The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Art of the Rifle: Bolt, Lever, and Pump Action

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 9, 2013, 08:56 PM   #1
Babyfacenelson
Member
 
Join Date: February 4, 2013
Location: Georgia
Posts: 42
Benefits of bedding a barrel?

I have a question. I hope y'all can provide an answer.

Recently there was a discussion about free floating barrels, how they originated and what the benefits of a free floating barrel are.
I'm curious why generally a free floating barrel is considered "better" BUT a barrel that's been glass "bedded" is considered even better.
When the barrel has been bedded, arent you back to having the barrel touching the stock again?
Im just curious, thanks in advance for any facts or personal opinions
__________________
It turns out that fire can't solve every problem -
- it won't solve fires, for example
Babyfacenelson is offline  
Old February 9, 2013, 09:05 PM   #2
reynolds357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 10, 2012
Posts: 2,214
Barrel bedding seems to work sometimes when dealing with accuracy issues in rifles with poor quality barrels. Bedding the barrel will hurt accuracy in a quality barrel in which the action is properly bedded.
reynolds357 is offline  
Old February 10, 2013, 11:18 AM   #3
Slamfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Posts: 4,035
I have had two rifles where the barrel had been bedded, full length, with epoxy compound. One Rem M700 where I bedded the action and removed the pressure point in the stock.

All of these rifles showed an improvement in accuracy when the barrel bedding was removed.

I don't know if it matters with precision 22 LR's, but every match Anschutz I have seen, the barrel is free floating. Some of the older rifles, M52's, M37's, Rem 40X's, the barrel makes full contact with the barrel channel.

On older hunting rifles the barrels are closely inletted into the stock and on older M70's there are barrel bands. It is apparent that "back in the day" authorities of the era thought fixing the barrel in place was the way to go.

I wonder if it was due to the awful bullets that were in use back then. Maybe they were playing with bedding and could not distinguish between the effects of their bedding and random grouping.

All the time people see patterns where they don't exist.
__________________
If I'm not shooting, I'm reloading.
Slamfire is offline  
Old February 10, 2013, 11:25 AM   #4
natman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 1,402
There was a time when bedding barrels was in fashion, but it was a long time ago.

Every gun is different and I'm sure that there has been a time or two when it improved accuracy, but the odds of getting an accurate rifle are in favor of free floating by a considerable margin.
natman is offline  
Old February 10, 2013, 04:11 PM   #5
Bart B.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Posts: 4,626
Totally free floating rim and center fire barrels almost full receiver contact have shot best in shooting disciplines since the early 1930's. The only thing barrels should touch for best accuracy is the front sight receiver, cartridge and bullet. Maybe a slight touch of the bolt where it closes on the barrel. Best quality barrels shot better when folks stopped mounting those old long, externally adjusted scopes on barrels and started using shorter, internally adjusted scopes mounted only on the receiver.

Competitive shooters winning matches and setting records know this way beyond any doubt. They shoot enough shots per session with good gear and ammo the right way to see the advantages.

Others have all sorts of opinions about what should and/or should not be bedded based on a whole lot of things.

Regarding Slamfire's comments:
Quote:
On older hunting rifles the barrels are closely inletted into the stock and on older M70's there are barrel bands. It is apparent that "back in the day" authorities of the era thought fixing the barrel in place was the way to go.

I wonder if it was due to the awful bullets that were in use back then. Maybe they were playing with bedding and could not distinguish between the effects of their bedding and random grouping.
Winchester not only had a screw up through the fore ends on their 70's to a female threadded bushing but also on their first 3 versions of the Model 52 smallbore match rifle. They finally got rid of it on the 52D and 52E versions.

