The Firing Line Forums
Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > S.W.A.T. Magazine

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old March 20, 2005, 11:19 PM   #1
gundog98k
Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2002
Location: Cesspool of suburbia (not by choice)
Posts: 62
6.8 SPC or something else...?

Greetings All!
Just wanted to sound out everyones opinions on this. The military is complaing about the 5.56NATO round not being a good enough "stopper". The consensus in the gun press seems to be using the 6.8 SPC as a replacement. I'm thinking their might be better alternatives...? Like going to a better BULLET for the 5.56; maybe say a 60-75 grain ballistic tip or silvertip type. Or conversely trying a new cartridge. But I would say that we don't need to "invent" a new cartridge, a perfectly good one already exists: the 7.62x39 Soviet. Colt and others already manufacture the M-16 in this chambering. US ammo companies are already tooled up to produce it, it works just fine, and it would allow our troops to acquire ammunition from most if not all of the battlefields they can expect to fight on. Why not be able to use your opponents ammo if you run out? PUT SOME OPINIONS UP HERE FOLKS!
__________________
Don't believe everything you think.VOTE LIBERTARIAN!
gundog98k is offline  
Old March 21, 2005, 12:41 AM   #2
Crosshair
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2004
Location: Grand Forks, ND
Posts: 5,320
Increasing the bullet weight would help, but the simple fact is that FMJ bullets perform poorly compared to other bullet types. If the jacket material was made sufficiently weak so it would readily fragment, then we may have a chance. However, the people in charge seem to be creaming themselves over how much steel the bullet can penitrate. This may be a usefull feature in the war against Skynet, but humans tent to be made of soft and squishy stuff . Therefore we should have bullets that function well against soft and squishy targets. The 5.56 relies on fragmentation for it's lethality. If it doesn't fragment,(Especialy with short barrel carbines) you essentially have a 22 Long Rifle on Crack.

I agree that the 7.62x39 round is superb against soft and squishy targets as well as penitrating hard cover like logs, concrete, etc. It doesn't rely on fragmentation to do it's damage. Instead it relies on the "bigger hole = bigger leak" method of killing. If it happens to fragment, all the better. The 6.8 SPC moves back to the "bigger hole = bigger leak" method as well as providing better long range performance as compared to the 7.62x39. I think the 7.62x39 would be a good choice for a service round. Combine it with a bullet that more readily fagments and you have a good all around assault rifle round.

But since we have the chance, we are designing an even better round (6.8 SPC) that will provide better long range performance in regular rifles as well as better lethality in short barrel carbines. Our current problem of lethality would be quickly solved if we adopted a hollow point, soft point, or similar bullet type that would more readily expand and fragment.

Just to take care of the "The Geneva Convention bans HP bullets" people, let me say this.

The Geneva Convention doesn't ban HP bullets, the Hague Convention of 1899 banned HP and other types of expanding bullets. The United States NEVER signed, nor ratified that convention. Legaly, we could use HP ammo tomorrow if we wanted to.
Crosshair is offline  
Old March 21, 2005, 01:28 AM   #3
M4A3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 21, 2002
Location: Minnesota (YA-SHURE-YOU-BETCHA)
Posts: 620
Yeah, I agree. If thay just would change the bullet design, and get rid of the SS109 we probibly wouldnt be hering these long range no kill reports. I hunt with M193 and it does a great job fragmenting, and thats still a FMJ. I know the M193 can fragment at longer ranges than the M855.

In my opinion, we would be better off still using the M193, insted of the M855. But for some reason the military wants to penitrate steel.
M4A3 is offline  
Old March 21, 2005, 02:25 AM   #4
Zak Smith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 1999
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
Posts: 2,675
Everyone in this thread should read http://www.FirearmsTactical.com for a background on terminal ballistics, http://www.ammo-oracle.com for terminal ballistics data for assault rifle cartridges, the 6.8SPC FAQ for general info (see my .signature), and this thread over on THR where we've been discussing it lately: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=130193

In particular, note that the terminal ballistics for 7.62x39 suck. The bullet doesn't fragment at all.

