The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Handguns: General Handgun Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 13, 2013, 12:25 AM   #26
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,513
Quote:
[donning flame resistant suit]
Allow me to borrow that for a second.

Smith & Wesson revolvers. Sure, I miss the pretty bluing, but the consistency of the newer guns is better than anything made in my lifetime.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old July 13, 2013, 07:51 AM   #27
saleen322
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 8, 2010
Posts: 361
High Standards

I love old High Standard target pistols made in Hamden, CT. However, the High Standards made in Houston, TX are better shooters. To prove that to myself, I did some extensive testing of High Standards from Houston vs Hamden. As a control, I put two Volquartsen barrels in the mix just to verify the results under the same conditions. Here is what I found:
saleen322 is offline  
Old July 13, 2013, 10:40 AM   #28
CDW4ME
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 18, 2009
Posts: 623
Dan Wesson, Ed Brown, Les Baer: they don't make them like guns of the past, they make them better.
Quality small parts = past.
Night sights > past.
Enhancements (beavertail grip safety) > past.

It is possible to still buy a MIM free, no internal lock, no magazine disconnect, quality pistol
__________________
No internal lock or magazine disconnect on my pistols!
CDW4ME is offline  
Old July 13, 2013, 11:41 AM   #29
Sevens
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 28, 2007
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 9,104
Quote:
As to the Coonan Classi, it can't be better than when "it used to be." Because it didn't "used to be made" in the classic period. It's a Johnny come lately.
Either I can't follow what you are saying... or you are mistaken as to what these pistols are about.

The Coonan Classic is merely the name of the current production Coonan .357 Magnum "Automatic." With the exception of different hammer, slightly different trigger and updated roll markings, the pistol is of the same exact design as the Coonan Model B. It is make differently today than it was in the early 1980s, but it's the same pistol.

Are you saying that it can't be the same pistol because it is made differently?
If that is the argument, how can we compare...anything in this thread?

Or are you saying that the original Coonan pistol that debuted in the very late 1970s can't be considered "old enough" to qualify for a comparison to something made in 2013? I mean... that's like 30+ years. Would be hard to argue that isn't an expanse of time.
__________________
Attention Brass rats and other reloaders: I really need .327 Federal Magnum brass, no lot size too small. Tell me what caliber you need and I'll see what I have to swap. PM me and we'll discuss.
Sevens is offline  
Old July 13, 2013, 12:05 PM   #30
MrBorland
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 31, 2007
Location: NC
Posts: 1,885
I'll play. Tom Servo's got the S&W revolver covered, so I'll go out of my comfort zone, and chime in on a rifle; my choice being the FN SPR bolt action rifle, essentially a modern Winchester Model 70 in tactical clothing.

Unlike the pre-64 M70, it comes in a true short action, and unlike the current FN-made Model 70s, it utilizes the classic, tested, and highly respected trigger of the pre-64. The best of both worlds. Quality? I've not ran across anything negative said about it. My deer rifle's built on an SPR action & trigger, and it's been terrific. No complaints here.
MrBorland is offline  
Old July 13, 2013, 02:46 PM   #31
Winchester_73
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2008
Location: Pittsburgh PA
Posts: 2,859
Quote:
Smith & Wesson revolvers. Sure, I miss the pretty bluing, but the consistency of the newer guns is better than anything made in my lifetime.
What kind of a sampling size are we talking and how far are you going back? I hope when you say "old days" you are talking the pre war stuff, and the post war 5 and 4 screw stuff. I own a lot of that, and while my new guns are fine, its hard to say they are better, as a customer. They are better manufactured in a sense that they probably cost less to make today, in comparison, and they are made faster. But for me, are today's really better? Well I'm not qualified to really say I guess, because I have observed too small a sampling of new guns.

You have to think that at one time, with gun makers, building a great gun was more important than the bottom dollar, because it was understood that as a gun maker, you would make money anyways. The economy was great before the depression, and after WWII, in the 1950s, into the 70s, people had money and had jobs. In addition, guns were overall more popular back then, it was less taboo, and shooting as a hobby was it, because there wasn't iphone, facebook, or xbox. Since the 70s and 80s, IMO its been a question of "how can we reduce costs all the way?" or "how can we increase the profit margin even more?" To put it plain and simple, its a different world. I have to doubt the experience level posters here have with older guns, such as older S&Ws, and older doesn't mean 1975, IMO, it means more like 1935. With each company, they had peaks and valleys at different times. I have many older S&Ws, and I have not been disappointed at all, ever. Could that be because the guy who bought a lemon 1935 addressed back then? Maybe, but then again, S&W started outselling Colt by large margins before WWII and esp after, and sold more and more and more; they truly flourished. Its hard for me to think that they flourished, unless they did most everything right.