I doubt it was the bullet quality. Winchester-Western's 180-gr. FMJBT match bullet shot as good as the military 172-gr. FMJBT match bullet; about 7 inches at 600 yards with the best lots of each in the '20's and '30's They did that in M1903 Springfields and Win. Model 54 based .30-06 target rifles with free floating barrels. The 1924 .30-06 National Match ammunition was one of the most accurate match cartridges ever made, giving a 600-yard mean radius of only 2.26 inches from an M1903 (about 7 inches extreme spread), a record that would last until 1962.
__________________
US Navy Distinguished Marksman Badge 153
Former US Navy & Palma Rifle Team Member
NRA High Power Master & Long Range High Master
NRA Smallbore Prone Master

Last edited by Bart B.; February 10, 2013 at 10:22 PM.
Bart B. is offline  
Old February 11, 2013, 12:43 AM   #6
big al hunter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 12, 2011
Location: Washington state
Posts: 930
If a barrel shoots well free floating, it should shoot even better if the action is glass bedded to the stock. But the barrel would still be free floating. Bedding the barrel would be my last resort to fix accuracy problems inexpensively. If that won't "fix"it, it needs machining and it will probably cost more than I want to pay.
__________________
You can't fix stupid....however ignorance can be cured through education!
big al hunter is offline  
Old February 11, 2013, 01:24 PM   #7
McShooty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 4, 2012
Location: Northern Missouri
Posts: 338
Some above have intimated this, but let's be very clear. You can glass bed an action and still allow the barrel to float. Glass bedding the action involves the tang area and the area behind the recoil lug. I also bed the barrel about 2-3 inches ahead of the recoil lug and let the rest of the barrel float. Sometimes I install a metal pillar in the front action screw hole, and sometimes one in the front and one in the rear action screw. Some folks also bed the sides of the action.. I do not.

Ballisticians tell us that a rifle barrel vibrates in a certain pattern when a shot is fired. Harmonic vibrations? If the vibrations are uniform from shot to shot then we will have good accuracy. My take on this is that a fully bedded barrel, action to end of foreend, with a snug fit, may help to promote uniform vibrations, and the bedder may see an improvement over the unbedded barrel.

However, if there is interior strain in the metal of the barrel, then barrel heating will cause uneven expansion and pressure points will develop in the closely fitting barrel channel. Accuracy will suffer, and it can be serious as you will know if you have ever had a rifle that developed uneven contact, side to side, at the end of the foreend. I think the floated barrel generally works because this situation is avoided.

The new generation of economy rifles, of which the Remington 783 is about the latest, have plastic stocks and some kind of solid bedding, either with pillars or metal inserts, and free floating barrels. Reports in the shooting press promise very fine accuracy. I love wood and I love vintage rifles and cartridges. And I love to do bedding and other accuracy tweaking, so I stick to that. But I am curious. Do these new plain rifles really perform? Anybody have any experience to report with them?
McShooty is offline  
Old February 11, 2013, 01:29 PM   #8
McShooty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 4, 2012
Location: Northern Missouri
Posts: 338
Some above have intimated this, but let's be very clear. You can glass bed an action and still allow the barrel to float. Glass bedding the action involves the tang area and the area behind the recoil lug. I also bed the barrel about 2-3 inches ahead of the recoil lug and let the rest of the barrel float. Sometimes I install a metal pillar in the front action screw hole, and sometimes one in the front and one in the rear action screw. Some foloks also bed the sides of the action.. I do not.

Ballisticians tell us that a rifle barrel vibrates in a certain pattern when a shot is fired. Harmonic vibrations? If the vibrations are uniform from shot to shot then we will have good accuracy. My take on this is that a fully bedded barrel, action to end of foreend, with a snug fit, may help to promote uniform vibrations, and the bedder may see an improvement over the unbedded barrel.

However, if there is interior strain in the metal of the barrel, then barrel heating will cause uneven expansion and pressure points will develop in the closely fitting barrel channel. Accuracy will suffer, and it can be serious as you will know if you have ever had a rifle that developed uneven contact, side to side, at the end of the foreend. I think the floated barrel generally works because this situation is avoided.