Also note how different (ie, worse) even the 77gr Mk262 ammo is from the 6.8SPC terminal ballistics.

-z
__________________
Zak Smith . DEMIGOD LLC . THUNDER BEAST ARMS CORP . COLORADO MULTI-GUN
My PM inbox full? Send e-mail instead.
Zak Smith is offline  
Old March 21, 2005, 04:49 PM   #5
Lawyer Daggit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 5, 2004
Posts: 1,181
The Russians had the same problem with the 7.62x39 on Mujahadeen as we are now having with the 5.56 on muslims- they are poor killers- this led the USSR to develop a new .22 round that was not stable.

This appears to me to be the answer-
Lawyer Daggit is offline  
Old March 21, 2005, 05:19 PM   #6
Crosshair
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2004
Location: Grand Forks, ND
Posts: 5,320
You "7.62x39 sucks" people realise that the problem is the same as with the 5.56. That being the crappy bullet construction and the use of FMJ bullets. It would be relativley easy to make a 7.62x39 bullet that fragments as readily as a 5.56

Lawyer Daggit

Actualy the 7.62x39 performed well against the Mujahadeen, the problem being the problem we are facing, IED's and RPG's as well as the use of conscripts that where not as well trained as our current army. The soviets also didn't have the body armor technology that we have today, resulting in their casualty count being much higher.
Crosshair is offline  
Old March 21, 2005, 11:33 PM   #7
Lawyer Daggit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 5, 2004
Posts: 1,181
Crosshair please don't class me as a 7.62x39 'sucks' person. I have owned a Mini 30 in that calibre until our Prime Minister decided to take it out of my hands and now own a CZ carbine.

When used within its capabilities it is a very competent round.

I agree with you about bullet construction being the biggest prob of the 7.62x39 or most military rounds- they are simply not designed to kill- this creates problems when a soldier is up against a foe who does not care if he lives or dies or who is drugged up on 'angel dust' or something similar.

In that situation our soldiers need to be equipped with something with superior stopping power.
Lawyer Daggit is offline  
Old March 22, 2005, 01:09 AM   #8
ebd10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 8, 2004
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 122
Don't count on the 6.8

The people involved in the development of the 6.8 committed an unforgivable sin; they went outside channels to get the job done, and in the process made the military look like a slow moving bureaucracy. In other words, they didn't play the game according to the rules. It's not the first time this has happened. In the early 80's, Northrop aircraft took it upon itself to eat the cost of R&D and come up with a design for a fighter jet that was superior in every respect to the F-16 except for some small details. However, the military contractors live for cost-plus contracts because it gives them the opportunity to gouge the taxpayer without them knowing it. Northrop broke the rules by paying for their own R&D and coming up with a better, faster, more versatile aircraft (F-20 Tigershark). Politics reared its ugly head and Uncle bought the F-16 instead. The result was that Northrop had to merge with Grumman to stay afloat and General Dynamics won the contract. The lesson was not lost on all the other military hardware manufacturers.

The point is; a bunch of green beanies went off the reservation to get the job done. They accomplished what they wanted in less time and for less money than the government ever thought about (it's what they do, after all). You can expect the 6.8 to whither and die on the vine.
ebd10 is offline  
Old March 22, 2005, 08:02 AM   #9
gundog98k
Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2002
Location: Cesspool of suburbia (not by choice)
Posts: 62
Bullet Performance

