The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Skunkworks > Handloading, Reloading, and Bullet Casting

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 6, 2005, 02:23 AM   #1
Sturm
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2005
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 584
300 grain FP for the .41 Mag?

WARNING: THIS IS AN EXPERIMENTAL TOPIC, THERE IS NO ESTABLISHED LOAD DATA FOR THIS HYPOTHETICAL LOAD!

Been thinkin' about this one for awhile now and as we all know, our choices are kind of limited for jacketed heavyweight .41 caliber bullets. Could there be a solution? Well, maybe a possible one, but all I have is an illustration (and not an actual bullet) from the Hornady catalog for the 300 gr. FlatPoint, .405 Winchester .411 bullet #41050. The cannelure is not in the right place, for a 1.590" max OAL, but could it work? As is, with cases trimmed to 1.275" looks like OAL would come in at around 1.750", but, remember I am getting dimensions with a caliper and calculator, so this is a SWAG! Case rim thickness of the .41 Mag. is .060" so, it might fit in a Ruger cylinder with brass trimmed to 1.275" with the bullet crimped in the cannelure. Even if it doesn't, brass could be trimmed accordingly to fit the Smith or the Ruger. Any of them for that matter. SPEER has done this in the past with 180 & 200 gr. bullets in the .357. Has anyone here worked on such a load, and again we must understand that there is no load data available for powder charges!
Sturm is offline  
Old May 6, 2005, 04:44 AM   #2
steveno
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2004
Location: Minden , Nebraska
Posts: 1,285
at one time SSK offered heavyweight bullet mold in various calibers and one of them was a 275 grain(nominal) truncated point in 41 mag. in the alloy my friend used they weighed 290 grains. using WW-680 I got 1,560 fps out of a super 14 TC and 1,300 fps out of a 6.5 Ruger blackhawk. I won't give the charge but it doesn't make much difference as Winchester doesn't make this powder anymore which is a shame as it was the best powder they ever had bar none. I still have 2 cans of it. SSK was the first with the heavy bullets in handguns and that was 15 to 20 years ago. you might try the SSK website to see if these molds are still available as they were very good
steveno is offline  
Old May 6, 2005, 08:26 AM   #3
Erich
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 1999
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA
Posts: 2,533
Have you seen Paco Kelly's online article about heavy .41s? It's pretty good. You can probably find it with a Google search.
Erich is offline  
Old May 6, 2005, 10:30 AM   #4
Johnny Guest
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: August 28, 1999
Location: North Texas
Posts: 4,116
You mean this one, Erich?

"HEAVY BULLETS IN THE 41 MAGNUM," by Paco Kelly
http://www.leverguns.com/articles/paco/41heavy.htm

Also worth reading:
"41 MAGNUM.... (SUNDAY’S CHILD)" Another by Mr. Kelly
http://www.leverguns.com/articles/paco/41magnum.htm

While I probably won't personally use the super-heavy bullet .41M loads in my M58, I'll read the developments with interest, Sturm.

Best,
Johnny
__________________
MOLON LABE!
Amendment II ensures the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Blog: Expert Witness
Johnny Guest is offline  
Old May 6, 2005, 11:01 AM   #5
Erich
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 1999
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA
Posts: 2,533
Yep, that one!
Erich is offline  
Old May 6, 2005, 12:25 PM   #6
redhawk41
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2005
Location: Red Desert
Posts: 752
Not jacketed, and not 300 gr, but ...

Cast performance (http://www.castperformance.com/) makes a 265 grain .410 bullet.

Haven't had much chance to experiment but I loaded them over W296, made for heavy duty recoil and muzzle flash. would love to chrono that load, when i get a chance.

the finished round was over 1.590, when i get to my data i'll post the overall length.

the cylinder of my redhawk was just long enough to hold it.
__________________
{thought cloud}
redhawk41 is offline  
Old May 6, 2005, 04:28 PM   #7
Sturm
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2005
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 584
Thanks for the ling, JG.

