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 August 8, 2019, 05:10 PM   #1
Rangerrich99
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 20, 2014
Location: Kinda near Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,124
When did the M1 Garand become available to civilians?

Got into a discussion with someone concerning military arms and whether they were originally military or were they converted from hunting weapons, and specifically, at what point was the M1 Garand made available to the public? i tried a couple searches here and Google and haven't found anything so I hoped one of the wise old elves here could help me out.

Thanks in advance for your help.
Rangerrich99 is offline  
Old August 8, 2019, 05:18 PM   #2
eastbank
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 7, 2008
Location: pa.
Posts: 2,150
made for the military in the late 30,s I think. the first ones into the cilvian market were from stickly fingered returning GI,s and then I think from the DCM program in the 50,s, and then I think the new springfield co. made them and now the CMP program has been selling them.
eastbank is offline  
Old August 8, 2019, 10:43 PM   #3
Bart B.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Posts: 6,823
Garand history... https://www.thoughtco.com/world-war-...garand-2361245

From a 1978 American rifleman magazine
Quote:
"When M14 rifles were issued, in the late 1950s, the DCM released excess quanitites of the arms it was to replace.". Between 1958 and 1967, when all sales were terminated, Americans purchased 12,000 M1903 rifles, 279,000 M1903A3 rifles, 3600 National Match rifles, 1600 service grade M1 rifles, 3200 NM and 145,600 service grade M1911 and 1911A1 pistols, 8,800 12-ga. shotguns and 207,000 M1 carbines. Sales between 1958 and 1967 netted $12.3 million dollars for return to the Treasury." It was in 1978 that the sales program was reopened when the DCM announced that " a limited number of service grade M1 rifles would be released for sale to eligible individuals. The price would be $94.30 plus administrative, packing, handling and transportation charges, for a total of approximately $ 112.00 per rifle. Prior purchase of either a NM M1 rifle or a service grade M1 disqualifies a person from purchasing a rifle of either type under this sales program." Requests were to be sent to Director of Civilian Marksmanship, Room 1E053, W. Forrestal Bldg., Wash., D.C. 20314.
__________________
US Navy Distinguished Marksman Badge 163
Former US Navy & Palma Rifle Team Member
NRA High Power Master & Long Range High Master
NRA Smallbore Prone Master

Last edited by Bart B.; August 8, 2019 at 10:50 PM.
Bart B. is offline  
Old August 12, 2019, 11:33 PM   #4
veprdude
Member
 
Join Date: March 18, 2019
Posts: 51
In my research, just after WW2 they were considered too new for the civilian market. However in the re-arsenal process M1 receivers and parts out of spec were sold as scrap with the receivers cut. "Savvy" people rebuilt some of them for general sale and were the first "Rewelds". There may have been a few on the civilian market from GI bringbacks (if that was allowed for M1s at the time-don't know). But I don't think they were offered to the public until well after Korea and M14s were plentiful. Most issuable Garands were sent to satellite conflicts in Asia etc.

They definitely weren't deemed as "civilian" weapons at the time of development.
veprdude is offline  
Old August 13, 2019, 01:12 PM   #5
T. O'Heir
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 11,225
Just after W.W. II, the M1 Rifle was still the official Service Rifle.
"...the first "Rewelds"..." Were junk then and they are now too. It's very difficult to get two unmatched parts to work properly.
"...from GI bring backs..." No such thing. The troopies were not allowed to keep their issue kit. Any rifle that was brought back in a duffle bag is stolen.
The Korean War ended in 1953. No such thing as an issued M-14 until 1957 when it was officially adopted. Rumour has it that some troopies could buy an M1 Rifle or Carbine as early as the late 50's after 1958.
__________________
Spelling and grammar count!
T. O'Heir is offline  
Old August 13, 2019, 04:30 PM   #6
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 11,047
Bart is correct (per normal). In the late 70s I got my first M1 delivered to my door for $112.70, never forget that day.