The new generation of economy rifles, of which the Remington 783 is about the latest, have some kind of solid bedding, either with pillars or metal inserts, and free floating barrels. Reports in the shooting press promise very fine accuracy. I love wood and I love vintage rifles and cartridges. And I love to do bedding and other accuracy tweaking, so I stick to that. But I am curious. Do these new plain rifles really perform? Anybody have any experience to report with them?
McShooty is offline  
Old February 11, 2013, 02:36 PM   #9
reynolds357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 10, 2012
Posts: 2,214
My TC Venture and my WBY V2 are both 1/2 MOA rifles right out of the box.
reynolds357 is offline  
Old February 12, 2013, 11:21 PM   #10
brokenanew
Member
 
Join Date: September 14, 2012
Posts: 83
Just my experience: I had my Remmy 700 (.308) VTR stock bedded with barrel floated. Those models have really cheap stocks, but i like it aesthetically and didnt want to pay 500$ for a good stock.

Well, plain stock the rifle was shooting about a .8" group average with an occasional group hitting close to .5" (4 shots)

Now after the stock bedded and barrel floated the average is .68" with multiple groups hitting into the .3" range and often into the .5"
brokenanew is offline  
Old February 13, 2013, 04:45 PM   #11
Bart B.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Posts: 4,626
Mcshooty feels:
Quote:
My take on this is that a fully bedded barrel, action to end of foreend, with a snug fit, may help to promote uniform vibrations, and the bedder may see an improvement over the unbedded barrel.
The problem herein is such rifles so bedded all the way to the fore end tip will then have varying amounts of pressure against the fore end transmitted directly to the barrel. And the angle and force that pressure has won't always be the same. There's different amounts across all the shooting positions and that includes resting the fore end atop something when testing ammo from bench shooting. And fore ends bend from sling use, too.

The only way to have uniformly consistant barrel vibrations is to keep everything from touching it except the receiver where it's fit into. That means it's gotta be totally free floating all the way around it. With enough room to let the fore end bend from normal handling and not touch the barrel.

Would you expect to hit your target resting the barrel against a tree trunk or on a fence post when it's fired?
__________________
US Navy Distinguished Marksman Badge 153
Former US Navy & Palma Rifle Team Member
NRA High Power Master & Long Range High Master
NRA Smallbore Prone Master
Bart B. is offline  
Old February 13, 2013, 04:53 PM   #12
reynolds357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 10, 2012
Posts: 2,214
As I have said before, I have never seen a quality rifle that was helped by bedding or adding pressure points to the barrel. I have seen some low quality rifles that loved it. I have a 700 30-06 mountain rifle that would not hit the broad side of a barn, well it was a 2 inch at 100 shooter and to me thats not hitting the broad side of a barn. I bedded the action. It did not help it. I floated the barrel. Did not help it. I bedded the barrel using very thick packing take on the action so I could apply a pile of pressure to the barrel bed when I took the tape out. Its a 1/2" @100 with match ammo and sub MOA with hunting ammo. Thats giving the barrel plenty of time to cool.
I have a CZ550 American that I am going to have to float the barrel on and re-bed the action. It is a tack driver for a light weight barrel, BUT every year when I put it in the safe the zero moves, and it moves a mile. Done so every year for six years.
reynolds357 is offline  
Old February 13, 2013, 08:01 PM   #13
wpsdlrg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 18, 2009
Posts: 460
NEVER say never. NO ONE can make any absolute statements that bedding a barrel or free-floating will ALWAYS work better than the other..... unless he/she wants to risk being dead wrong...and thus, foolish. Whether free-floating a barrel, using pressure points in the forearm, or full length bedding will be best for any particular rifle is a matter of testing and experimentation - some rifles "prefer" one over the other - even when "logic" or experience might make this seem impossible. I have seen all three set ups work "best" (produce the best accuracy) on each of several different rifles. ALL had properly bedded receivers.

Oh and trying to play the "excuse game" of declaring that any "quality" rifles will ONLY work best with this or that system, that you happen to favor (and thus giving oneself an out, if proven wrong)....is just so much bull. Excuses don't make for solid analysis.

One thing CAN be stated absolutely - that a properly bedded RECEIVER WILL positively affect accuracy. I can also say that, of the three techniques, full length bedding of a barrel has the LEAST chance of improving things. Not zero chance, but the least chance. In my experience, free floating and pressure point bedding have nearly equal chance of success - depending on technical factors, such as barrel thickness, taper, etc. Beyond that, there are NO "absolutes".

