The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Art of the Rifle: Semi-automatics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old December 31, 2018, 08:12 PM   #1
M1Rifle30-06
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 5, 2012
Posts: 116
How Reliable are Carbine Length Gas System AR15s?

I'm wanting to buy an AR15 for home defense. I've been reading about the various options and am stuck on the carbine vs midlength thing. It appears that some special forces are going to midlength gas systems, and I'm reading a lot of people saying that the midlength is the way to go for reliability.

I've found a decent deal on an LMT SPM16 model, which has a carbine length gas system and 16" barrel. How reliable are quality brand AR's (such as LMT or Colt) with carbine length gas systems? How often do they jam due to the shorter gas system?
M1Rifle30-06 is offline  
Old December 31, 2018, 09:02 PM   #2
Mobuck
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2010
Posts: 6,786
The carbine gas may be "more reliable" than the middy since the carbine gas is more positive (and more violent) than longer gas systems on the shorter barrels.
I'm currently carrying an 18" barrel rifle gassed AR that very likely won't work in extreme cold since it's just above minimum function now. When it gets around zero, I'll switch to the carbine gassed 16" cause it never fails-even when wet, snowy, frozen or whatever.
Mobuck is offline  
Old December 31, 2018, 09:17 PM   #3
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 7,909
Quality 16” carbine gas ARs (such as LMT or Colt) are very reliable. They’ve done tests where they stripped all the lubrication from a 16” carbine gas and then fired it for 2,400 rounds without a single stoppage (http://www.defensereview.com/the-big...m4-unreliable/).

Unless you are running a heavy firing schedule or a suppressor and a fairly stout firing schedule, the main difference most people notice with a midlength is just a somewhat milder recoil. Once the gun gets really hot, the extra dwell time in a 16” carbine gas system makes it more difficult to extract brass. Again, if you have a quality AR - chromed barrel, H-buffer, proper sized gas port, in-spec buffer spring... you’ll have to push the gun really hard to see those problems. If you have an unlined bore with an oversized gas port (to run with a wide range of ammo) and a cheap buffer, it is easier to see those issues at lower round counts.
Bartholomew Roberts is online now  
Old December 31, 2018, 10:30 PM   #4
M1Rifle30-06
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 5, 2012
Posts: 116
Quote:
The carbine gas may be "more reliable" than the middy since the carbine gas is more positive (and more violent) than longer gas systems on the shorter barrels.
I'm currently carrying an 18" barrel rifle gassed AR that very likely won't work in extreme cold since it's just above minimum function now. When it gets around zero, I'll switch to the carbine gassed 16" cause it never fails-even when wet, snowy, frozen or whatever.
I saw a test done by Crane earlier this year (it'll be last year in about 2 hours!) that showed the midlength having more rounds between stoppages in low temperature testing than the carbine length they compared it to. Have you experienced your rifle length gassed gun having problems in cold temps?
M1Rifle30-06 is offline  
Old December 31, 2018, 10:32 PM   #5
M1Rifle30-06
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 5, 2012
Posts: 116
Quote:
Quality 16” carbine gas ARs (such as LMT or Colt) are very reliable. They’ve done tests where they stripped all the lubrication from a 16” carbine gas and then fired it for 2,400 rounds without a single stoppage (http://www.defensereview.com/the-big...m4-unreliable/).

Unless you are running a heavy firing schedule or a suppressor and a fairly stout firing schedule, the main difference most people notice with a midlength is just a somewhat milder recoil. Once the gun gets really hot, the extra dwell time in a 16” carbine gas system makes it more difficult to extract brass. Again, if you have a quality AR - chromed barrel, H-buffer, proper sized gas port, in-spec buffer spring... you’ll have to push the gun really hard to see those problems. If you have an unlined bore with an oversized gas port (to run with a wide range of ammo) and a cheap buffer, it is easier to see those issues at lower round counts.
That test is impressive, though I wonder if that's typical or if it's a "data set of one". But I suppose it's been well proven enough in combat. So why does it seem like many consider midlegnth a must for reliability?
M1Rifle30-06 is offline  
Old December 31, 2018, 10:58 PM   #6
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 7,909
Because midlengths are more reliable and have less maimtenance costs. Are YOU going to see a difference if you aren’t firing 1,000 rounds suppressed in an 8-hour period? Probably not.

