The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old February 6, 2010, 10:13 AM   #101
islander
Member
 
Join Date: July 30, 2009
Posts: 42
They 1: America is in dire need of people like you. The naysayers on this thread exemplify how far we have strayed from experimentation and innovation. I wish you all success in your efforts.
islander is offline  
Old February 6, 2010, 10:48 AM   #102
They1
Member
 
Join Date: November 24, 2009
Location: Missouri
Posts: 44
"G'day. This has been an interesting read.
I have a few questions. I assume that the holes are in line with the axis of the projectile. Have you tried drilling the hole to match the twist rate of the gun? or even in the oposite direction of twist?
If the hole was drilled at a rate other then that of the twist would that work to increase, maintain or decreast the rotation of the prolectile?"

G'day! You ask reasonable questions;

Once I got 'Tone-Lock' on the base idea of porting the cavity, I also looked at the multitude of configurations that could be employed within this new entity.

I have entertained the idea of "counter porting", but in the end, I could not see any real benefit.

One key aspect of an HC design, is to have little or no effect of flight path, accuracy or trajectory. HC ports exist only for that one millisecond at the point of contact with the target, to facilitate venting the gas only.

Therefore, the goal is to have a bullet that is as aerodynamically "neutral" as possible.

Also note that in-flight air exchange is minimal with this design, assuming there is any exchange at all would in fact have potential to 'interact' with airflow.
This being the case, port placement inline with bullet rotation could cause "hyper-rotation", with a potential to spin the bullet apart in flight.
Practicality is further negated by making bullets for left and right twist barrels.

Secondly, if the opposite was designed to reduce rotation, flight stability would very likely be effected.

In the end, I couldn't justify any other configuration, other than the current, as the best overall design for venting.

BTW: You're in a great part of Australia. I've dove the GBR a few times!
(Send me a Dig...don't forget the Beeswax, good oh?)
They1 is offline  
Old February 6, 2010, 11:02 AM   #103
To3T@g
Member
 
Join Date: January 10, 2010
Location: Auburn Alabama
Posts: 65
they1
I am very interested in ur new HC round and cant wait to hear more when ur testing is done. I personaly will wait til all testing is done to form any oppinion be it negative or positive about ur bullet design. Best of luck man! im keeping my fingers crossed for u
To3T@g is offline  
Old February 6, 2010, 11:09 AM   #104
mongoose33
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 23, 2009
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 228
I'm a bit amused. If this bullet was so great, do you think They would be promoting it so heavily here? He wouldn't have to, would he?

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's pretty likely to be a duck. I am starting to suspect a duck. How about you?

Further, he's real big on "Independent Testing." Well, so am I. Who was the independent tester? How do we know they are truly independent? And only three bullets, only one of which was the comparator?

For all we know, the "data" he's presented here is his own. He's told us to wait for it; now it's here. Whose, in fact, is it?

Further, do we know how many other bullets were tested which didn't produce results that look good? Or other non-hypercav bullets that performed better? Do we know if any trials were thrown out? (can you say "climategate"?).

No, we don't. We don't know anything except what he's telling us. I have a very hard time believing an "independent" tester would test...three bullets, only one of which is a control. Does this seem fishy to you, too?

And it's possible that the three bullets showed what he wanted so he stopped there, not actually trying hard to *disprove* the theory of hypercav (which approach, btw, is science).

[Off the top of my head, if I were going to test something like this, I'd probably do 30 bullets of each type (hypercav and controls) and then compare the results statistically. You can't do that kind of scientific testing with only 3 bullets.]

Maybe this hypercav approach works, maybe it doesn't. I don't know. As a scientist, I have an open mind, but I also have a mind that is sensitive to what and how much information is presented.

I haven't seen any independent testing. Have any of you?

And if you think you have, how do you know it's independent?


To demonstrate causality--a major goal of science--you must demontrate correlation, time order, and nonspuriousness.

"Correlation" means cause and effect are observably linked. Based on the "data" he's allowed us to see, that appears to be satisfied.

"Time order" means the cause precedes the effect. Pretty clear here too.