A case in point. My old Mauser sporter, built from a Yugo M48. After very carefully bedding the receiver and first 2 inches of the barrel (and I've been working on rifles in general and Mausers in particular, for a very long time). I tested all three possibilities. First, free-floating the barrel....then, bedding the barrel with a pressure point, or "cradle" of epoxy, in the forend, totaling about 1 sq. inch in contact area.....then, nearly full length bedding of the barrel. The system that worked best, i.e., produced the BEST accuracy, whether the barrel was cold or hot....and the most consistency in groups.....was........(wait for it).......... WITH a 1 sq. inch "cradle" or pressure point, in the forend. Period. THAT works best on THIS particular rifle.

The process, by the way, was conducted with "scientific" methods. That is, the SAME load was used for all three test regimens. Conditions for each test regimen were kept consistent, including environmental factors, etc. So, there is NO doubt of the results.....for my particular rifle.

Whichever system will be best for any other given rifle is a matter for proof - not internet jabber from self-proclaimed "experts". So, if one wonders what will work best for his/ her particular rifle - give it a go. That's the ONLY way you'll ever really know.

Last edited by wpsdlrg; February 13, 2013 at 08:07 PM.
wpsdlrg is offline  
Old February 13, 2013, 08:08 PM   #14
reynolds357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 10, 2012
Posts: 2,214
WPSDLRG, I challenge you to find a winning bench rest rifle in competition today that is not free floated. "Quality" rifles work best floated.
reynolds357 is offline  
Old February 14, 2013, 07:05 PM   #15
wpsdlrg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 18, 2009
Posts: 460
So, let's see, the only "quality" rifles are benchrest competition rifles, eh ? Specialized rifles, built for only one purpose and only useful in one tightly controlled circumstance. I've got news for you, but benchrest rifles aren't worth a s^#t while NOT on the bench. You can define "quality" any way you wish (and thereby attempt to load the argument your way), but that changes nothing....and proves nothing. Insisting that all rifles shoot best free-floated, in the face of decades of proof otherwise, is stupid.

Believe that the earth is flat, too, if you wish - but that doesn't make it so.
wpsdlrg is offline  
Old February 14, 2013, 07:44 PM   #16
reynolds357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 10, 2012
Posts: 2,214
I never said all rifles shoot best free floated. If you read what I say instead of reading what you want to hear, you will discover I said the exact opposite. Bench rest rifles are the ultimate in accuracy. They do just fine away from the bench as well. Every once in a while I decide to shoot yotes with my PPC and it is as deadly accurate in the woods as on the bench. The John Deere Green and orange paint job is not very good for hunting, but other than that it is a fine hunting rifle. The only barrels that will shoot better with pressure than they shoot free floated are low quality barrels that are not properly stress relieved or have a bore that would look like a threaded nut if you looked at it with a bore scope. If you have a quality barrel that shoots better bedded than free floated, your bedding job on the action is wrong or your stock is flexing around the bedding.
reynolds357 is offline  
Old February 14, 2013, 08:11 PM   #17
Bart B.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Posts: 4,626
wpsdlrg on his testing bedded things:
Quote:
The process, by the way, was conducted with "scientific" methods. That is, the SAME load was used for all three test regimens.
How many shots per test group did you shoot and what were their sizes for each bedding type?

Was the rifle fired without human intervention?

Using the same load's about 10% of the scientific methodology of testing rifles for accuracy
__________________
US Navy Distinguished Marksman Badge 153
Former US Navy & Palma Rifle Team Member
NRA High Power Master & Long Range High Master
NRA Smallbore Prone Master
Bart B. is offline  
Old February 14, 2013, 11:27 PM   #18
wpsdlrg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 18, 2009
Posts: 460
""Quality" rifles work best floated."


Hmmm, kinda sounds like a bit of an absolute statement to me. Backpeddling now doesn't fix that.