All of my 16” ARs are midlengths; but I wouldn’t hesitate to go with a SPM16 or LE6920 if I got a good deal on one. Worst case scenario, after you burn up the carbine barrel, you replace it with a midlength.
Bartholomew Roberts is online now  
Old January 1, 2019, 08:12 AM   #7
Mobuck
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2010
Posts: 6,786
"Have you experienced your rifle length gassed gun having problems in cold temps?"

No, I have not. This is merely conjecture based on current performance.
In my experience and based on the fact that fired cases fall @ 5 o'clock just past the shooter's elbow, the rifle will become too sluggish to function in the cold.
This AR was built specifically to get best performance, accuracy, and ease of shooting from Hornady Steel Match w/o regard for utility or overall function.
Mobuck is offline  
Old January 1, 2019, 10:31 AM   #8
M1Rifle30-06
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 5, 2012
Posts: 116
Quote:
Because midlengths are more reliable and have less maimtenance costs. Are YOU going to see a difference if you aren’t firing 1,000 rounds suppressed in an 8-hour period? Probably not.
That test by Crane referenced is what primarily has me considering mid length. While I do not plan to shoot high volumes of fire in a short amount of time, this would be a home defense weapon that my family's safety may depend on, so I would like to get the most reliable AR15 I can.

However, there's a couple of things that don't make sense to me regarding the Carbine vs Midlength Crane test. For instance, the midlengths had about 1,994 Mean Rounds Between Stoppages for ambient temperature testing. That's still not very high, in my opinion, and the carbine does even worse.

Compare that to a test by the Army in which the MRBS for M4 Carbines was determined to be 3,592. (Source on Slide 10 here: https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovc...apons_NDIA.pdf )

That is a significant disparity in the results. I don't doubt the integrity of those reporting these numbers, but something seems off to me. It doesn't add up. Am I missing something?

If I could count on a MRBS of 3,592 as shown in the Army report, I would have no qualms about buying this LMT carbine length. But the Crane test makes me hesitant.

Happy New Year!
M1Rifle30-06 is offline  
Old January 1, 2019, 11:15 AM   #9
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 7,909
The three top causes of stoppages in any semi-auto firearm are: Magazines, ammunition, and operator error. If I run carbines with old black follower mags, run midlengths with the new M855A1 mags, and then use M855A1 for ammo, you’ll see entirely different results than if we use M193 and Magpul followersfor both.

Additionally, firing schedule makes a difference. If you fire 10,000 rounds at 240 rounds at a time but plenty of cooling time between cycles, you’ll see fewer stoppages than if you fire it continuously until it reaches an unsafe temperature.

As heat builds up in the system, it takes longer for the brass to shrink away from the chamber walls. One of the reasons midlengths function better is because in a 14.5” or 16” barrel, they give the brass more time to shrink, meaning the extractor has less work to do. Search around the Internet and you’ll find pics of brass with chunks bit out of the rim or the rim is bent on the case - that’s what happens when the bolt begins to extract too early.

To know why the tests had different results, you’d need to know the ammo used, magazines, firing schedule, etc. And there are definitely some weird findings in that midlength study. Although the MRBS number referenced in your slide is from an old powerpoint with no source and references an unknown 2006 source, so it should be taken with a grain of salt as well. For example, the midlength test was conducted with M855A1, which tends to be harder on rifles than M855 or M193 as it operates near max pressures. The 2006 test would have likely used M855. So, just the ammo explains a lot.

In terms of home defense, you aren’t likely to have 400F chamber temperatures or long periods of sustained fire. An old Bushmaster that starts ripping rims after 210 rounds of sustained fire will work just as well as the new URGI. The Bushmaster will be a real pain though if you take formal training to learn to use the rifle better because it will go down the morning of the first firing day and then you won’t have a rifle until it cools down again.