But "Nonspuriousness" means that there are no other explanations for the observed results. Other explanations can be things like sampling error (we have a sample of what here? Two, compared to one control?), other things which could have caused the observed results and are responsible for them.

As a scientist, I've learned that the key to finding out the "truth" is to be skeptical, to look for reasons why the conclusions are wrong. Those with any science training will recognize this--science can only disprove hypotheses, it can never prove them.

So I'm looking for reasons why this information we've been given might be wrong. This has nothing to do with slapping down inventors, being a naysayer, or any of the other comments applied to this approach. It has to do with how one does "science."

Apparently, a number of posters *want* to believe, and I believe They1 has done a good job encouraging that.

But I see interesting voids in the information presented to us. A terrible sample, with no indication of who the "independent" tester is, nor what credentials they bring to the testing. No indication of what bullets, if any, have been shot through gelatin whose results don't seem consistent with expectations (does "climate data" ring a bell here for anyone?).

I see an "inventor" with a significant self-interest in self-promotion, but strange ways in which this is presented. We're told by They1 that independent testing will tell the tale, he won't show us his own data (if he even has any, for which we can only take his word). We're told that there are manufacturers who are interested in this, but no names.

We're told an awful lot here, but how many of you have actually been able to verify any of this?

I used to live in Missouri; you have to show me.

And so far I've been shown little except a lot of drumbeating designed to create interest. I've not seen any real evidence.

Until shown otherwise, my hypothesis is that this is a Duck. It looks like one, quacks and walks like one. It even smells like one. Until I see evidence to the contrary, I'm labeling it a Duck.



And They1: My scientific "credentials" (note, btw, how concerned he is with that) are that I have a PhD in a science field. That PhD is from Penn State.
mongoose33 is offline  
Old February 6, 2010, 11:32 AM   #105
They1
Member
 
Join Date: November 24, 2009
Location: Missouri
Posts: 44
"They1

Although I have read several interesting observations and thoughts by others on your hollowpoint idea I am all for your creativity.

What do we as a group have to loose by being open to what may well be a better mouse trap? Like the "Field of Dreams" movie, if you build it they will buy it.

Many will test it and at some point it will either become the latest rage based on its merit or it will become just another round giving us yet one more round to have some fun with at the range.

I wish you all the luck in the world because in the end a little creativity is almost never bad."

* I certainly appreciate your attitude!

You make a profoundly accurate statement above...

You see, I'm posed with a perplexing issue; My main claim to Hypercav-class ammunition is to add reliability to existing bullet designs. Yet, any 'testing' I do will fall far-short of actually proving that particular point. It will take many thousands of rounds fired, not in gel-blocks, but unfortunately, in bad guys, to establish HC validity.

Logically,hunters will will be the first true "messengers" to review and report HC performance, both handgun and rifle.

I know talk is cheap. I know we've ALL heard way too many claims of great new products. I know I'm very skeptical until I have a reason to be otherwise, that opinion changing only with proof.

The only way I can prove the HC theory is to shoot lots of rounds. The only way I can prove it independently, is to have lots of different people shooting lots of rounds. That's why I thought the "wish list" would be a good idea.
If I send lots of folks samples, they can see for themselves, and report their own findings, from a wide spectrum of 'testers'.

That I believe, will tell the ultimate story here. One way or the other. And I welcome the outcome.
They1 is offline  
Old February 6, 2010, 01:39 PM   #106
sk330lc
Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Posts: 26
I am not an expert @ anything. Saying that.
Your idea has merit! I love new Ideas and your thinking outside the box. I have never like Hollow points. because of what you discribe as clogging and No expantion. The Golden Sabers are the exclution for me.
The Hornady http://www.hornady.com/store/critical_defense Rounds in My eyes and thought patterns seems to be a great Idea. Could you add anything to the Hornady Bullets??
If your Idea returns the Reliability back in hollow Cavity bullets I say GREAT!
Thank you for a great Read.
sk330lc is offline  
Old February 6, 2010, 02:40 PM   #107
They1
Member
 
Join Date: November 24, 2009
Location: Missouri
Posts: 44
MG33, I'll respond to your 'comments' in-line:

I'm a bit amused. If this bullet was so great, do you think They would be promoting it so heavily here? He wouldn't have to, would he?

