind |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2021 1:57:40 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Typical fabricated claim with no statistically significant data to support it. Conversely, we have statistically significant data from an actual expert in the field of terminal ballistics, (from both a ballistic testing standpoint as well as from being a Vietnam trauma surgeon performing surgery on humans with gun-shout wounds) showing us that 85% of the time M193 WILL FAIL to even begin to fragment until after it’s passed at least half way through the upper torso of an average adult American male. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/28568/M193_yaw_variations_02-1845049.jpg ... Exactly what about my claim is fabricated? Your own source backs up what I’m saying. M193 will either fail to fragment or fragment too late 15% of the time after it has passed through the torso of an adult male. The other 85% of the time, it will work fine. You’re telling me that a round that begins fragmenting 10cm in will not be effective in stopping a threat? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2021 2:37:21 PM EDT
[#43]
What ammunition was Kyle Rittenhouse using? That seemed to work quite effectively.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2021 3:58:05 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Exactly what about my claim is fabricated? Your own source backs up what I’m saying. M193 will either fail to fragment or fragment too late 15% of the time after it has passed through the torso of an adult male. The other 85% of the time, it will work fine. You’re telling me that a round that begins fragmenting 10cm in will not be effective in stopping a threat? Why not use something that works 100% of the time? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2021 4:46:57 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Your own source backs up what I’m saying. Quote HistoryQuoted: Your own source backs up what I’m saying. No, it clearly doesn't. Quoted: M193 will either fail to fragment or fragment too late 15% of the time after it has passed through the torso of an adult male. The other 85% of the time, it will work fine. You’re telling me that a round that begins fragmenting 10cm in . . . And you continue to flat-out lie about the clearly presented facts on the subject matter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2021 5:25:34 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why not use something that works 100% of the time? Ideally sure, but anything that works 100% of the time is significantly more expensive than m193. Again, I’m not saying that it’s the ideal round, but it’s good to stock up on. It’s more of a backup option than anything. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2021 5:38:14 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, it clearly doesn't. And you continue to flat-out lie about the clearly presented facts on the subject matter. What am I lying about? Your figure shows: M193 yawing and fragmenting instantly 15% of the time. M193 yawing and fragmenting around the 10cm mark 70% of the time. Call it 12cm, whatever. M193 yawing and fragmenting after 20cm 15% of the time. My assertion is that m193 works fine 85% of the time, as it will yaw/fragment within 4 or 5 inches. Obviously it can ice pick 15% of the time. As far as I’m aware, that is supported by your sources. Again, what am I lying about? If I’m fundamentally misunderstanding something here, please clarify. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2021 6:08:57 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What am I lying about? Your figure shows: M193 yawing and fragmenting instantly 15% of the time. M193 yawing and fragmenting around the 10cm mark 70% of the time. Call it 12cm, whatever. M193 yawing and fragmenting after 20cm 15% of the time. My assertion is that m193 works fine 85% of the time, as it will yaw/fragment within 4 or 5 inches. Obviously it can ice pick 15% of the time. As far as I’m aware, that is supported by your sources. Again, what am I lying about? If I’m fundamentally misunderstanding something here, please clarify. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2021 6:19:00 PM EDT
[#49]
Lethal.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2021 6:47:11 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My assertion is that m193 works fine 85% You posting the same false statement over and over is not going to make it true and I’m not going to keep arguing about it so this will be my last post in this thread. The 70% wound profile clearly shows that fragmentation doesn’t occur until the 15 centimeter mark. It’s clearly marked as “bullet fragments” in the lower left-hand corner of the 70% wound profile with 2 lines leading to bullet fragments. 15 centimeters is almost 6 inches. The anteroposterior diameter of the upper thorax of an average adult American male is 9.5”. A fragmenting round that fails to fragment until it has passed through at least 62% of the target is not “devastating”, it is not “effective”, it is not “fine.” It is an abysmal failure for a fragmenting round. ... |
|
|
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)
Attached File