Greetings all,

Thanks for posting everyone. It seems like everyone agrees that "terminal performance" is what counts. My main argument to this whole debate is the ammo interchangeability issue. And of course bullet selection. We could certainly improve the 7.62x39 with a better bullet. The ones Hornady makes work just fine. Several years ago I stopped a blacktail doe at a measured 203 yards with one round out of a Ruger M77 mkII. She went down at the hit, struggled up and went 6 yards then died. Naturally, bullet placement is crucial. But there seems to be no downside to the 7.62x39 from our troops standpoint. They would have a cartridge with better stopping power and almost universal ammo availability. The terminal ballistics could certainly be improved with better bullets. From a military standpoint the old Remington bronze-tip® might be a worthwhile choice. Or a plastic-tip using one of the new seriously hard synthetics. I suppose I am just a traditionalist. Years ago, back when bolt actions were new, so many cartridges had great terminal ballistics, even though by today’s standards their "ballistic performance" would be considered anemic. I have hunted with the 6.5 mannlicher-carcano; and using a home-made 155gr. round nose soft point, it worked just fine on a moose at 135 yards. Likewise my favorite hunting caliber is the 7x57 mauser. I have 3; and I feed them long round nose heavy for caliber softpoints (hornady or federal 175gr.) Not once in the 10 years I have hunted with these have they failed to perform as desired. Been used on everything up to elk. Including two black bears. I've never needed a second shot on deer. One bear, 561lbs, needed two because I was shooting at a running bear and flubbed the first shot. Although that was a "back of the lungs" hit and he would have bled out quick. We really should get our troops better ammo. They deserve to get the best we can give. Now if we could get the pentagon to replace that abomination called the M-16...?!
__________________
Don't believe everything you think.VOTE LIBERTARIAN!
gundog98k is offline  
Old March 22, 2005, 11:16 AM   #10
Zak Smith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 1999
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
Posts: 2,675
Quote:
It seems like everyone agrees that "terminal performance" is what counts.
Please follow the link to the recent THR thread. In addition to terminal performance, an acceptible long range trajectory is desired.

The design goals for 6.8SPC were superior terminal effects with good mid and acceptible long range trajectory, from an M4 platform.

Code:
>> 7000 elevation, absolute drop (identical sight over bore)
_Bullet_           _BC_ _MV_         0     100     200     300     400     500     600 | YARDS
M855              0.324 3100 >   -2.60    0.00   -1.64   -8.25  -20.73  -40.18  -67.97 | drop (inches)
XM193             0.243 3254 >   -2.60    0.00   -1.45   -7.91  -20.62  -41.25  -72.00 | drop (inches)
115H              0.340 2650 >   -2.60   -0.00   -3.21  -13.27  -31.44  -59.28  -98.71 | drop (inches)
7.62x39 Fed       0.289 2300 >   -2.60   -0.00   -5.45  -20.81  -48.43  -91.27 -152.96 | drop (inches)

>> Wind deflection, 10mph 90 degree
M855              0.324 3100 >    0.00    0.68    2.80    6.55   12.12   19.76   29.75 | wind (inches)
XM193             0.243 3254 >    0.00    0.86    3.58    8.49   15.94   26.41   40.45 | wind (inches)
115H              0.340 2650 >    0.00    0.80    3.33    7.80   14.48   23.63   35.57 | wind (inches)
7.62x39 Fed       0.289 2300 >    0.00    1.17    4.91   11.61   21.69   35.54   53.44 | wind (inches)

>> Drop rate inches per yard
M855              0.324 3100 >    0.05    0.01   -0.04   -0.09   -0.16   -0.23   -0.32 | drop per yard (inches)
XM193             0.243 3254 >    0.04    0.01   -0.04   -0.09   -0.16   -0.25   -0.37 | drop per yard (inches)
115H              0.340 2650 >    0.05   -0.00   -0.06   -0.14   -0.23   -0.33   -0.46 | drop per yard (inches)
7.62x39 Fed       0.289 2300 >    0.06   -0.01   -0.10   -0.21   -0.35   -0.52   -0.72 | drop per yard (inches)
You can see how 7.62x39 is UTTERLY inferior at long range.

In addition, it isn't productive to talk about using "any bullet" for military use. The legal rules for land warfare exist, and they aren't going away any time soon. Performance from JAG-approved bullets is going to be what matters. Of course, LE and other defense use can use any bullet they wish.

This discussion would be a lot more productive and fact-filled if people went out and did their research first.

-z
__________________
Zak Smith . DEMIGOD LLC . THUNDER BEAST ARMS CORP . COLORADO MULTI-GUN
My PM inbox full? Send e-mail instead.
Zak Smith is offline  
Old March 22, 2005, 12:18 PM   #11
Wraith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 22, 2004
Location: The Free State
Posts: 498
What we should really be talking about is the 6.5 Grendel. It is flatter shooting and harder hitting than the .308, especially at longer ranges. It is the length of a .223 (use in ARs with new uppers) and has only slightly more recoil than a .223 and about half of the .308. All in all a much better cartridge than the .223 and superior to the .308!