As for myself, I think its a toss up in many ways. For example, today there is newer technology, more precise manufacturing, great materials coupled with a much worse economy, and a stronger desire to cut costs. In the old days, there was hand fitting due to less precise part manufacturing, but a higher personal attention to each gun, resulting in IMO a better quality control, along with a better economy, which meant the companies were less about the bottom dollar (IMO). Companies back then could afford to over engineer items. Today, I don't think companies care about making something that will last decades. I don't think the desire to be the best is as important today as the all-mighty dollar.

In closing, some guns are better today, and some are not. It would take a ton of personal experience with both to say anything that is definitive.

Just my opinion...
__________________
Winchester 73, the TFL user that won the west
Winchester_73 is offline  
Old July 13, 2013, 04:41 PM   #32
sheepman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 26, 2007
Location: Las Vegas NV
Posts: 378
No they don't make them like they used to and in some cases it is a good thing. I have not seen many modern guns wore out. My grandmother's Stevens 22 single shot was wore out, it had a Penney for a front sight and no extractor, you needed a knife to extract the spent case. A lot of the 19th century guns were made of iron or brass. The toggle on the early lever actions were week and it was said that a Colt SSA would operate with a number of broken parts.

The 1911 and the double action revolvers of today have better heat treating and machining than in the past. Yes there was a lot of hand fitting, some of that has been made un unnecessary by CAD.

While I like 1911s and SAA, if I hade to rely on them, I would not trade one Ruger Blackhalk or Glock 21 for a dozen of the 1911 or SAA made in 1911 (now a current model 1911A1 Springfield might be different).

The truth of the matter is that most people do not shoot a gun enough to ware one out (or learn how to use it). I recently bought a Charter Arms Bulldog that is like new and was made in 1974, have probably shot it more than the original owner.
__________________
The best gun is the one you have when you really need one
sheepman is offline  
Old July 13, 2013, 06:00 PM   #33
Bob Wright
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 10, 2012
Location: Memphis, Tennessee
Posts: 1,924
Sevens asked:
Quote:
Either I can't follow what you are saying... or you are mistaken as to what these pistols are about.

The Coonan Classic is merely the name of the......
My slight attempt at humour. When I refer to "like they used to be made" I refer to guns made prior to WW II.

I regret any confusion.


Bob Wright
Bob Wright is offline  
Old July 13, 2013, 06:06 PM   #34
larryh1108
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2008
Location: ex-IL, ex-CT, now NC
Posts: 617
For those who presently own older models and later models, you can surely say for sure but if you "remember" a trigger or fit or finish from a gun 30 years ago then chances are the memory is clouded with age.

We'll never know how good or bad a gun was back in the 50s and 60s. There was no internet. How did you hear about issues? Word of mouth at a gun shop? Letters to the editor in a gun rag? We'll never truly know how good or bad a gun was "in the good old days".

Today, if it isn't made good or made to last then the electronic media will crush a company. Whatever the final result is, it better be good enough to please a large spectrum of buyers/owners. If an "old school" writer or shooter gets a few bad samples he can bury the product line on the internet. They better be good or they won't last very long these days. As for days gone by, we'll never truly know how good or bad a line of guns were.
__________________
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
larryh1108 is offline  
Old July 13, 2013, 06:16 PM   #35
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
"Don't make 'em like they used to..." Or do they?

Did those guns from the 50s and 60s evaporate when the 70s hit?

Why can't we know that today's guns are better? We don't have to "remember", the world is still quite filled with guns from well over a century ago, say nothing of 40 or 50 years ago.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old July 13, 2013, 06:30 PM   #36
larryh1108
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2008
Location: ex-IL, ex-CT, now NC
Posts: 617
I was referring to initial quality and reliability.
I did say those who presently own both can say for sure, however, but if S&W made 500,000 Model XX in 1952, how many are still around and how were they (functional, reliable, well fit) when new? I would guess that only the better ones made it to today's collections.
__________________
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
larryh1108 is offline  
Old July 13, 2013, 06:31 PM   #37
Winchester_73
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2008
Location: Pittsburgh PA
Posts: 2,859
Quote:
Why can't we know that today's guns are better? We don't have to "remember", the world is still quite filled with guns from well over a century ago, say nothing of 40 or 50 years ago.
I for one am not saying a study could not be done, I am saying that any kind of quality study was not done by any of us. So for someone to say, today they are better, more consistent in quality, closer to spec, is only a theory, IMO. None of us can make blanket statements on this subject, but rather it has to be looked at from a case by case basis. For example, its a little assinine to reference an old stevens 22 single shot, unless you compare it directly to a new economy made single shot. Even then, would you put a new gun through the use of the old one? How much use does it take to wear that older gun out? You have to compare apples to apples, oranges to oranges.