I know we have the hard cast heavyweights available to us, seems like they've been around for about 20 years now, but the jacketed bullet manufacturers have always seemed to bypass the .41 in favor of the .44. Now I know this is probably based on annual gun and die sales, but many .44 Magnum shooters do not reload, and while .41 die sales may not excite them, they should know by now that there are plenty of us here. Oh, them geniuses in marketing! Once a person buys a .41 Magnum, they usually become pretty loyal to it, obviously. I do not know a .41 Magnum shooter that doesn't load his own ammo and it probably is from necessity, but considering that the most bullets I can remember being offered by a single bulletmaker is 3 (Sierra), I think they are missing the point and help to contribute to the .41 Magnum being overlooked in favor of the .44!
Sturm is offline  
Old May 6, 2005, 04:41 PM   #8
steveno
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2004
Location: Minden , Nebraska
Posts: 1,285
I had sent an e-mail to Hornady a couple of years ago for a 250 grain or so 41 mag jacketed bullet. Steve Hornady said that they would look into it but it was implied as to not hold your breath
steveno is offline  
Old May 6, 2005, 05:46 PM   #9
Sturm
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2005
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 584
Way to go, Steveno! I have done similar, and of course, the results were similar. But, if we do this as a group, and do it continually, we will get somethin'. I read the articles from Paco Bell, and they were excellent and I couldn't agree more. Especially in regard to higher pressure loads and the greater amount of steel surrounding the case. I very much agree that little more than 1000 Ft/lbs is usually needed, but if ranges are extended, the extra energy could definitly come in handy. I also agree with his assesment of recoil. I have fired Ruger Redhawks side by side in .41 and .44 Magnum and the difference in recoil, especially in a gun the size and weight of a Redhawk, is negligable.

I think the most negligent thing that I have ever done in my history of buying Handguns was overlooking the Ruger Bisley in .41. I'd buy one in Super Blackhawk if they'd make it. What I would like to see is a Stainless Bisley in .41 with the 7.5" Barrel. There is supposed to be a 5.5" version out now, but it is a distrubutor exclusive and usually, by the time I hear about these, they're already gone and in this case the run was fairly small. We do have the SB Hunter and SB Bisley Hunter and I may do that route, but I'd rather have a SS Bisley with it's more conventional looks and handling.

Got off track there, but when I start thinking about heavy load development, a SS Super Blackhawk always seems to come to mind. Like Mr. Kelly, I have burned my share of Blue Dot in the .41 Magnum and I feel the same way about it. I have also found that Blue Dot always performs better the closer you get to max. pressure and that was what the chemists had in mind when they developed it as a Magnum Shotgun Powder. I also like AA#9 and I think most of us have found that one exceptional by now in the .41 Mag and if you think about it the way I do, well it's not hard for me to understand why. The .41 is a smaller case capacity cartridge than the .44, so powders that have a slightly faster burn rate should be the better choice and I think #9 fits the bill. And then there is Ramshot Enforcer, that is almost identical in burn rate and I will be trying it. I think #9 or Enforcer would be ideal for very heavyweight .41 Mag jacketed bullets, if we had 'em. I do think the 300 gr. Hornady .411 has some potential and after reading Paco Kelly's articles, my oppinion is even more reinforced.

When I see people asking what caliber they need for Bear Country hikes or as a back-up when hunting, I don't tell them it's a .41 or .44 Mag. because a non handloader might get the same idea and do this with factory loads in the gun, maybe even light JHP's like the 180 gr. .44 magnum loads. I usually start thinking .45 LC Magnum loads here, and even God forbid, the .454 Casull or the .480 Ruger. I kind of like the performance of the .460 Rowland in 4 and 5" revolvers, but a heavyweight .41 loaded to near 1500 ft/lbs. well, I might not recommend it, except to studious handloaders, but personally, I would carry it!

I am also beginning to wonder if, because of the length of heavy bullets in .41, if some of these very high velocity loads like those mentioned in 240/250 and heavier gr. weights, that they could be tumbling in game with non expanding bullets. A 2.5" exit wound, does make me suspect it, and it could make the .41 even more lethal than some of us already know it is!