Last edited by Bartholomew Roberts; January 1, 2019 at 11:22 AM.
Bartholomew Roberts is online now  
Old January 1, 2019, 11:23 AM   #10
M1Rifle30-06
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 5, 2012
Posts: 116
Quote:
In terms of home defense, you aren’t likely to have 400F chamber temperatures or long periods of sustained fire. An old Bushmaster that starts ripping rims after 210 rounds of sustained fire will work just as well as the new URGI. The Bushmaster will be a real pain though if you take formal training to learn to use the rifle better because it will go down the morning of the first firing day and then you won’t have a rifle until it cools down again.
What about the LMT carbine length, would it have similar problems in a formal training class as the Bushmaster? This AR I get will be my HD and General Purpose all-around carbine, so I would like to take formal training classes with it and will need it to stand up to that kind of fire.

There's a Colt LE6920 for even cheaper from the same source.
M1Rifle30-06 is offline  
Old January 1, 2019, 11:38 AM   #11
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 7,909
I haven’t used an LMT in over 10 years; but it was top of the line when I did. The LE6920 is one of the most tested firearms ever built, so its pretty much the benchmark. I doubt you’ll have problems with either one.

The thing to keep in mind is that its a whole system - magazines, ammo, rifle, optic, etc. If you buy a military spec rifle designed to feed 5.56 military ammo and then feed it .223 Tula steel case, you can still have issues. Likewise, if you buy a more commercial oriented rifle with an oversized gas port so it will run the Tula reliably, it may have issues when it gets fed higher pressure military or premium defensive ammo in 5.56.

To give another example, M855A1 has a different ogive than M855. So even though these are both NATO 62gr military ball ammo, you can see a measurable difference in reliability just by changing the shape of the magazine follower.

Think about how you plan to use it. What can you afford to feed it for a 1,200 round training class? But again, I don’t see a problem with either of the rifles you mention - especially if you put some of that money you save towards quality magazines, ammo, and training. Training and a basic carbine gas AR beats a Knights SR15E3 and no training every time.

I’ll also add I’ve seen commercial oriented budget ARs go 5,000 rounds without a stoppage or a cleaning. The main issue with the cheaper ARs is lack of consistency across the product line. You may get the best deal ever or you may get a lemon. But we are in a golden age of AR15s... even the cheap stuff now often runs really well.

And there is such a huge knowledge base on these rifles, that even if you do have issues, you can often troubleshoot it yourself quickly with nothing more than Google and $20 of parts.

Last edited by Bartholomew Roberts; January 1, 2019 at 11:43 AM.
Bartholomew Roberts is online now  
Old January 1, 2019, 11:46 AM   #12
MarkCO
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 1998
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 2,680
Reliable "short" term or "long" term. I run most of my 16" guns with an intermediate gas system (halfway between mid and rifle) and they run until I shoot out the barrel. But I would surmise than in really cold weather with cheap steel cased ammo, they might not run. My carbine 16" runs 40 grain bullets at 2200 fps 100% reliably, but I would not want to shoot a 77 5.56 pressure round out of it.

Mid length 16" ARs are a good point for general use and if maintained, used with good mags and ammo, you won't have any issues. Same for the Carbine length, but you will have to clean the BCG a little more and replace the gas rings a little sooner.
__________________
Good Shooting, MarkCO
www.CarbonArms.us
MarkCO is offline  
Old January 1, 2019, 12:47 PM   #13
M1Rifle30-06
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 5, 2012
Posts: 116
Quote:
I haven’t used an LMT in over 10 years; but it was top of the line when I did. The LE6920 is one of the most tested firearms ever built, so its pretty much the benchmark. I doubt you’ll have problems with either one.