The Grendel and the 6.8 SPC are comparable at short range against armored (edge: 6.5)/unarmored (edge: 6.8) personel, with the 6.5 surpassing at long range.

Here is a pretty good arcticle:
http://www.military.com/soldiertech/...ition,,00.html

"The 6.5 Grendel, with its long high BC bullets, offers all the advantages of longer tracer burn distance, less drop, and less wind drift."

Now if we don't go to the Grendel, I suggest a good 8mm bullet.
__________________
June 23, 2003
GRATZ et al. v. BOLLINGER et al.
The day America died.


Never Forget 9/11.

Cold dead hands...
Wraith is offline  
Old March 22, 2005, 12:28 PM   #12
gundog98k
Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2002
Location: Cesspool of suburbia (not by choice)
Posts: 62
Ballistics Data

Quote:
In addition, it isn't productive to talk about using "any bullet" for military use. The legal rules for land warfare exist, and they aren't going away any time soon. Performance from JAG-approved bullets is going to be what matters. Of course, LE and other defense use can use any bullet they wish.
Zak,

Sorry if I gave offense, I'm really not trying to diparage the 6.8spc ballistics. As I stated earlier, my main argument here is ammunition interchangeability. From my perspective it would be more desireable to have a weapon which could use the same ammunition my opponent is LIKELY to be using, which currently would PROBABLY be the 7.62x39mm. Given that the AK-47 is the most widely distributed military rifle, right now. Perhaps that will change. Perhaps not, but if we go to the 6.8spc; and nobody else does, our supply lines become crucial to the survival of the common foot soldier.
There is nothing wrong with the 6.8; it is a fine round. The "assault rifle" however was not designed with long range accuracy in mind. Its main purpose was to allow the foot soldier to carry a lighter weapon with more ammunition that had "acceptable" range and good stopping power. The prototype of course was the MP-44. With its 7.9x33mm cartridge.
My personal opinion is that firing at targets >300m is a waste of time. Unless you are varmint hunting. Which in my opinion, is also a waste of time. I don't enjoy killing anything I won't eat. And varmints usually taste like s#*t. But for combat purposes, if we need longer range, normally you go to a bigger gun. I personally like the M-14 or the M2. But the "assault rifle" wasn't designed for that. It should be made adequate for its intended purpose, combat at close and medium range. Which the 5.56x45; 7.62x39 and 6.8spc would all be at least decent at if utilised with good bullets. We all seem to agree that these are available. The issue here is can we bring oursselves to use them. This is not a legal issue. It IS a command issue. There are no "rules of land warfare" as Crosshair stated earlier, expanding type bullets were "outlawed" by the Hague Convention of 1899. Which the U.S.A. never signed or ratified. The common practice of using FMJ ammo is just that, sort of a gentlemans agreement. But I personally think the time for that is over. Osama Bin Laden and friends have no qualms about the "rules of land warfare". So why should our young men and women in uniform be subjected to restrictions which might be getting them killed. Let's use what works, and the hell with the lawyers. And if any of you all have loved ones in Iraq/Afghanistan, please extend my support and best wishes for a safe return.

(please bear in mind, the statements in bold are just my opinions)
__________________
Don't believe everything you think.VOTE LIBERTARIAN!
gundog98k is offline  
Old March 22, 2005, 03:46 PM   #13
Crosshair
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2004
Location: Grand Forks, ND
Posts: 5,320
Sorry, Lawyer Daggit . I didn't mean to attack you specificly. I just run into too many of the " the 223 can hit you in the leg and come out you're arm" people. Get's anoying after awhile. I was just venting, no offence was meant.
Crosshair is offline  
Old March 22, 2005, 05:06 PM   #14
Lawyer Daggit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 5, 2004
Posts: 1,181
Crosshair- 7.62x39

I agree with you about your comments about the 5.56. We have a bit of a problem of people using this round on Fallow Deer and it is clearly inadequate- although in the hands of a skilled marksman with the right load it will do the job- but that is too many ifs for me.
Lawyer Daggit is offline  
Old March 24, 2005, 12:33 AM   #15
gundog98k
Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2002
Location: Cesspool of suburbia (not by choice)
Posts: 62
Continued...