*There's a vast difference between "promoting", and sharing an idea in real time. Since I'm not selling anything, asking for money, seeking endorsements of any kind or looking for any particular gain, I have to ask; what exactly is my motive here?
There's no plot...I'm just an inventor, who likes to shoot, wants to protect myself from bad guys, and happened on an idea that in the very beginning, I sought information/input in these forums because logically, this is a great source, from many very knowledgeable folks.

I was right in doing so too. To date, I've collected a wealth of useful information.

Of course, sharing this project in a public forum will also bring out the full spectrum of responses, and personalities as well. Anyone with a computer can share their thoughts, some with more questionable abilities to restrain themselves than others.
________

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's pretty likely to be a duck. I am starting to suspect a duck. How about you?

*You like saying that, don't you? Even without context or application.
________

Further, he's real big on "Independent Testing." Well, so am I. Who was the independent tester? How do we know they are truly independent? And only three bullets, only one of which was the comparator?

*Yes, I AM big on independent, unbiased testing. If you had actually read earlier posts, I mentioned the source; Brass Fetcher (www.brassfetcher.com). Feel free to contact them if you like to confirm their "independence".

Why would I pay for multiple "comparator" gel-block shots for existing rounds that already have tons of documented performance stats? Wouldn't that be stupid? Let alone a waste of money?
_______

For all we know, the "data" he's presented here is his own. He's told us to wait for it; now it's here. Whose, in fact, is it?

*Yep, you got me. I doctored the photos. I used a special ruler to show greater penetration. I hit the bullets with a hammer to enhance expansion. I used a chisel to re-shape the expanded bullets. I bribed brassfetcher to show positive results.

I also pulled the wool over the manufacturers eyes as well, by sending them samples to test themselves. Later, I'll sneak into their test labs after their closed with my hammer and chisel. (guess I'll need my special ruler too)
__________

Further, do we know how many other bullets were tested which didn't produce results that look good? Or other non-hypercav bullets that performed better? Do we know if any trials were thrown out? (can you say "climategate"?).

*Every test done to date has expanded as expected...except one.

While we have been exploring the 'possibilities' of HC applications, we loaded a 115gr Speer Gold Dot onto a .380 case, loaded with 2.9gr of #231.
the round clocked at 661fps, and didn't expand as hoped (only 20% of potential). It did penetrate approx. 14.6" as I recall.
The control round didn't expand at all, penetration close to the same.
_________


No, we don't. We don't know anything except what he's telling us. I have a very hard time believing an "independent" tester would test...three bullets, only one of which is a control. Does this seem fishy to you, too?

*The independent tester shot what we paid to have shot. At a $100+ per block, I'd rather invest in a few shots of several different calibers and brands, than many of just one.

Tell you what...you send me the money, and I'll test as many bullets as you want.
_________

And it's possible that the three bullets showed what he wanted so he stopped there, not actually trying hard to *disprove* the theory of hypercav (which approach, btw, is science).

*No, TWO bullets showed what I wanted to see so I stopped there. These were mid-performing S&B 9mm 115gr un-bonded JHP's. Further testing of other brands are pending. (science)
_________

[Off the top of my head, if I were going to test something like this, I'd probably do 30 bullets of each type (hypercav and controls) and then compare the results statistically. You can't do that kind of scientific testing with only 3 bullets.]

*See above
_________

Maybe this hypercav approach works, maybe it doesn't. I don't know. As a scientist, I have an open mind, but I also have a mind that is sensitive to what and how much information is presented.

*You can say you have an open mind all you want. But frankly from what I've seen you you TWO posts here, I think having an "open mind" is the LAST thing you can legitimately claim.
_________

I haven't seen any independent testing. Have any of you?

And if you think you have, how do you know it's independent?

*You're repeating yourself, sir...
_________


To demonstrate causality--a major goal of science--you must demontrate correlation, time order, and nonspuriousness.

"Correlation" means cause and effect are observably linked. Based on the "data" he's allowed us to see, that appears to be satisfied.

"Time order" means the cause precedes the effect. Pretty clear here too.

