The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old February 22, 2012, 05:30 PM   #1
Crusty Deary Ol'Coot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 19, 2009
Location: Deary, Ideeeeeeho
Posts: 531
First hand info needed ------------

Afternoon all,

Cabala's is currently offering a single action revolver that a friend is interested in.

The F.LLI Pietta, "1873 Single Action Revolver".

Of course, Cabela's says it is the equal of RUGER, which I personally question.

Anyone have first hand info on this maker or the revolver?

Hope to keep Bob from wasting his bucks if it is like a lot of off shore replica firearms.

Keep em coming!

Crusty Deary Ol'Coot
Crusty Deary Ol'Coot is offline  
Old February 23, 2012, 12:57 PM   #2
McShooty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 4, 2012
Location: Northern Missouri
Posts: 407
I would also question equality with Ruger. However, I have a couple of Pietta percussion jobs, an 1851 Navy and an 1860 Army and I feel the workmanship is pretty good. The action is smooth, lockup is secure, and the trigger is OK. Among Italian makers, Uberti is probably better known for quality cartridge replicas.
McShooty is offline  
Old February 23, 2012, 02:01 PM   #3
Crusty Deary Ol'Coot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 19, 2009
Location: Deary, Ideeeeeeho
Posts: 531
McShooty,

The one thing that no has ever been able to effectively question in regard to RUGER is their strength.

They may not be the finest finish or the smoothest right from the box, but they are unquestionably strong and worthy.

However, like it or not, the same can't be said for all colt replicas.

I have seen the insides on one that I can recall, and it was junk from the day it was boxed up at the factory.

This is what I am concerned about in regards to my friends looking at any off shore production.

What is the quality and worthyness. How does it last.

Personally, I come down on the side of strong and long lasting as the rest can be taken care of or is simply not important. While relyability is!

CDOC
Crusty Deary Ol'Coot is offline  
Old February 23, 2012, 02:28 PM   #4
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 8,000
Pietta =/= Ruger.

I have a C&B F.LLI PIETTA ...... I wish it was a Ruger ......

I have probably fewer than 500 shots through it, and it has gone to Gun Krankenhaus once already .......
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Old February 23, 2012, 03:05 PM   #5
newfrontier45
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 23, 2012
Posts: 921
"Equal" in what regard???
newfrontier45 is offline  
Old February 23, 2012, 03:18 PM   #6
m&p45acp10+1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2009
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 3,536
I have a close relative that owns a Pieta in .45 Colt. While not a Ruger, and definately not a stout of a frame as a Ruger. It goes bang, and feels like a single action SAA clone should. In fact I like the way it feels in hand better than a Vaquero. It has stood up to a couple of years of firing two or three hundred rounds a month, and still works with no problems.

If he wants one that handles the uber hot loads, and can be used for hunting then he should get the Ruger. For a gun that will shoot standard loads then either will do the job. He would probably go bankrupt trying to wear it out shooting it.
__________________
No matter how many times you do it and nothing happens it only takes something going wrong one time to kill you.
m&p45acp10+1 is offline  
Old February 24, 2012, 04:52 PM   #7
McShooty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 4, 2012
Location: Northern Missouri
Posts: 407
I certainly agree about the high strength of Rugers and everyone I have had (twoNM Black Hawks in.45 Colt) has also been very accurate. However, I have never had a Vaquero and I understand the new ones have lighter frames than the first ones, so probably great for cowboy action but maybe not hunting with top end .45 loads. One more thought on Italian quality. I recently got a Cimmaron "Model P Jr." with interchangeable .32 H&R and .32-20 cylinders. These are made by Uberti and the workmanship is very good. The finish is excellent, the action is smooth and the trigger is crisp. It shoots quite well. The full frame Cimmaron SA revolvers would be equally as good I would think.
McShooty is offline  
Old February 24, 2012, 06:38 PM   #8
gak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 28, 2005
Location: Aridzona
Posts: 2,767
Among the import/Italian SAA clones, actually Pietta is considered by many to be the best re fit and finish. I have a Cimarron P (Uberti) with zero complaints, but many have said if you can't get a USFA, the Pietta is the cat's meow. (I'm talking their premium/polished models--such as distributed by EMF as Great Western IIs. I know nothing of plainer (matte finish, etc) variants if that what this (OP) is. And...I'm not comparing to Ruger--they are different kettles of fish--neither referring to good (as re Ruger = strength and 6-up carry, or bad (lack of "Colt feel")--just different,...just as USFA and Colt are different from Rugers as well. If you want the Colt SAA feel and action, and that's more important than Ruger's full 6 safe carry capability or, on large frame Blackhawks and old Vaqueros, hunting with hot .45 loads, then the Pietta's probably fine.