Again, my apologies for the length of my post's. I'm a Brutal, and Zardoz made me do it!
Sturm is offline  
Old May 7, 2005, 06:00 AM   #10
WESHOOT2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 20, 1999
Location: home on the range; Vermont (Caspian country)
Posts: 14,270
weight, diameter, twist rate, velocity, barrel length, OAL

Perhaps based on length of barrel and those other factors mentioned the 41 superweights just don't live up to expectations, unlike the heavies in 44 Mag / 45 Colt?


(When I think of something biting me I think '45 Colt 335 / 360g.')
__________________
.
"all my ammo is mostly retired factory ammo"
WESHOOT2 is offline  
Old May 7, 2005, 02:33 PM   #11
steveno
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2004
Location: Minden , Nebraska
Posts: 1,285
I'm not sure what you mean. the sectional density for the 41 mag bullets will be the same or higher than the 44 and 45 bullets and that is more penetration.

at a range I use to belong to had railroad rails for target stands. somebody had brought some hydraulic fixtures(60 lbs easily in weight) up and set them on the 100 meter rail. I watched some magnum rifle shooters shoot at it and when they did hit it would just leave a big crater and maybe tip it over. I shot it with my 290 grain bullet load in the TC super 14. the fixture would be a full 1.5 feet behind the rail. the power of the big bullet is there
steveno is offline  
Old May 7, 2005, 03:43 PM   #12
Sturm
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2005
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 584
Steveno, your right. With a 300 gr. bullet, sectional density will be highest in the .41 Magnum. I think WS2 likes to split his time as advocate and playing devils advocate! That's the impression I got anyway from the 10mm reloading thread! Even the 270 gr. hard cast bullets in .41 Magnum will be comparable in sectional density to 300 grainers in the .44 Magnum. When using cast lead bullets, sectional density becomes a very key ingredient on large animals.
Sturm is offline  
Old May 8, 2005, 06:51 AM   #13
WESHOOT2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 20, 1999
Location: home on the range; Vermont (Caspian country)
Posts: 14,270
agree

Sectional density will be greater, but I'm not sure momentum will follow.

My other comments were on the launch platforms themselves, as I think the only handgun that offers the right barrel is the T/C.
Most 41 revolvers don't seem to stabilize the super-heavies well.

So, then we're left with a single-shot that works on big biters, but ONLY in a more controlled setting, perhaps not a viable biter-defense carry gun.

Easier to start with the 429/452, ay?

(Yes, I know there ain't much diff between .410 and .429, but there IS a difference. Or else we wouldn't need the 260 / 270 / 280 LOL)
__________________
.
"all my ammo is mostly retired factory ammo"
WESHOOT2 is offline  
Old May 8, 2005, 12:52 PM   #14
Sturm
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2005
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 584
Since sectional density is mass and not one or two of the three components of mass, as is the case with diameter and weight alone, I'm not sure I get your point. Maybe you could elaborate!
Sturm is offline  
Old May 8, 2005, 04:28 PM   #15
WESHOOT2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 20, 1999
Location: home on the range; Vermont (Caspian country)
Posts: 14,270
big mo

360g .452 will offer more mo than 300g .410, ay?

however, SD will be better.........so............hmmm............biting creatures deserve the best.

NOT knocking 41 Mag, but bigger is.
__________________
.
"all my ammo is mostly retired factory ammo"
WESHOOT2 is offline  
Old May 8, 2005, 05:55 PM   #16
steveno
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2004
Location: Minden , Nebraska
Posts: 1,285
in most cases I think it would really hard to tell the difference in a wound channel in a deer whether it was shot with a 41 , 44 or 45 caliber. I will then stay with my 41 mag's because for one thing they are a lot more comfortable to shoot
steveno is offline  
Old May 8, 2005, 06:14 PM   #17
Sturm
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2005
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 584
Let me think, Oh yeah, this is a .41 magnum thread. If you need to equal or exceed sectional density, or find a way to get deeper penetration, be my guest if you want the extra recoil and have a desire to burn more powder. In .44 your gonna need an additional 20 grs. or so of bullet weight to accomplish the same thing. You can can always get a .45-70 BFR. That's really not the point. The point is, for devoted fans of the .41 magnum, there are ways to make it the only big bore revolver you might ever need! How ever many others a person wants is another thing entirely, and entirely irrelevent!