But "Nonspuriousness" means that there are no other explanations for the observed results. Other explanations can be things like sampling error (we have a sample of what here? Two, compared to one control?), other things which could have caused the observed results and are responsible for them.

As a scientist, I've learned that the key to finding out the "truth" is to be skeptical, to look for reasons why the conclusions are wrong. Those with any science training will recognize this--science can only disprove hypotheses, it can never prove them.

So I'm looking for reasons why this information we've been given might be wrong. This has nothing to do with slapping down inventors, being a naysayer, or any of the other comments applied to this approach. It has to do with how one does "science."

*On this, I totally agree. This statement is lucid, and chronicles the EXACT base formula and thought process necessary for any true, reasonable conclusion.
I used this very premise during Hypercavs' development. One moment of inspiration, followed by a series of incremental unemotional phases to establish any "errors of theory" along the way, and being prepared to stop at any point if an issue becomes manifest. At that point, you either address it, correct it, or terminate any further work.

(BTW: "nonspuriousness" is correct in this context. (elimination of rival hypotheses))
_________

Apparently, a number of posters *want* to believe, and I believe They1 has done a good job encouraging that.

*Maybe, just maybe, the "posters" simply see the base logic behind this project. These people aren't stupid.
Perhaps your education prevents you from seeing the obvious; that removing a 'compressible' gas from the expansion process, makes that process more efficient.

If you re-read my posts, I haven't 'encouraged' anything. I've simply shared this project. I leave any reactions to those who see it.
_________

But I see interesting voids in the information presented to us. A terrible sample, with no indication of who the "independent" tester is, nor what credentials they bring to the testing. No indication of what bullets, if any, have been shot through gelatin whose results don't seem consistent with expectations (does "climate data" ring a bell here for anyone?).

*I must ask; is all of this a "comprehension" issue with you? Or literacy? I gather that your a very well-educated guy, but the density you convey here makes me wonder where the malfunction is? (but only for a moment)
Perhaps you're angry that someone else thought of this instead of you? If so, not to worry. We did an international patent search back to 1922, and nobody else thought of it either.
_________

I see an "inventor" with a significant self-interest in self-promotion, but strange ways in which this is presented. We're told by They1 that independent testing will tell the tale, he won't show us his own data (if he even has any, for which we can only take his word). We're told that there are manufacturers who are interested in this, but no names.

*No, I've not given the names of the manufacturers, and I'm not going to.
You must have missed the memo about CONFIDENTIALITY.
When/if I enter into a licensing agreement with a given company, I'll announce who, if the licensee has no issue with such disclosure.
_________

We're told an awful lot here, but how many of you have actually been able to verify any of this?

I used to live in Missouri; you have to show me.

*Based on your general demeanor, I, on behalf of the Great State of Missouri, thank you for moving.
________

And so far I've been shown little except a lot of drumbeating designed to create interest. I've not seen any real evidence.

Until shown otherwise, my hypothesis is that this is a Duck. It looks like one, quacks and walks like one. It even smells like one. Until I see evidence to the contrary, I'm labeling it a Duck.

*An "open mind" has spoken.
*Quack...*
_______

And They1: My scientific "credentials" (note, btw, how concerned he is with that) are that I have a PhD in a science field. That PhD is from Penn State.

*I wasn't asking about your "credentials". Merely curious about your field of interest. I don't care that you have a PhD. Good for you.

I have a diverse background, and was just curious...

Interesting you're so defensive about such a benign question.

Credentials mean nothing if you cannot disseminate information. Any formal education means nothing if you don't have common sense. Any amount of knowledge means nothing if you don't have imagination.

Moosegoose,
I have taken the time to address you're ravings. Again, while you have this solid educational background, it appears you have significant issues and hostility. I suspect you work in obscurity, at least I hope so. Because you don't know how to communicate in a neutral/logical manner, you don't gather information well, and any other reasonable person working with you, would likely taken your head off by now.

I have no problem with critics. I enjoy and welcome spirited debate about many issues. I will never hesitate to explain, in detail, any project or subject based on the facts as I've developed to date. I also (although imperfectly) try to keep an open mind.