I was shooting for the AK NG at the time and I was packing for a match in Hawaii on Friday. The M1 was delivered on Thursday. I openned the package, looked at the M1, then over to the gun case holding my M14. Looked at the M1 again, then the M1, and says what the heck. I replaced the M14 with the Garand. We had an Air Guard guy on our team who was using the Air Guards M1. Barrowed some ammo and a couple clips.

The first shots I fired out of my Garand was the two sighters for the 200 yard Off Hand stage of the 800 AG match. The sights of the M1 are the same as that on the M14 so it is on the M14, A couple quick adjustments and I was on. Didnt do that bad in that match if I remember right.

I got a couple other M1s from the CMP, but that first M1 is my primary for shooting CMP Garand Matches.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old August 13, 2019, 05:00 PM   #7
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 6,341
In the early/mid 60's,prior to the aftermath of JFK's death,I recall the ads for outfits such as Klein's being common in various magazines and newspapers.
It would be like a page out of Shotgun News in Popular Mechanics.

These are the ads infamous for the $12 Carcano. I might be fuzzy on exact prices,but Garands were advertised for + or - $79. M1-Carbines were + or -$45.
send them a money order and they would mail you the gun.

There was also the wonderful Service Armament catalogue.

It sold .55 Boyes anti tank rifles,20 mm Lahtis and Solothurns,etc...operational,and ammo. IIRC,20 mm was about $1.50 a round. No doubt the source of the Solothurn in the book "Unintended Consequences"

They sold 60 and 81 mm mortars,inert practice ammo,Japanese knee mortars,flame throwers......You want a Ferret Armored Car? No problem.

They even sold tanks.

For the Stalwart Fellow who may need to repel the terrorist.

Somehow,we got along. We were a more Polite Society then.
HiBC is offline  
Old August 13, 2019, 06:25 PM   #8
4V50 Gary
Staff
 
Join Date: November 2, 1998
Location: Colorado
Posts: 20,451
It's my understanding that they were being sold in the '60s, then it was cut off and all that was left was re-welds of dubious quality. Supply didn't ease up again until the '70s.
__________________
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt. Molon Labe!
4V50 Gary is offline  
Old August 13, 2019, 07:03 PM   #9
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,109
Quote:
Bart is correct (per normal). In the late 70s I got my first M1 delivered to my door for $112.70, never forget that day.
But if you would have purchased one in 1963, you could have paid less than $80.
https://gundigest.com/more/classic-g...able-m1-garand

Here is the Klein's ad from 1963 where Oswald ordered his Carcano rifle, but listed in the ad are M1 Garands for $90.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F...sination_rifle
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old August 13, 2019, 08:11 PM   #10
2damnold4this
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 2,362
Looking at the add DNS linked, it seems crazy to me that a High Standard .22 derringer was the same price as a Colt 1917 in 45 ACP.
2damnold4this is offline  
Old August 13, 2019, 08:48 PM   #11
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 6,341
Back to the original post,if you are wondering if the Garand was ever intended to be a civilian sporting rifle...No.
It was purpose built to submit to the military.

An interesting recoil operated ,rotating bolt semi-auto that was intended for commercial rather than military purposes was the model 08 (1908) Remington.

Not an ideal military rifle,bt a decent sporting rifle.
HiBC is offline  
Old August 14, 2019, 12:35 AM   #12
LRDGCO
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 7, 2019
Posts: 19
As per HiBC, Remington and Winchester both began offering semi automatic rifles to the general public as commercial production during the second half of the first decade of the 20th century. Some of both were used, rather unsuccessfully by the French in WWI, and rather more successfully by law enforcement (notably F Hamer v. C. Barrow) but they were civilian firearms.

Interestingly, the M1 Garand, was I be!ieve officially adopted by the Army in 1936. In 1939, a case that Democrats had cooked up with Roosevelt to judicially ratify the 1934 National Firearms Act made its way to his packed SCOTUS. In " Miller", the majority opinion held that the NFA ban on short barreled shotguns was constitutional on two main grounds: 1) the military allegedly had no need for such firearms and, relying to the militia clause in the Second Amendment, the Court deemed firearms for which there was no military need subject to restriction, and; 2) the short barreled shotgun was not in common use.