Velocity and MASS (i.e. sectional density) are how you arrive at momentum, BTW!
Sturm is offline  
Old May 8, 2005, 10:28 PM   #18
Koveras
Member
 
Join Date: April 6, 2002
Location: Oklahoma City, USA
Posts: 68
Sturm wrote:
Quote:
Since sectional density is mass and not one or two of the three components of mass, as is the case with diameter and weight alone, I'm not sure I get your point. Maybe you could elaborate!
Quote:
Velocity and MASS (i.e. sectional density) are how you arrive at momentum, BTW!
Sturm,

I really don't want to lead this thread astray any further, but there is a problem with part of your claim that may confuse people.

It is true that Velocity x Mass = Momentum

However:
1) Mass is not equal to sectional density (SD).
2) The weight of an object in deep space is zero, but its mass is the same as on Earth. Weight is not a component of mass.
3) Diameter has nothing to do with mass calculations.

Sectional density (in the US) is the weight of the bullet in pounds divided by the square of its diameter in inches. This makes sectional density a derived value of the bullet's weight, and less than useful for calculating momentum. In order to use SD in a momentum calculation you must first multiply the SD by the square of the bullet's diameter and assume that pounds are a measure of mass, which they aren't unless we also assign the bullet's weight in pounds at sea level on Earth (or some other arbitrary point) to be a representation of its mass so the mass stays constant as distance increases from the Earth's surface (or any other large gravity well).

An object with a mass of 1 kilogram at a velocity greater than zero will always have greater momentum than an object with a lesser mass at the same velocity, regardless of sectional density. Two objects with velocities of zero have the same momentum regardless of mass.

Note that kilograms ARE a measure of mass, not weight, although they are frequently misused as a measure of weight, just as pounds are misused as a measure of mass.
Koveras is offline  
Old May 9, 2005, 01:10 PM   #19
Sturm
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2005
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 584
Koveras, I agree that sectional density does not define mass on it's own, or in the context you are limiting it to. So thank you in advance for the amount of time I will now have to expend in applying it to the correct context or application. I noted that you quote some definitions as they apply to ballistics and I believe we can agree that this is the area of discussion here. Maybe it will help, if I list 2 applications from the definition of mass.

Mass: 1, a body of matter with no definite shape. (not much help here, but has some relevance) 2-6 (even less help).

7, Physics the quantity of matter which a body contains, as measured by it’s acceleration under a given force or by the force exerted on it by a gravitational field. (maybe a little more relevent to our discussion and we already know there is no gravity in outer space)

Origin: Latin, massa, from Greek maza ‘barley cake’.

Since we're talking about a bullet in flight on earth and not in space, nor the kinetic energy, or the momentum of a barley cake when it strikes Einstein on his bald head, let's try a practical application: THE QUANTITY OF MATTER WHICH A BODY CONTAINS!

Now everybody, let's go back and read #7, s l o w l y.
How do we measure that quantity of matter?

Let's also look at one of your OPPINIONS in regard to this STATEMENT: An object with a mass of 1 kilogram at a velocity greater than zero will always have greater momentum than an object with a lesser mass at the same velocity, regardless of sectional density. Two objects with velocities of zero have the same momentum regardless of mass.

Sounds scientific, it's also basic common sense and quite elementary!
This statement is using a meaurement of weight to define mass, Not that a kilogram is mass.The variable would be to allow different forms of matter (of varying weights) to be specified, as a kilogram of mass. Our discussion uses lead.