However, based on what I've learned from your statements, and your general demeanor, I do not wish to communicate with you further, and will not respond to any more of your "posts".

Mark Twain once said: "Never wrestle with a Pig, you both get dirty, and the Pig likes it."

Good day.
They1 is offline  
Old February 6, 2010, 02:42 PM   #108
They1
Member
 
Join Date: November 24, 2009
Location: Missouri
Posts: 44
Thank you SK.
They1 is offline  
Old February 6, 2010, 03:48 PM   #109
Unclenick
Staff
 
Join Date: March 4, 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 21,024
They1,

I seem to recall Rip Torn’s character, Chief Zed, had a line in the first MIB movie, that went something like, “We are Them, They; we are The Men In Black”.

When I was in engineering school, I minored in business administration. A management class I took included the observation that for any new business idea, about 5% of people will embracing it unconditionally, almost no matter how poor it might be, while about 5% of people will reject it intractably, almost no matter how excellent it might be. Another 10% will be persuaded to follow the first 5% at each end of the spectrum, but will be open to changing their minds if proven wrong. Everyone else will be some shade in between, but by and large would be objective enough to take some degree of wait and see attitude. It seems you’re getting a good sampling of the whole spectrum here.

I don’t have any insight into how your invention may fare? I wish you luck with it. As with a prior post, my instinct is to assume a small quantity of air compressed in the nose would have less influence on expansion than the stress risers that will form at the hole locations on impact. But I know fluid dynamics can produce unintuitive effects, so it wouldn’t be the first time my instinct was wrong in that arena. I also like to remind myself that, in centuries past, some persons hypothesized that rifling made guns more accurate because spinning the ball, like making it into some kind of satanic prayer wheel, caused small demons to perch on the end of the ball who maliciously guided it to better destroy the target. The point is, whether a particular explanation is right or wrong has no bearing on an invention’s utility. If it works, it works.

I suggest you acquire or borrow a copy of Duncan McPherson’s book, Bullet Penetration. It describes a testing protocol for placing pig skin and clothing over ballistic gelatin to address hollow point plugging and penetration concerns. You could follow that protocol for performance comparison. Even if you do it only for your own satisfaction, I think you’d find it a fascinating study.

It occurs to me I might be able to address a couple of the other concerns expressed, not as to your bullet’s terminal ballistics, but regarding its exterior (trajectory) ballistics. First, regarding bullet mass change from hole drilling: a typical jacketed bullet has a density of about 10.7 gm/cc which equals 165 grains/cc. A 1/32” hole, about an eighth of an inch deep will have a volume of 0.00157 cc’s. 0.00157cc X 165 gr/cc = 0.259 grains. Three such holes will thus weigh less than a grain. That is within manufacturing weight tolerances for many bullets, and may therefore be ignored for trajectory purposes at all but long range benchrest accuracy levels.

In his book, Rifle Accuracy Facts (Precision Shooting Pub., 2nd Ed, 2000, pp 171-172), aerodynamicist Harold Vaughn drilled a larger hole in the sides of 90 grain .277” rifle bullet to intentionally unbalance the mass. It resulted in the center of gravity being offset .00118” from the centerline. This opened the otherwise very accurate (1/4 moa) rifle’s groups up to about 2.5” at 100 yards. That spells disaster to a benchrest shooter, but a defensive load pistolero would be happy if about 2.5 moa were the only source of precision error he had?

Since your 1/32” hole, assuming it to be about an eighth of an inch deep, will only move the center of gravity of a 158 grain .357” diameter bullet by about two ten thousandths, it seems to me you are again doing something negligible to the trajectory for most purposes, even if you don’t drill more than one hole. Assuming wobble area were proportional to CG offset, you would be contributing an error area of about 0.4 moa by doing that. Of course, it won’t be that simple, rotation rate and stability factor at the velocity have to be considered, though they should make the effect on the 158 grain .357 at pistol velocities even less. But, of course, you are attempting to maintain balance anyway by drilling around the bullet. So, again, I don’t see how accuracy error significant to anyone but a benchrest or a long range varmint rifle shooter is likely to be introduced by adding your holes? It certainly won’t impact normal hunting accuracy.
__________________
Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member
CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor
NRA Certified Rifle Instructor
NRA Benefactor Member and Golden Eagle

Last edited by Unclenick; February 6, 2010 at 04:22 PM.
Unclenick is offline  
Old February 6, 2010, 05:12 PM   #110
They1
Member
 
Join Date: November 24, 2009
Location: Missouri
Posts: 44
Unclenick,

Thank you for posting that. Very wise words.