IMO, I can't think that the modern blued S&Ws, the classic line for example, is any better than the older ones. Perhaps they should be, but a study would have to be done. I think the quality emphasis was higher back then. In addition, I think the underlying goal is different today. Its a different world.

One issue is that the older guns which had problems probably had them addressed back then. So if we took a sampling of say 50 post war 5 screw K22s, and 50 of the new classic line model 17s/K22s, we would probably have 50 great ones from the old days because they probably are flawless. It would be hard to find a vintage pistol which survived with a manufacturing defect. In addition, it would be hard to get a good vintage sample to study, because many older guns were customized in different ways.

There are simply too many variables at hand. Blanket statements about this subject are short-sighted.
__________________
Winchester 73, the TFL user that won the west
Winchester_73 is offline  
Old July 13, 2013, 08:15 PM   #38
James K
Staff
 
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 19,837
Gee, guys, you make me feel old. I know what guns were like 40, 50, 60 years ago because I was buying them new. And most were very good guns, indeed. But like the guy who said he knew Doris Day before she was a virgin, I know what those guns were like, and they weren't that much, if any, better than the ones made today. Of course, for a lot of that time, there were no Ruger centerfire pistols or revolvers, and Colt was doing well. The mistake Colt made was that after WWII they began to concentrate on police sales and lost interest in satisfying the general public. The promotion and later adoption of the M16 resulted in Colt just about giving up the commercial market to S&W. Colt also had a bad (almost fatal) habit of zigging when the firearms market was sagging.

One major change from the firearms market years ago is the diversity of the products available today. "Back then" there was only one American maker of CF auto pistols - Colt. And one model, and two calibers. No new pocket pistols, though the market was flooded with "bringback" Walthers, Sauers, etc. At one point, those guns were selling for $5-$10. P.38's were $5-10, Lugers $15-20. (My first Luger cost $30.)

Anyone in doubt need only check the old Gun Digests and look at the handgun pages. Not much there. Of course, H&R and I.J. were represented, mostly .22 revolvers, and High Standard .22 autos were well regarded, as was the Colt Woodsman with its "breaking glass" trigger pull.

Today, there are pages of handguns, domestic and foreign, and mixed. This afternoon I looked at a Sig-Sauer 1911. A Sig-Sauer 1911!!??? To anyone raised during WWII, that is almost unbelievable. And I got to the store in a Toyota.

Yup, many, many changes. Some good, some bad. That Toyota is a better car than my 1948 Chevy was, but today's Chevies are better, too. They have to be to compete with Toyota and the other Japanese, German, and Korean (Korean???) makers. Korean! Who'd a thunk it?

Jim
__________________
Jim K
James K is offline  
Old July 13, 2013, 09:09 PM   #39
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Winchester,
I don't think anyone is asking for a PhD dissertation.
This forum is filled with opinions. We don't need statistically valid, double blind studies for this thread, either.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old July 13, 2013, 09:41 PM   #40
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,513
Winchester, I may not have a big-city college degree, but I know sciency stuff when I say it

In my experience, I can draw some comparisons from a rather large pool of Bangor Punta, Tomkins, and Saf-T-Hammer guns I've dealt with over the last few decades. I've seen far fewer problems with the post-2000 guns than the older ones.

My results are going to be somewhat subjective due to any number of factors, but the overall impression is that the newer ones are very solid and consistent.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old July 14, 2013, 10:04 AM   #41
Winchester_73
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2008
Location: Pittsburgh PA
Posts: 2,859
Quote:
I don't think anyone is asking for a PhD dissertation.
This forum is filled with opinions. We don't need statistically valid, double blind studies for this thread, either.
Well if you want to come up with an answer by comparing 2 new S&Ws to two old S&Ws, then go ahead. I think that to be a fruitless endeavor. I was pointing out the right way to answer such a question, which would invariably have flaws anyways. It would be very hard to prove either side with any degree of certainty. Your post before made it seem as though you thought it would not be hard to show, because the older guns are still around. That was IMO over simplifying the situation. I thought the idea of the thread was to attempt to prove newer guns are overall better. Not to say "hey, I like newer guns, but I like abc about the old stuff." I didn't mean to offer a PhD dissertation, so perhaps I misunderstood the thread. I put the level of thought into the thread and my post that I felt was required given the subject matter.