Lawyer Daggit,

No offense intended with my " the hell with the Lawyers" comment. Nothing personal. In reading your last post about the 5.56x45, that is a lot of ifs. But that is something we all should be addressing. Even in the military, the state of musketry skills are abysmal. The USMC usually hold their own, but otherwise... and we should have more young people getting involved in the shooting sports and it attendant safety procedures. Should be required by the Dept. of Education or something. I'll comment that in the UK, though the .220 swift, .223 and .243 are the three most popular "deer stalking" rounds. Roe deer though. Fallow deer a bit larger.

Ciao.
__________________
Don't believe everything you think.VOTE LIBERTARIAN!
gundog98k is offline  
Old March 24, 2005, 01:47 AM   #16
Zak Smith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 1999
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
Posts: 2,675
gundog98k,

People keep mistaking strong disagreement with offense. I'm not offended in the least. The exact same pattern played out on the THR thread I linked to in my first post. I have pointed people to some of the best resources available to understand modern terminal ballistics, the goals of 6.8SPC, and data regarding ballistic differences between the common assault rifle cartridges. I can't help it if people ignore the the best resources available and the contemporary choices and trends, and instead promulgate bad data, myths, and illogic. I do my best to contradict those with data whenever I can.

In any case,

Quote:
As I stated earlier, my main argument here is ammunition interchangeability. From my perspective it would be more desireable to have a weapon which could use the same ammunition my opponent is LIKELY to be using, which currently would PROBABLY be the 7.62x39mm. Given that the AK-47 is the most widely distributed military rifle, right now.
So you are proposing that as a matter of doctrine, our military should plan to use battlefield pick-up ammo from our enemies? If it comes down to that, don't you think some pick-up AK's would also be laying around? Firstly, ammo supply is generally not a problem. Secondly, there is no guarantee of quality or availability of pick-up ammo. If the practice is widespread, don't you think our enemies would catch on and plant sabotaged rounds? Please note that in the 2001-2002 timeframe, several 7.62x39 M4 conversions and stand alone rifles were developed in order to use battlefield pick-up mags (while clearing caves) yet these have faded to obscurity since.

If you are proposing choosing a standard and ubiquitous assault rifle cartridge, it should be 5.56. The terminal effects of M193 and M855 are good when the impact velocity is high, and you can get much better terminal effects at lower velocity from the 75-77gr OTM loadings. (Note that the 110 and 115gr 6.8 bullets have much better terminal effects still.)

Quote:
The "assault rifle" however was not designed with long range accuracy in mind. Its main purpose was to allow the foot soldier to carry a lighter weapon with more ammunition that had "acceptable" range and good stopping power.
If you want to limit your own capability, that's your own business, I guess. Note, however, that as the TA31 ACOG becomes more common in military use, the distance of effective engagement increases dramatically. A 5.56 or 6.8mm carbine equipped with a 4x DOS (day optical sight, aka ACOG) can easily make hits on human silhouettes to 500-600 yards. You are also ignoring the development of the "SPR", the 18" mid-range M16 platform. With its 3-9x M/RT scope, it has an effective range beyond 600 yards.

There are two trends: 1. the desire for shorter carbines M4 down to 10-12" barrels for urban and mounted/vehicle use respectively (which makes 5.56 even less attractive since the effective range is limited), and 2. that effective battleworthy optics like the 4x ACOG make target ID and hits at long range easier than ever.

Quote:
My personal opinion is that firing at targets >300m is a waste of time.
Seriously, if you can't hit a silhouette at 300 yards with iron sights, you need to improve your basic rifle marksmanship.
Quote:
I personally like the M-14 or the M2.
That is alll well and good, but the question really is, what if you could get stopping effects superior to 150gr FMJ from your M14 in a smaller and lighter M4 package, while not sacrificing long range ballistics?