FYI: Ref. MIB- They are not They...I am. (But I guess they are too...)
(you know what they say...)

Your statistical analysis of general perceptions makes perfect sense, although I never broke it down like that.

It would appear that you were 'awake' during class.

Back to work: Maintaining flight accuracy has been as important as the base concept itself. I choose 'symmetry' in port configuration for both reasons.

Your calculations suggest that even one port would have minimal on flight stability, but considering the by-product results we've been seeing, it makes sense to continue along this path.

The machine being designed to mass-produce HC bullets will be well within tolerances by the computer-controlled indexing (.002" per lock-up point)

In addition, please note that the 1/32 dia ports have been successful based on the rounds tested to date (.380, .38, .38+P, 9mm, 9mm+P and their respective cavity areas).
Additional rounds being worked on are other 9mm-class, .40S&W, .45ACP and rifle calibers, along with Sabot 12GA.

I anticipate that "calibration" (i.e. larger diameter ports)will be necessary considering the higher velocities and larger cavity areas needing to be evacuated. Copper rounds have notably larger HP cavities.
They1 is offline  
Old February 6, 2010, 10:35 PM   #111
Al Norris
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
I would caution folks that it is fine to attack the premise (the argument), but it is against our rules to attack the person. Previous posts have walked a very fine line in this respect. Too fine.

Be warned.
Al Norris is offline  
Old February 12, 2010, 12:10 PM   #112
They1
Member
 
Join Date: November 24, 2009
Location: Missouri
Posts: 44
Hc website update:

Hi all,

FYI: We've updated the website Photo Gallery to show some additional test results, and on the 'Marketing Page' (scroll down), includes a video of a water jug test.
(*You'll note the impact force difference of the HC round, vs. the control (the entire stack of jugs are moved back about 3". Watch the cardboard back-stop)

http://www.hypercavbullets.com

More test results are pending, and I'll post them as they become available.
They1 is offline  
Old February 12, 2010, 12:41 PM   #113
Scrapperz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 8, 2010
Posts: 169
I do think your idea is interesting.


Quote:
If your theory is that the compressibility of the air trapped in the hollow point is delaying your expansion, why not fill the cavity with an incompressible solid like polyethylene? That way you don't even have to wait for the cavity to fill with tissue but the expansion starts the instant you contact a solid barrier.
__________________
Quote:
JointheNRAkeepAntiGunnersaway!

Last edited by Al Norris; August 13, 2010 at 08:22 PM. Reason: Member Request
Scrapperz is offline  
Old February 12, 2010, 12:51 PM   #114
They1
Member
 
Join Date: November 24, 2009
Location: Missouri
Posts: 44
Thanks scrapperz.

I think the insert rounds were a significant improvement, but Poly is actually a 'semi'-compressible medium, and still must be part of the expansion "reaction".

I really like the inserts, especially when it fills the cavity. I think it's a vast improvement to the plugging issue, but again, it's still a 'secondary' reactive medium.

Hornady rocks.
They1 is offline  
Old February 27, 2010, 01:55 PM   #115
They1
Member
 
Join Date: November 24, 2009
Location: Missouri
Posts: 44
Test Updates

FYI: Just getting some new test results in.

http://hypercavbullets.com

New vids from NP's latest testing on the 'Marketing' page. There will be more to follow.

New pics in the Gallery, including our first, and very interesting rifle shots, 30-30 Copper and 7.62. (including some 4-layer denim.)

Also, BrassFetcher has completed another Gelatin test: Federal Tactical LEO 165gr .40. 1-control, 1-Bare gelatin, 1-Gel w/4-layer denim.

I'll post the results when I get them.
They1 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 10:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.10469 seconds with 10 queries