The Left rues the day. Miller is judicial precedent which the Court must take into account in any further rulings. Ironically, since the AR15 is the obvious civilian counterpart to the main battle rifle of the U.S. military and since the MSR has been the most popular selling model of rifle for more than a decade, it is most definitely in common use. Further, since there were plenty of semi auto rifles in common use for decades when Miller was decided, and the M1 Garand had been adopted as the main military infantry rifle, there can be no question that Miller clearly protects semi automatic rifles under the Second Amendment. The irony is so very delicious.
LRDGCO is offline  
Old August 14, 2019, 06:12 PM   #13
agtman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2001
Location: midwest
Posts: 2,204
Quote:
As per HiBC, Remington and Winchester both began offering semi automatic rifles to the general public as commercial production during the second half of the first decade of the 20th century. Some of both were used, rather unsuccessfully by the French in WWI, and rather more successfully by law enforcement (notably F Hamer v. C. Barrow) but they were civilian firearms.

Interestingly, the M1 Garand, was I be!ieve officially adopted by the Army in 1936. In 1939, a case that Democrats had cooked up with Roosevelt to judicially ratify the 1934 National Firearms Act made its way to his packed SCOTUS. In " Miller", the majority opinion held that the NFA ban on short barreled shotguns was constitutional on two main grounds: 1) the military allegedly had no need for such firearms and, relying to the militia clause in the Second Amendment, the Court deemed firearms for which there was no military need subject to restriction, and; 2) the short barreled shotgun was not in common use.

The Left rues the day. Miller is judicial precedent which the Court must take into account in any further rulings. Ironically, since the AR15 is the obvious civilian counterpart to the main battle rifle of the U.S. military and since the MSR has been the most popular selling model of rifle for more than a decade, it is most definitely in common use. Further, since there were plenty of semi auto rifles in common use for decades when Miller was decided, and the M1 Garand had been adopted as the main military infantry rifle, there can be no question that Miller clearly protects semi automatic rifles under the Second Amendment. The irony is so very delicious.
Huh?

And then there's the Heller decision which articulated a new framework of analysis for 2A claims. It effectively, albeit sub silencio, overruled Miller or at least limited it to its facts.
agtman is offline  
Old August 15, 2019, 12:32 AM   #14
LRDGCO
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 7, 2019
Posts: 19
It should be fairly clear, just in case it wasn't, that fora on the internet are a bad place to get legal advice. It would appear that you are suggesting Heller somehow negates and erases the ruling in Miller. It does not.
LRDGCO is offline  
Old August 15, 2019, 04:27 AM   #15
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 19,994
Quote:
No such thing. The troopies were not allowed to keep their issue kit. Any rifle that was brought back in a duffle bag is stolen.
There is the "official" policy and then there is what often happened. Some guns were definitely stolen. Others were not. I have heard from a number of US WWII vets how, when they were discharged from service they were offered the chance to buy their service rifle/handgun. And if they chose to, they got a bill of sale, so that the guns weren't "stolen".

I also understand that to keep the brass happy, at least some of the guns which were sold, were listed in the records as "lost in combat". It appears that the official policy was troops didn't get to keep them, but the unofficial policy was that troops could buy them if they so desired, and if the guns were "lost in combat" the brass looked the other way...

Quote:
the majority opinion held that the NFA ban on short barreled shotguns was constitutional on two main grounds: 1) the military allegedly had no need for such firearms and, relying to the militia clause in the Second Amendment, the Court deemed firearms for which there was no military need subject to restriction...
what I have heard about this is that the High Court used "court speak" in its ruling, and didn't actually say the shotgun in the case wasn't a suitable militia weapon, but rather said "this court has been presented no evidence..." (because the defense didn't show up) and therefore, ruled in the government's favor.

Either way, the result was the same, the Gov won which gave the appearance of the Court's blessing to what they claimed, and did.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old August 15, 2019, 07:14 PM   #16
agtman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2001
Location: midwest
Posts: 2,204
Quote:
It would appear that you are suggesting Heller somehow negates and erases the ruling in Miller. It does not.
Still wrong, chief.