Quoting your OPPINION, "Note that kilograms ARE a measure of mass, not weight, although they are frequently misused as a measure of weight, just as pounds are misused as a measure of mass."

What the hell are you measuring?

I'm measuring the weight of the matter in a discussion of mass. Mass is not defined by weight, but the matter that makes up mass most definitely is. Your giving an oppinion and your oppinion is wrong!

Try a common sense approach to the definition of mass! in physics it is nothing more than a congregation of the relevant MATTER (i.e. lead, in this case) you are measuring. Grams are a measurement of weight. Prefix it with Kilo and you multiply that weight by 1000.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad you took physics in school, learning physics and applying physics, is another matter.

Now, let's go back to #7 and include the motion aspect: "As measured by it’s acceleration under a given force or by the force exerted on it by a gravitational field."

This is where we get into a better understanding of penetration. In the .41 Magnum, there is a greater longitudinol cross section of the relevant mass that drives the matter (lead) into the medium (pig, bear, whatever). In objects of equal weight or mass, how you arrange the mass is the issue and I did oversimplify, by saying that sectional density is mass. I really didn't expect a need to get that technically specific. But when you do, I might suggest that you try to be a little more technically accurate!

Diameter has no effect here, the mass is moving in one plane. We are not discussing wound channels okay everybody, we're dealing with penetration. Hence, for a .44 or .45 or whatever to have an equal sectional density, you must increase the length and therefore weight because of the greater diameter.

If you want to tell me that a .44, or .45 will cause a greater wound channel, I will agree, so long as you know, it will have to penetrate deep enough to make a cubic measurement EQUAL to that of the .41 that penetrated deeper because of it's ORIENTATION of mass.

Now, I'm sure I mispelled some words that I ain't gonna correct. So, if anyone would like to correct me on spelling, be my guest!
Sturm is offline  
Old May 9, 2005, 02:53 PM   #20
redhawk41
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2005
Location: Red Desert
Posts: 752
Quote:
we already know there is no gravity in outer space
i don't know who we is, but this statement is just plain incorrect. if there is no gravity in outer space, what in the haybasket keeps the Earth moving in an ellipse around the sun?

gram is a measure of mass.

if you want weight you are looking for Newtons.
__________________
{thought cloud}
redhawk41 is offline  
Old May 9, 2005, 03:29 PM   #21
Sturm
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2005
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 584
Redhawk, I'm sure you already know that the earth is held in it's orbit by the gravitational pull of the sun and not space, which is a vacuum. Since your an engineer, I certainly hope so! What holds the sun in it's orbit? Other suns that make up galaxies and other galaxies that make up a universe.

Last time I checked, Europeans sell their gunpowder in grams, not newtons, which was named for Sir Isaac Newton. Newton: SI unit of force, equal to the force that would give a mass of one kilogram and acceleration of one meter per second-per second.

Why wasn't this thread held in it's orbit? Posts 10,13 and 15!

Last edited by Sturm; May 9, 2005 at 04:09 PM.
Sturm is offline  
Old May 9, 2005, 05:11 PM   #22
redhawk41
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2005
Location: Red Desert
Posts: 752
Sturm i apolgize for the thread drift.

Right, any two massive bodies will exert gravitational force, directly proportional to the mass and inversly proportional to the square of the distance seperating the bodies. space has no mass so therefore exerts no force. i hear ya. whew.

ok back on topic:

i wonder about the friction generated by an oversized jacketed bullet. the bullet of interest is .411.

Will this extra diameter increase friction, excluding us from generating appropriate velocity using appropriate pressure?

what i mean is, because of the extra friction, maybe it would require 55,000 - 60,000 psi to generate, say 1100 fps, which may be unacceptable in certain firearms.
__________________
{thought cloud}
redhawk41 is offline  
Old May 10, 2005, 12:29 AM   #23
Sturm
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2005
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 584
No sweat, Maybe we're back to the real world now. Your question is a good one and I wish I had the pressure testing equipment to tell you absolutely. But, no doubt you've already heard the cliches about anything or nothing being absolute!