Quote:
In my experience, I can draw some comparisons from a rather large pool of Bangor Punta, Tomkins, and Saf-T-Hammer guns I've dealt with over the last few decades. I've seen far fewer problems with the post-2000 guns than the older ones.
I think if comparing older S&Ws to newer, and there is no rule for how old, for the old, I think the comparison should be from the best periods for S&W, before WWII, and for the first 18 years or so after. If you don't have much experience with the older 5 screw guns, I think its better to say "newer guns are better than bangor punta guns" since that is where your experience lies.

As I said, I think the high majority of us have S&W experience with newer S&Ws, one old 5 screw, and some bangor punta stuff. However, most of my S&W collection is pre bangor punta. Its an instance of apples to apples and oranges to oranges. I don't think anyone would say the bangor punta stuff was the pinnacle of S&W quality, so to discuss those guns vs new guns basically takes away from the older gun side of the debate.
__________________
Winchester 73, the TFL user that won the west
Winchester_73 is offline  
Old July 14, 2013, 10:07 AM   #42
pete2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 859
I seem to find more problems with newer guns than the older ones. In the last few years (2006 to present) I've had problems with 2 S&W revolvers, one Kimber 1911, one Browning Citori, one Ruger LC9, one SR1911. All of them would function with the exceptions of the Citori and the Kimber. This is over 50% of my gun purchases over this time period. Plus a Taurus, I forgot about it.
I like the older guns better.
pete2 is offline  
Old July 14, 2013, 06:56 PM   #43
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,513
Quote:
I think the comparison should be from the best periods for S&W, before WWII, and for the first 18 years or so after.
That's part of my bias. I've got some Hellstrom guns, but I'm certainly not running them in IDPA or IPSC. Most folks aren't running those hard, so we're probably not going to see many failures.

If I had X number of pre-58 pistols and X number of post-2000 pistols in similar configuration, and if I were to run them under the same conditions, I'd wager the pre-58 guns would shoot loose at some point sooner. If nothing else, the metallurgy is better.

That said, I don't imagine folks would be lining up to have me ride their classics that hard

FWIW, the pool I'm describing is from the early 1970's to present.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old July 14, 2013, 08:51 PM   #44
Winchester_73
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2008
Location: Pittsburgh PA
Posts: 2,859
Quote:
That's part of my bias. I've got some Hellstrom guns, but I'm certainly not running them in IDPA or IPSC. Most folks aren't running those hard, so we're probably not going to see many failures.

If I had X number of pre-58 pistols and X number of post-2000 pistols in similar configuration, and if I were to run them under the same conditions, I'd wager the pre-58 guns would shoot loose at some point sooner. If nothing else, the metallurgy is better.
Well granted that some would shoot loose, like the early 44 magnums. Realistically, since they were first, they would logically have some issues. Even Colt had 44 mag problems, about 34 years later with the Anaconda. Some of those guns were not designed for a diet of steady magnum loads, so the intent was not for them to take such work.

I agree in a sense with what you are saying. In some ways, we will never know since no one wants to torture test the vintage S&Ws. The other thing is that the new guns, are modifications of the older ones, anyways. Its an advantage that the new guns have, which many of the older ones don't.
__________________
Winchester 73, the TFL user that won the west
Winchester_73 is offline  
Old July 14, 2013, 10:43 PM   #45
TennJed
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2010
Posts: 1,526
Please don't kill me for this. I do like the traditional Single Action revolvers. I only want six rounds and fixed sights on my 45 colt ones .......BUT I got rid of my Ruger Single six to make room for a Ruger Single Ten. The extra rounds and fiber optic sight is an improvements over the original. .....IMHO, YMMV, yada, yada, yada
__________________
Find out just how tall I am
By jumping in the middle of a river
TennJed is offline  
Old July 15, 2013, 12:20 AM   #46
Sevens
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 28, 2007
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 9,104
I think the fact that 86 different companies are punching out 1911 pistols has made many of them try harder and while the guns (across the board) may not be "better", they sure have advanced and/or updated the platform. The beavertail grip safety, and the fact the the grip safety is designed to disable more surely... and the fact that the pistols run & feed more reliably than in days gone by are a testament either to progress, or as I mentioned -- simple competition.