McReynold's Miller opinion was a convoluted piece of crap. The only few points it got right Scalia picked up on in Heller, which is now the controlling framework for all 2A claims anyway, despite significant resistance by anti-2A judges on the lower federal district and appellate courts.

Hence the need for Trump to get appointed & confirmed as many Scalia-type 'originalists' as possible to vacancies on the federal benches.
agtman is offline  
Old August 15, 2019, 07:27 PM   #17
LRDGCO
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 7, 2019
Posts: 19
You made a claim that is false, and now you are trying to weasel back out of it. Heller does not erase Miller. You do not understand jurisprudence.

Last edited by Frank Ettin; August 15, 2019 at 08:37 PM. Reason: delete snark
LRDGCO is offline  
Old August 15, 2019, 08:35 PM   #18
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by LRDGCO
You made a claim that is false, and now you are trying to weasel back out of it. Heller does not erase Miller. You do not understand jurisprudence. ....
One of your problems is that you don't bother to actually read cases.Of course you also lack sufficient foundational legal knowledge to really understand what's going on. If Heller did not erase Miller, it pretty much relegated it to the status of an historical oddity.

In any case, in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939) the Court described the core issue as (at 178):
Quote:
...In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.

          The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power—'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, § 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view....
On the other hand, in Dist. of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) the Court notes (at 628-629, footnotes omitted):
Quote:
....As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one's home and family,” 478 F.3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster.

        Few laws in the history of our Nation have come close to the severe restriction of the District's handgun ban. And some of those few have been struck down. ...

        It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms ( i.e., long guns) is allowed. It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upper-body strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid....
The Court in Miller saw the protection afforded by the Second Amendment to be limited to the keeping of arms suitable military use. In contrast, the Court in Heller makes no such connection. And in Heller the Court noted (at 623):
Quote:
...Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons.

        It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment. Justice STEVENS claims, post, at 2845, that the opinion reached its conclusion “[a]fter reviewing many of the same sources that are discussed at greater length by the Court today.” Not many, which was not entirely the Court's fault. The defendants made no appearance in the case, neither filing a brief nor appearing at oral argument; the Court heard from no one but the Government (reason enough, one would think, not to make that case the beginning and the end of this Court's consideration of the Second Amendment)...
So as the Court in Heller, attempting to salvage something of Miller, interprets Miller (at 624-625):
Quote:
....We think that Miller 's “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P.2d 94, ..
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old August 16, 2019, 12:38 AM   #19
Pathfinder45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 7, 2008
Posts: 2,734
Seems like this thread has drifted off topic by quite a bit......
Pathfinder45 is offline  
Old August 16, 2019, 04:41 PM   #20
agtman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2001
Location: midwest
Posts: 2,204
Quote:
Seems like this thread has drifted off topic by quite a bit.
Maybe a bit, but Frank nailed it.

LRDGCO is still trying hard to figure it out.

End of discussion.


Last edited by agtman; August 16, 2019 at 05:15 PM.
agtman is offline  
Old August 16, 2019, 11:59 PM   #21
Cosine26
Junior Member
 