Bart,

5 round strings, repeated multiple times. A "cold test" regimen, allowing thorough cooling between strings....and a "hot test" regimen, with no cooling time taken. This for each barrel bedding condition. I can't tell you the exact total of test shots, or total for each bedding condition, but I do know that roughly 300 rounds were expended during the entire process. So, probably about 100 for each bedding condition.

Can't say what the avg. group sizes were for the free-floated and full length bedded conditions, as my notes are not around now, but the "pressure pad" avg. group size (now) is a bit larger than 1 moa, occasionally better than that. Doesn't matter really, because the best results came with the "pressure pad" system, simple as that. Of course, as I said before, this is one rifle. Results vary, as I also said before.

Now, I expect to hear a veritable litany of rationalizations regarding this matter - how my testing is garbage (because you don't approve) - or how I "obviously" don't have a "quality" barrel (by your definition). Blah, blah, blah. Again, so what ? I'm not in it for your approval. Sorry, but there it is.

My only point in all of this is that there are NO absolutes. Yes, many (probably all) custom built target rifles are set up with free-floated barrels. So what ? That DOES NOT mean that free-floating is ALWAYS the best system, especially not necessarily for a hunting rifle in a somewhat flexible plastic stock. THAT has been the consistent message proffered here by some (like you). T'ain't so, for the last time.

Making blanket or absolute statements is misleading - especially to beginners - and therefore does a disservice to them. Can you guys at least admit that there are NO absolutes here ? That's all I want.

Last edited by wpsdlrg; February 14, 2013 at 11:41 PM.
wpsdlrg is offline  
Old February 15, 2013, 07:31 AM   #19
Bart B.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Posts: 4,626
wpsdlrg, thanks for posting your test methodology. Now I understand how you came to your conclusion on bedding your barreled action. Lots of folks do it that way.

I do know that whatever method one uses to end up with their barreled action's metal parts nestled in epoxy, as long as the external pressure to it is consistant in force, place and direction, good accuracy is at hand. To me, that's easier to attain without anything touching the barrel. Accuracy is all things in the total system repeatable. Us humans are probably the least repeatable.
__________________
US Navy Distinguished Marksman Badge 153
Former US Navy & Palma Rifle Team Member
NRA High Power Master & Long Range High Master
NRA Smallbore Prone Master

Last edited by Bart B.; February 15, 2013 at 05:54 PM.
Bart B. is offline  
Old February 15, 2013, 06:34 PM   #20
wpsdlrg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 18, 2009
Posts: 460
Bart,

Thank you for your very reasonable and pleasant reply. I appreciate that. I have to say that I was afraid that the response might be otherwise, but you proved me quite wrong on that. I also must say that I agree with everything you said (in your last post). I think you are right in that it probably IS easier to get the best accuracy from a given rifle, via free floating the barrel. Easier when it works that is - but it doesn't in all circumstances. That is all I was trying to get across.

To any interested readers (of this thread),

I want to apologize for any strident tone or remarks made by me, in this thread. I am afraid that I tend to get "a bit on edge" in these discussions, much to my disgrace. I do worry about potential misleading information proffered to novices, because I feel they deserve better. Nevertheless, I do accept that I shouldn't act that way - and I will do better in future. Sorry, guys.
wpsdlrg is offline  
Old February 16, 2013, 07:58 AM   #21
Picher
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 14, 2004
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,759
Okay, so I've said that free-floating barrels generally provide better overall accuracy, but there are exceptions, like Rem 10-22s which perform better with a pressure point in the barrel channel.

Another situation is when a person has a very stable, stiff stock, such as a high-quality fiberglass stock or fine laminated stock that are not affected by humidity changes. For rifles with these stocks to be used with many different bullet weights and loads and changing scope zero to accommodate the change isn't convenient, a pressure point can minimize vertical dispersion.

The one-rifle person sometimes must make compromises. For my first and only centerfire, I once had a thin-barreled Savage 110 that varied vertical POI by over 2" at 100 yds when switching between 125 and 165 grain bullets. The saboted "Accelerator" .22 cal loads were almost off the page. If my needs weren't so separated by season, I may have tried a pressure point to minimize such dispersion, even sacrificing some grouping ability for POI control.