Yes, these features were no invented today when everyone and their brother started marketing the pistols, but these were features that you practically had to commission back in the 1970s.
__________________
Attention Brass rats and other reloaders: I really need .327 Federal Magnum brass, no lot size too small. Tell me what caliber you need and I'll see what I have to swap. PM me and we'll discuss.
Sevens is offline  
Old July 15, 2013, 12:49 AM   #47
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,513
Quote:
I do like the traditional Single Action revolvers.
Actually, I would posit the Ruger single-actions as a good example of progress. They're built on stouter frames than their ancestors, and they incorporate an internal firing pin and transfer bar, making them safer.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old July 15, 2013, 07:44 AM   #48
dahermit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 28, 2006
Location: South Central Michigan...near Ohio, Indiana.
Posts: 3,505
In general it has been my observation that modern manufacturing processes and Statistical Process control, has given the gun manufacturer's the tools to make guns better. However, the "Quality" initiatives as ISO 9000 are a complete joke. Instead of studying to find and change the actual causes of poor quality, the money is spent on programs that, "create the conditions" that will (supposedly), enable better quality. An example: I worked at a factory producing prosthetic knees and ankles. Under ISO 9000, there was a hard and fast rule that all the elements of an assembly had to remain in bins that were labeled. When an internal inspector found some pins on the table (where they could be easily reached by the assembler), he/she was chided for violating ISO 0000 protocol when in fact, that pin was the only pin in the assembly and could not be confused with any other part. Another example: The factory in which I worked, as per ISO 9000 protocol developed extensive visual aids to supposedly use to train the assemblers to use the exact same assembly sequence as approved. However, when training assemblers, they never made the visual aids available, because they "needed the visual aids on file so they would be available to ISO 9000 inspectors when they came to inspect for compliance". In short, if that factory had spent its money and effort on actual quality control, they would have had less returns of faulty product. But, then they would not have been able to fly the ISO 9000 flag under the U.S. flag on the flag pole.
Thus, modern manufacturing methods a plus, neutralized by the negative of current management practices.
As applied to modern handguns, I purchase a new Colt Combat Commander a few years ago. It came with grips that had very poor checkering. A blind man could have seen it. Where was the final inspector? It also came with a recoil spring that was under-powered, caused malfunctions and had to be replace, as did the firing pin spring. The firing pin spring was also under powered and allowed the firing pin stop to drop down and tie-up the gun when fired. In regard to the recoil spring, when compared to the correct weight spring when working the slide, anyone who sat all day and assembled the 1911, would have known by the feel that it was drastically underpowered. Why did the assembler not detect the problem? Where the H... was the inspection?
I wonder, is Colt ISO 9000 certified?
__________________
Sometimes you get what you pay for, sometimes you only pay more for what you get.
Three shots are not a "group"...they are a "few".

If the Bible is the literal, infallible, unerring word of God...where are all those witches I am supposed to kill?
dahermit is offline  
Old July 16, 2013, 08:13 AM   #49
Skans
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 7,973
Here's a list of what I think is better now than say 30+ years ago:

1. Higher capacity handguns
2. Reliability of most decent semi-auto's - Jam-o-matic seems to be a term relegated to a time before the Glock era.
3. Cheap, powerful, reliable handgun (See Hi-Point)
4. More powerful and effective ammo - see .380, 9mm, 40, and even .45 in defensive loads - it ain't not your grandpa's .380.
5. Size - pocket sized 9mm +P semi-auto handguns. Weight of the gun to power ratio is way down!
6. Weight of most guns is way down due to materials.
7. Investment casting has greatly improved in consistency.
8. quality of CC guns. There is a huge improvement in the quality of small guns. Compare old Iver Johnson or US Revolver Co. .32 and .38 S&W's to a Ruger LC9, Rohrbaugh or Boberg. Does anyone really want to go back to the "good old days"? I've got a box full of these old frames, parts, etc. Whenever I get a notion that "guns were better in the good old days", I pull out this box of junk and look through it......not everything that is old was good!
Skans is offline  
Old July 16, 2013, 09:01 AM   #50
geetarman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 2,791
Quote:
There was a real reason for being hand-fitted - because they could not replicate the same parts over and over and over again.
That is a prize winning observation.

Materials have certainly improved but the real key is being able to produce part after part with a "build to nominal" mindset that results in parts assembling with minimum hand fitting.

The key is to have a process in control and understand the bandwidth of the process as it relates to part assembly and interchangeability.

When I was a teenager, the hot rodders called it "blue printing" an engine. Building to nominal and reducing variation yielded engines that ran smoother and delivered more horsepower with less wear and tear. The same concept allows manufacturers to build guns with easily obtainable replacement parts the user can install without handfitting. The system isn't perfect, but it is improving.
__________________
Geetarman

Carpe Cerveza
geetarman 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 04:50 AM.


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 0.16239 seconds with 7 queries