Join Date: July 7, 2019
Posts: 11
M1 Sales

M1 Sales
“What year did the Garand become available to the general public?”
That is the question that was asked. That is not an easy question to answer. The first time the M1 was available for sale to civilians, by the Army, was an announcement in the “American Rifleman” for October of 1955, though they may have been available and the 1954 National Matches. However, they were not available to the “general public” as you were required to be “NRA members who are enrolled with the Director of Civilian Marksmanship.” I do not believe that the DCM ever sold to the ‘general public’ as the purpose of these DCM sales was to advance the cause of civilian marksmanship. It was not intended to supply the collector or the gunsmith for ‘bubbering’ into a sporting rifle. When I purchased my M1NM in 1962, all correspondence was through the ARMY not the DCM (though the DCM was an army function). At that time and up into the 1970’s I believe that one was allowed to purchase “one in a lifetime”; though later it was determined that M1’s did wear out and competitors would be allowed to either exchange their present M1 or purchase another one. (Someone who knows the details please help me out here.) The last M1 that I purchased through the DCM was a “service grade” M1 and while the first letter was addressed to the DCM all subsequent correspondence was through the Department of the Army. I was required to submit (1) my NRA membership card, (2) High Power Competition classification card, and my membership card in a DCM affiliated club. To the best of my knowledge, the M1 (unlike the M1903, M03A3, M1917, M1 carbine) was never declared “surplus” while the DCM controlled the sales and distributions
Sometime in the 1950 – 1960 time frame, some dealers got a supply of M1’s from a source that I never determined and sold to the general public. This created a lot of”hate and discontent” among NRA members who had to wait months to receive their M1’s. There was quite a lot of discussion in the “American Rifleman” and some discussion about the legal ownership of these firearms. It was published that M1’s that had been furnished to our allies in WWII could be sold by the receiving country to bolster its post-war economy. Note; this does not include the “Lend-Lease” M1’s - or initially it did not though this may have change later.

After the CMP was established the rules changed and since I have never purchased through the CMP, I have not followed the rules there so cannot speak to them

Here is an ad that appeared in the February 1960 edition of the American Rifleman


https://imgur.com/5YDVwOq

FWIW

Last edited by Cosine26; August 17, 2019 at 11:56 AM.
Cosine26 is offline  
Old August 17, 2019, 11:55 AM   #22
Cosine26
Junior Member
 
Join Date: July 7, 2019
Posts: 11
MI Sales

From the October 1955 American Rifleman Magazine


Ml RIFLES AVAILABLE


_ AT present Caliber .30 Ml (Garand) rifles only are available
to NRA members who are members of clubs enrolled with the Di-
rector of Civilian Marksmanship. All stocks of rifles Model 1903 and
Model 1903 Al (Springfield) as well as Model 1917 (Enfields) are
exhausted and it is not anticipated that rifles of these models will
become available. The following information applies to the purchase
of Caliber .30 Ml (Garand) rifles now available:
1. Nomenclature and stock number-Rifle, U. S., Caliber .30
Ml, NM, BOOI-7266476.
2. Equipment included-oiler and thong case; thong and com-
bination tool or cleaning rod; brush; web sling; grease con-
tainer.
3. Price-$98 plus $2.85 packing and handling charges, f.o.b.
shipping point (subject to change without notice).
4. Basis-One rifle per NRA member who is also a member of
good standing in a DCM-enrolled club.
5. Where to submit purchase applications-Commanding Offi-
cer, Letterkenny Ordnance Depot, Chambersburg, Pa., Attn:
MISMA (ORDKE-OBB).
6. What to include with application:
(a) Current NRA membership card or photostat of such
card.
(b) Current DCM club membership card or certificate by
club secretary or treasurer to the effect that applicant
is a member of good standing.
(c) Payment in full ($100.85) by certified check or postal
money order, payable to the Treasurer of the United
States.
(d) Shipping address, if different from mailing address.
(e) Stamped, self-addressed envelope for return of mem-
bership cards.
7. Shipping point-Rifles will be available only at Raritan Ar-
senal, Metuchen, N. J.
8. Shipment will be express, collect, unless otherwise instructed.
OTHER SUPPLIES
Ammunition and ammunition components-address all orders
to Commanding General, Ordnance Ammunition Command, Joliet,
Ill.
Cleaning and preserving materials-address all orders to Com-
manding Officer, Raritan Arsenal, Metuchen, N. J.
Quartermaster items (target cloth, danger flags, special oil lubri-
cation preservation)-address all orders to Commanding General, Co-
lumbus General Depot, Columbus 15, Ohio.
All other items (targets, target supplies, cleaning equipment, etc.)
-address all orders to Commanding General, Ordnance Weapons
Command, Rock Island, Ill.
NRA members can obtain a complete price list of the equipment
and supplies available, together with order forms, from National
Rifle Association, 1600 Rhode Island Ave., N. VV., Washington 6,
D. C., or Director of Civilian Marksmanship, Washington 25, D. C.,
on request.
Cosine26 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 07:38 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 0.09612 seconds with 9 queries