Quote:
There are no "rules of land warfare" as Crosshair stated earlier, expanding type bullets were "outlawed" by the Hague Convention of 1899. Which the U.S.A. never signed or ratified. The common practice of using FMJ ammo is just that, sort of a gentlemans agreement. But I personally think the time for that is over
I addressed this before. The fact is that JAG must rule a bullet "ok" for use in warfare before our military can use it. We are NOT limited to FMJ ammo; in actuality, we are limited to JAG approved bullets.
__________________
Zak Smith . DEMIGOD LLC . THUNDER BEAST ARMS CORP . COLORADO MULTI-GUN
My PM inbox full? Send e-mail instead.
Zak Smith is offline  
Old March 24, 2005, 04:52 PM   #17
FirstFreedom
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 31, 2004
Location: The Toll Road State, U.S.A.
Posts: 12,451
My .02 based on my limited understanding:

1. The .mil does not want to penetrate steel; they want to penetrate kevlar helmets and kevlar vests of the enemy at a given distance, be it 300, 400, 500, or 600 yards. We can argue about whether or not that is worth the tradeoff of violent expansion and tumbling at close range; but let's understand the true goal of the penetrator rounds.

2. The *exact same dynamic* that makes a bullet cut through the air due to its high BC/sectional density, giving it more downrange retained energy is the dynamic, coupled with speed, that makes it penetrate the enemy's vest/helmet at all ranges, but particularly at the longer ranges. Therefore, the 6.5 grendel not only has the best downrange trajectory and retained energy of the rounds mentioned (somewhat important), it ALSO has the best penetrating ability at all ranges (more important); yes, superior to the .308 even, given equal bullet speed. At a given speed and given bullet shape & contruction, it's all about sectional density. But this only matters at very long ranges, cuz ALL of these pop through helmets at shorter ranges easily.

3. My opinion is that in a light rifle, the .223 is fine with proper bullet choice, but the 7.62x39 is better still; the 6.8 spc is better still; the 6.5 grendel is better still, and something in .257 or 6mm would be even better still, because it would give the BC and penetrating ability of the 6.5, with the higher velocity, closer to the .223. That's the sweet spot for a full auto assault rifle, IMO, not 6.5 or .277, not .223. 6.5 is getting very close however - it's a nice tradeoff if you're a believer that a lot of enemy will catch random un-aimed small arms flak at very very long ranges, where .223 might bounce off the flak jacket; 6.5 grendel certainly wouldn't (talking looooong range though - 600 plus). It would actually penetrate BETTER than a .308 at that kind of range, with less gun weight, ammo weight, and recoil.
FirstFreedom is offline  
Old March 24, 2005, 05:18 PM   #18
Zak Smith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 1999
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
Posts: 2,675
Quote:
The .mil does not want to penetrate steel; they want to penetrate kevlar helmets and kevlar vests of the enemy at a given distance, be it 300, 400, 500, or 600 yards.
It's interesting that the Interim NDIA report summary leaked last year proposing the joint-service terminal ballistic objectives did not reflect this.

Quote:
where .223 might bounce off the flak jacket; 6.5 grendel certainly wouldn't (talking looooong range though - 600 plus)
Looking at the 123gr Scenar for the representative 6.5 Grendel bullet, even though it's totally inappropriate for this use, the 6.5 Grendel would only have about +200fps on Mk262 or 115gr 6.8SPC at 800 yards.

Does anyone know if 6.5 Grendel runs reliably in an M4 full auto?

-z
__________________
Zak Smith . DEMIGOD LLC . THUNDER BEAST ARMS CORP . COLORADO MULTI-GUN
My PM inbox full? Send e-mail instead.
Zak Smith is offline  
Old March 24, 2005, 05:37 PM   #19
Denny Hansen
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2001
Location: Prescott Valley, AZ
Posts: 2,364
I've followed this thread with interest, and here has been some good info put out. What I don't understand, is how a cartridge debate got started in the S.W.A.T. Magazine forum.

Denny
__________________
S.W.A.T. Magazine
Weapons, Training and Tactics for the Real World
Join us at TFL or at AR15.com or on Facebook
Denny Hansen is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Page generated in 0.13009 seconds with 9 queries