Today, it's not a problem for me because I don't own that rifle and have several dedicated CF rifles to handle most any situation.
__________________
People are like rifles. Some are tried and true, having great eyes, personality, and fun to be with. Others never seem to hit the mark with you. Still others go off half-cocked. Still, it's nice to know most of them.
Picher is offline  
Old February 16, 2013, 10:15 PM   #22
reynolds357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 10, 2012
Posts: 2,214
Most of that vertical stringing was simply due to the ballistics of the bullet. Basically just time it took it to fly to target.
reynolds357 is offline  
Old February 16, 2013, 11:44 PM   #23
lefteye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 30, 2006
Location: Iowa
Posts: 675
Quote:
I've got news for you, but benchrest rifles aren't worth a s^#t while NOT on the bench.
If you mean they are not as accurate when shot from anywhere except a bench you are wrong! Benchrest rifles are superb varmint rifles, but too expensive for anything except relatively frequent prairie dog shoots in the hands of those who can afford the rifles. Bench rest rifles would make superb mountain hunting rifles if the hunter could afford to pay someonne to carry the gun.

I do not own any bench rest rifles but I have shot a couple of extremely expensive ($10,000-$14,000) models. The shooter must still shoot, but the rifles are EXTREMELY accurate. I am not kidding. I believe I am better at shooting a rifle than any other firearm, but those benchrest rifles were phenomenal.

PS: I have glass bedded the action and recoil lugs and free floated the barrels of all of my hunting rifles for more than 30 years. Friends have had me do it to their rifles. The results have always been improved accuracy. Of course that doesn't mean it will always work on every rifle for every shooter, but it has been 100% success in my experience.

PSS: wpsdlrg, I apologize if this response was offensive - that was not the intent. I simply wanted to respond based on more than 55 years of my own rifle shooting experience and the experience of relatives who are or were competitive benchrest shooters.
__________________
NRA Life Member - RMEF Life Member - Vietnam Vet

Last edited by lefteye; February 17, 2013 at 12:01 AM.
lefteye is offline  
Old February 17, 2013, 12:06 AM   #24
lefteye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 30, 2006
Location: Iowa
Posts: 675
Without the benefit of any research, I suspect the accuracy of sabot rifle bullets is largely a function of when the sabot looses contact with the bullet as in : now - no, wait - now - OK- crap, too late! In other words, sabots INCREASE the inconsistency between loaded rifle cartridges, hence, the antithesis of accuracy.
__________________
NRA Life Member - RMEF Life Member - Vietnam Vet
lefteye is offline  
Old February 17, 2013, 08:38 AM   #25
Bart B.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Posts: 4,626
Picher, there's several things that'll effect the vertical shot placement between different bullets leaving at different speeds as well as a given bullet leaving at a given speed.

One is the amount of muzzle axis change in the vertical caused by the rifle's recoil while the bullet's going down the barrel. That'll vary with how hard the rifle's held into ones shoulder and the resistance ones body has to that recoil. This is the reason why several people will have different sight settings for a given load's zero for them; we all don't hold rifles the exact same way.

Another's where the bullet leaves in the muzzle axis angle while the barrel's whipping like a wiggled fishing pole; slower bullets leave at a different angle than faster ones. Many times, the bullet's exit point in the muzzle axis angle help accuracy; slower bullets leaving when it's higher on an up swing compensates with bullets leaving faster and lower on that upswing.

Adding another variable to the barrel's wiggling such as different amounts of external pressure on it at different points such as those applied to the stock that's touching the forend compounds these issues. If the fore end's not able to touch the barrel, then the barrel wiggles more consistantly from shot to shot.
__________________
US Navy Distinguished Marksman Badge 153
Former US Navy & Palma Rifle Team Member
NRA High Power Master & Long Range High Master
NRA Smallbore Prone Master
Bart B. 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 06:08 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 0.14867 seconds with 7 queries