EDIT: just re-read the OP's thread title. No "first-hand" experience beyond handling a few of the above EMF GWIIs at a gunshow.

Last edited by gak; February 24, 2012 at 06:46 PM.
gak is offline  
Old December 16, 2016, 10:26 PM   #9
TheGuyOfSouthamerica
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 10, 2016
Posts: 578
I own an Heritage Rough Rider SAA 357 mag revolver. This gun is supposed the same as the Pietta 1873 SAA model in 357 mag. Pietta confirmed me the gun is made by them for Heritage (imported to USA). Made in Italy it states on the gun.
The gun seems to have the same dimensions as the Colt SAA 1873 model. That means the cylinders has the same dimensions but is in the smaller 357 mag caliber. That makes the cylinder more beefy as it has more steel between the holes and overall more forged steel in the cylinder as the SAA in 45 Long Colt. The 45 LC indeed has very thin cylinder walls. This one in 357 mag has very thick cylinder walls. That means it withstands more pressure and is overbuilt.
The Pietta is made of forged steel. That is allways stronger than cast or MIM guns like the Rugers.
So Rugers seems to be stronger but really have thicker metal since you have to make cast metal thicker to get the same strength as forged steel. So the Rugers are not really stronger but appear only to be thicker. The Pietta is as strong as the Ruger is.

Only after 3 cylinders you start to loose the screws of the SAA models. Locktite them and you never loose a screw anymore.
The Pietta in all regards is a very nice built strong revolver. Way better than the Taurus I had.
They are worthed it.
TheGuyOfSouthamerica is offline  
Old December 17, 2016, 12:10 AM   #10
Driftwood Johnson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2014
Location: Land of the Pilgrims
Posts: 1,246
Quote:
The Pietta is made of forged steel. That is allways stronger than cast or MIM guns like the Rugers.
So Rugers seems to be stronger but really have thicker metal since you have to make cast metal thicker to get the same strength as forged steel. So the Rugers are not really stronger but appear only to be thicker. The Pietta is as strong as the Ruger is.
Howdy

That is incorrect!

Ruger frames and many of the lockwork parts are made from Investment Castings, which are much stronger than parts made from die castings. However Ruger barrels and cylinders are still machined from solid stock, no different than anybody else does. Ruger does not use MIM (Metal Injection Molding) for any of there parts, that is Smith & Wesson. And MIM is only used for the small lockwork parts, MIM is not suitable for parts that need great tensile strength, such as a cylinder. S&W frames, barrels, and cylinders are still machined from solid stock, just like everybody else does.

Rugers are stronger than most other brands because their machined cylinders have more metal between adjacent chambers, it is that simple.

Regarding Pietta, for a long time they were considered second to Uberti as far as fit and finish was concerned. Pietta seems to have been working on that and a lot of shooters are reporting that Pietta revolvers are just as good as Uberti these days.