First off, I think we would need to see where this load would come out as far as OAL. Trimming may be required. You can measure the cylinder length of your Redhawk to get some idea. A start charge might yield higher pressure because of the .411 bullet vs. a .410 in 300 grains, if the barrel actually has a groove diameter of .410, having your barrel slugged by a gunsmith or yourself if you feel capable, would cover the unknown here. Usually machining tolerances are a little greater than +/- .001" in most gun parts including rifling. The problem would be if your barrel was on the minus side of tolerance. I am not going to tell anybody what they should feel is safe, other than what established parameters dictate. But, I would feel comfortable with a start charge and even better, since AA#9 doesn't have the pressure stability problems associated with W-296 and H-110, I might even start at 85% of maximum. Problem is, there is no data, so it most likely would have to be derived from cast load data and maybe a lighter weight at that. As Paco Kelly mentioned in the link that Johnny Guest provided, we do get some measure of comfort with the additional thickness of steel surrounding .41 Magnum chambers.

If a manufacturer like Hornady would realize what they are sitting on with a bullet that could have application with two different cartridges, they might develop some data. The .405 Winchester was Teddy Roosevelts favorite, but I doubt that Hornady is having any difficulty in keeping up with production.
If there is enough interest, we could all do what Steveno did, tell 'em what we want! Outside of case trimming, there should be nothing especially labor intensive anyway. I trim periodically to assure consistent crimp in heavy magnum loads and with a good trimmer, that's not that much of a chore. Of course, I have always stayed with a single stage press and case prep is one of the reasons I do, along with load experimentation.

I just felt that this would be a worthwile venture. I don't know Paco Kelly, if I did, I would ask for his input. This thread was never intended to be a my cartridge is better than your cartridge affair and some folks just don't get it. This is an avenue for discovery, yet some are more interested in claiming some sort of mythical internet achievement award. Many fine reloaders get turned-off and just won't rebut and I know people see some of the things I put up that appear confrontational, but hey, somebodies got to do it for us to get through the BS, and on with what some of us want to achieve. For all the sincere posts, I say thanks, if I didn't think it had merit, I wouldn't have wasted anyones time.

BTW, you probably already know, I am not a physicist. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night!
Sturm is offline  
Old May 10, 2005, 03:51 AM   #24
WESHOOT2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 20, 1999
Location: home on the range; Vermont (Caspian country)
Posts: 14,270
So did we decide the 360g has more mo than a 300g?
__________________
.
"all my ammo is mostly retired factory ammo"
WESHOOT2 is offline  
Old May 10, 2005, 10:15 AM   #25
Johnny Guest
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: August 28, 1999
Location: North Texas
Posts: 4,116
Hey - - Why NOT?

Sturm, you wrote:
Quote:
I just felt that this would be a worthwile venture. I don't know Paco Kelly, if I did, I would ask for his input.
Mr. Kelly's home board is - -
www.leverguns.com
His e-mail is paco454@comcast.net

I don't know him, either, but I understand he's pretty accessible. We know he likes the .41 mag and isn't afraid to do a bit of experimentation. Why not send him an e-mail with your ideas on this particular topic, and perhaps include a link to this thread? If he was taken by the idea, we all would get the benefit of his experience and input, and he might find grist for another article. Also - - He probably has some influence with the manufacturers . . . .

Hey, you already have some time invested in this idea. Why not take it a little farther? I know I'd follow developments with interest. Just a thought - - -


And another thought - -
Have you ever used the CH cannelure forming tool? I never had one, but it looks as if it might work on the .405 bullet.

My good ol' two volume set of the Hornady Handbook of Cartridge Reloading was published shortly before they introduced their bullets and ammo for the .405 Win. Too bad. Their web site sure doesn't have much info on the .405 bullets, does it?

Best,
Johnny
__________________
MOLON LABE!
Amendment II ensures the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Blog: Expert Witness
Johnny Guest is offline  
Reply

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 Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:46 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
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13310 seconds with 7 queries