The thing to keep in mind is that its a whole system - magazines, ammo, rifle, optic, etc. If you buy a military spec rifle designed to feed 5.56 military ammo and then feed it .223 Tula steel case, you can still have issues. Likewise, if you buy a more commercial oriented rifle with an oversized gas port so it will run the Tula reliably, it may have issues when it gets fed higher pressure military or premium defensive ammo in 5.56.
I would plan to run M855 through it most of the time, and 5.56mm Federal Trophy Bonded Bear Claw for home defense (or possibly Federal Fusion .223 if I can't find TBBC). I don't plan to shoot steel case ammo through this.

The LE6920 is NIB for $670 while the LMT is NIB for $900. If the Colt is the benchmark, though, perhaps I should consider that instead if I do get a carbine-length gas system. Regarding the Crane test, I'm curious what magazines they used.

http://www.peosoldier.army.mil/docs/...r-Oct%2009.pdf

Quote:
The demonstrated current reliability is over 3600 MRBS as a result
of our continuous improvement program
This Army paper also references an MRBS of "over 3600". I'm not sure how reliable this source is. The language does come across as patting themselves on the back.

Quote:
Reliable "short" term or "long" term. I run most of my 16" guns with an intermediate gas system (halfway between mid and rifle) and they run until I shoot out the barrel. But I would surmise than in really cold weather with cheap steel cased ammo, they might not run. My carbine 16" runs 40 grain bullets at 2200 fps 100% reliably, but I would not want to shoot a 77 5.56 pressure round out of it.

Mid length 16" ARs are a good point for general use and if maintained, used with good mags and ammo, you won't have any issues. Same for the Carbine length, but you will have to clean the BCG a little more and replace the gas rings a little sooner.
I clean my firearms after every range trip, regardless of round count. I also replace parts before they get to the point of wearing out, so I'm not too concerned about having to clean/replace parts sooner. Reliability (with proper cleaning and maintenance) is the most important factor to me. It sounds like the carbine length is plenty reliable for self defense, but the question is whether it'd hold up during a high-volume-of-fire training class or similar scenarios.
M1Rifle30-06 is offline  
Old January 1, 2019, 12:56 PM   #14
M1Rifle30-06
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 5, 2012
Posts: 116
If I decide to go midlength I suppose my choice would have to be the Geissele Colt clone complete URGI upper receiver, but I'd still need to get a lower. Plus we're talking $1300 just for the upper, as opposed to a complete rifle in the Colt or LMT. I'd like to think money is no object with this though, since it will be my main AR15 that may have to be called upon for defense. I'm conflicted.
M1Rifle30-06 is offline  
Old January 1, 2019, 02:57 PM   #15
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 7,909
In calculating your budget, remember you are going to need magazines, ammo, slings, cleaning gear, case, etc. And of course, being able to splash out for training is a huge advantage. The difference between a fancy URGI and the LE6920 would pay for a two-day carbine training course with a reputable trainer and still leave you $130 + the cost of a lower ahead.

Honestly, I’d go for the best value and then train until you wear it out. By that time, you’ll get hands on with different gear, see how other guys’ stuff works, and you’ll know what you want if you decide you want to spend a lot of money on an AR.
Bartholomew Roberts is online now  
Old January 1, 2019, 04:21 PM   #16
M1Rifle30-06
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 5, 2012
Posts: 116
How does the reliability of a 16" carbine-gas AR like the 6920 or LMT compare with the MK18? Does the longer dwell time (I assume the 16" carbine length would have longer dwell time, correct me if I'm wrong) negatively or positively affect reliability? To keep things similar, we're talking unsuppressed.

The reason I ask is, many spec-ops guys use MK18s, and if a proper 16" carbine AR is more reliable than that, I suppose it should be more than enough for me.

I like to have things be more reliable than I need, so even if I won't be shooting full auto high volumes of fire, it'd still be nice to have something that could stand up to it.
M1Rifle30-06 is offline  
Old January 1, 2019, 04:57 PM   #17
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 7,909
The Mk18 operates well in a narrower window than an LE6920, or most 16” AR15s for that matter. They need a lot of tweaking from the original AR design to run well and even then they have a shorter service life and are less tolerant of different ammo or conditions.

The AR15 is originally designed as a 5.56mm 20” barrel with a rifle length gas tube. As you move the gas port closer to the chamber, it gets bombarded by unburned powder particles that erode the gas port, causing it to become larger with time. The amount of barrel after the gas port is also important. Once the bullet exits the barrel, gas will exit the muzzle insteas of the smaller gas port. So if you have a stubby barrel after the gas port, you need a larger gas port to get enough gas to function before the bullet exits.

Also, as the gas port moves closer to the chamber, the travel time is reduced - so the gas travels a shorter distance and starts trying to unlock the bolt earlier in the process. So with a 10.3” barrel and carbine gas, you are creating a difficult scenario - you’ve got an earlier unlock, a bigger gas port that erodes faster, and a short period to get the gas to the expansion chamber in the bolt carrier.

Longer dwell time can negatively or positively effect function depending on the rest of the system. If you take a 16” carbine gas rifle and give it a gas port the size of a Mk18, longer dwell time is going to be bad because you’ll be pumping a lot more gas into the system while still having erosion and timing issues. In fact, one of the points of the midlength is to reduce dwell time rather than increase it. On the other hand, if you take the 10.3” barrel of a Mk18 and lengthen it to 11.5” (increasing the dwell time) without changing the gas port size, you’ll increase the range of conditions where that rifle works. And of course, the type of ammo you use, the buffer and spring, the weight and design of the bolt carrier - these all affect how it works too.
Bartholomew Roberts is online now  
Old January 1, 2019, 06:40 PM   #18
M1Rifle30-06
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 5, 2012
Posts: 116
Quote:
The Mk18 operates well in a narrower window than an LE6920, or most 16” AR15s for that matter. They need a lot of tweaking from the original AR design to run well and even then they have a shorter service life and are less tolerant of different ammo or conditions.

The AR15 is originally designed as a 5.56mm 20” barrel with a rifle length gas tube. As you move the gas port closer to the chamber, it gets bombarded by unburned powder particles that erode the gas port, causing it to become larger with time. The amount of barrel after the gas port is also important. Once the bullet exits the barrel, gas will exit the muzzle insteas of the smaller gas port. So if you have a stubby barrel after the gas port, you need a larger gas port to get enough gas to function before the bullet exits.

Also, as the gas port moves closer to the chamber, the travel time is reduced - so the gas travels a shorter distance and starts trying to unlock the bolt earlier in the process. So with a 10.3” barrel and carbine gas, you are creating a difficult scenario - you’ve got an earlier unlock, a bigger gas port that erodes faster, and a short period to get the gas to the expansion chamber in the bolt carrier.

Longer dwell time can negatively or positively effect function depending on the rest of the system. If you take a 16” carbine gas rifle and give it a gas port the size of a Mk18, longer dwell time is going to be bad because you’ll be pumping a lot more gas into the system while still having erosion and timing issues. In fact, one of the points of the midlength is to reduce dwell time rather than increase it. On the other hand, if you take the 10.3” barrel of a Mk18 and lengthen it to 11.5” (increasing the dwell time) without changing the gas port size, you’ll increase the range of conditions where that rifle works. And of course, the type of ammo you use, the buffer and spring, the weight and design of the bolt carrier - these all affect how it works too.
I see. So I assume the 6920 (which to be honest I'm leaning towards over the LMT now if I don't go midlength) has a properly smaller sized gas port in proportion to it's gas system length and barrel length? It sounds like the 6920 is more reliable than Mk18s, generally. If I throw in an LMT Enhanced BCG, would that put it in the same ballpark of reliability as the URGI?

I don't want to go with just "good enough" reliability for this rifle, but if the carbine length 16" is still far above the "good enough" level (that is, more reliable than Mk18s which are considered adequately reliable for military work), that might swing things in favor of the 6920, using the money saved for magazines, ammo, sling, cleaning gear, case, and training. Perhaps this would put me farther ahead in the long run than going for the URGI + complete lower.
M1Rifle30-06 is offline  
Old January 1, 2019, 07:26 PM   #19
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 7,909
I don’t know what you consider the “good enough” level; but the Colt M4 that the 6920 is derived from is already one of the most reliable rifles in the world.

Also, a common error I see is people buying “Enhanced Reliability” parts designed to solve a specific problem with out understanding how they effect the overall system. I can fill an AR15 with “enhanced reliability” parts from reputable manufacturers that have been well reviewed and still take a plain production rifle and make it a stoppage generating machine.

The LMT Enhanced Bolt Carrier Group was originally developed for short barrel rifles like the Mk18. If you look, you’ll notice it has three vent holes on the side instead of two so that it vents excess gas faster. It also has a different track cut for the cam pin to delay unlocking. If your rifle isn’t overgassed, it can “enhance” it right into not functioning. Note that LMT’s SPM-16 offering uses a standard bolt carrier, not their own Enhanced BCG. That’s a good sign it probably isn’t necessary, or possibly even desirable, in a brand new 16” carbine.

I’d agree that you are way overthinking this. A rifle is a machine and like any machine it will suffer wear and tear if you use it. Wear out a 6920 or SPM16 and you’ll have practical experience to make better buying decisions. In the interim, you’ll have a solid, reliable rifle while you spend the $15,000 or so in ammo necessary to wear it out.



The rifles in that picture are Colt M4s. They’ve been subjected to a 2.5 hour simulated sandstorm. They then fired 6,000 rounds with an average stoppage rate of 1.4%. At the end of the test, the extra wear from the sand had rendered every rifle in the test, including the M4s, unsafe to even use by military standards; but they just kept chugging along.

Last edited by Bartholomew Roberts; January 1, 2019 at 07:32 PM.
Bartholomew Roberts is online now  
Old January 2, 2019, 01:47 AM   #20
Theohazard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 19, 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 3,780
OP: Don’t forget that the military M4 has a 14.5” barrel. That gives it a shorter dwell time than the civilian 16” barrel with the same gas length.
__________________
0331: "Accuracy by volume."
Theohazard is offline  
Old January 2, 2019, 11:22 AM   #21
El_Cabra
Junior Member
 
Join Date: November 9, 2018
Posts: 7
Maybe consider getting the carbine length gas system and installing a PigTail gas tube.
El_Cabra is offline  
Old January 2, 2019, 12:03 PM   #22
M1Rifle30-06
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 5, 2012
Posts: 116
How reliable are the 20" guns (specifically a Colt AR15A4) compared to carbine or midlegth? My source is an FFL dealer who is a local friend and always offers me a couple of hundred dollars off. He called me this morning saying he got a Colt AR15A4 I might like.

But overall I'm leaning towards the 6920. I suppose I am overthinking things.
M1Rifle30-06 is offline  
Old January 2, 2019, 01:14 PM   #23
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 7,119
A carbine gas system will maybe power through more gunk than something with a softer gas system.
But it is said that a carbine length gas system will wear out parts at a faster rate.
It’s of little consequence to me, because the ammunition cost required to wear one out far outweighs the cost of a new rifle.
rickyrick is offline  
Old January 2, 2019, 02:40 PM   #24
M1Rifle30-06
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 5, 2012
Posts: 116
Quote:
A carbine gas system will maybe power through more gunk than something with a softer gas system.
That makes sense to me and I've heard it a lot, so why does midlength seem to be able to go longer without jams according to government testing?
M1Rifle30-06 is offline  
Old January 2, 2019, 02:42 PM   #25
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 7,909
Whatever route you end up going, I suggest not replacing parts on any firearm until you have identified a definite function problem with that part. Don’t swap to a new telestock until you know what you don’t like about the original. Don’t add “reliability enhancements” that fix problems you haven’t had yet.

I’ve got about $300 of dubious “enhanced reliability” parts for various firearms sitting in my parts box right now, so I’m not just making this up.
Bartholomew Roberts is online now  
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 10:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.09207 seconds with 8 queries