Regarding the strength of a Pietta revolver compared to a Ruger, you have to specify exactly which Ruger you are talking about. Ruger Blackhawks are still made on large frames (except for a few dealer exclusive models). These large frame revolvers will have large diameter cylinders with lots of extra metal between the chambers and will be stronger than a Pietta. The 'original model' Vaquero was built on the same frame as the Blackhawks and had the same large cylinder and was just as strong as the Blackhawk. That version of the Vaquero is no longer manufactured. The New Vaquero is closer in size to an actual Colt and so is its cylinder. The New Vaquero is only supposed to be fired with standard SAAMI max pressure ammo, no different than a Colt, Uberti, or Pietta. Some claim that the New Vaquero is stronger than a Colt, but Ruger does not make that claim.
Driftwood Johnson is offline  
Old December 17, 2016, 01:04 AM   #11
TheGuyOfSouthamerica
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 10, 2016
Posts: 578
My Pietta 357 mag has way more metal between the cylinder holes than this Ruger Vaquero (though it may be an 45 LC gun).

Source and copyright http://www.guns.com/review/ruger-vaquero-2/
TheGuyOfSouthamerica is offline  
Old December 17, 2016, 01:14 AM   #12
TheGuyOfSouthamerica
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 10, 2016
Posts: 578
See this thread as well http://www.rugerforum.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=675874

My Pietta has equal or even more metal betwern cylinder holes than the cylinder on the left.
TheGuyOfSouthamerica is offline  
Old December 17, 2016, 01:42 AM   #13
TheGuyOfSouthamerica
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 10, 2016
Posts: 578
In the dark my Pietta 357 mag cycilinder measures 1.660“ diameter.
TheGuyOfSouthamerica is offline  
Old December 17, 2016, 01:55 AM   #14
TheGuyOfSouthamerica
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 10, 2016
Posts: 578
In the dark my Pietta 357 mag cycilinder measures 1.661“ diameter.

«Original vaquero' cylinder is 1.730 in diameter, New Vaquero cylinder is 1.675" in diameter. Ignore the fact that one is 45 Colt and one is 357 Mag. A 45 Colt New Vaquero cylinder will have the same outside dimensions as a 357 Mag. The frame of the New Vaquero is sized down approximately 20% from the old one, to house the smaller cylinder.»
Source and copyrigth https://www.thehighroad.org/index.ph...aquero.796393/

My Piettas 357 mag cylinder looks as the cylinder below (Ruger new vaquero 357 mag). Not much difference in cylinder meat.
TheGuyOfSouthamerica is offline  
Old December 17, 2016, 02:24 AM   #15
Driftwood Johnson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2014
Location: Land of the Pilgrims
Posts: 1,246
Did you happen to notice that the photo you are referring to was posted by me back in 2007?

The only reason I showed the New Vaquero 357 Mag cylinder on the left is because I don't have a New Vaquero chambered for 45 Colt.

For a true comparison, the cylinder in the center is from one of the 'original model' Vaqueros with the large frame. The cylinder on the right is from a 2nd Gen Colt, you can see the Colt insignia on the rear of the cylinder.

Compare how much steel there is between the chambers of the large frame Vaquero cylinder and the Colt cylinder. That will give you a good idea of the relative strengths. A Pietta chambered for 45 Colt will be very similar to the Colt.

Here is another photo I have posted on numerous gun boards over the years.

Left to right, the cylinder from an Uberti Cattleman, Ruger 'original model' large frame Vaquero, and the 2nd Generation Colt cylinder. All three cylinders are chambered for 45 Colt, so it is an apples to apples to apples comparison. Clearly, there is more steel between chambers with the Ruger cylinder than either of the other two. I forget exactly how much, I haven't measured them in years. I seem to remember there is something like .050 of steel between chambers of the Colt and Uberti, something like .080 between chambers of the Ruger. I can measure them again if you would like.

A Pietta cylinder chambered for 45 colt will be very similar in dimensions. This is because the distance from the center of the cylinder to the center of the bore of the barrel is very similar in the Colt, the Uberti, and a Piettal. The Ruger cylinder is bigger because the distance from the center of the cylinder to the center of the bore is larger, so the individual chambers can be spread out slightly more.


Driftwood Johnson is offline  
Old December 17, 2016, 02:27 AM   #16
TheGuyOfSouthamerica
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 10, 2016
Posts: 578
I did not post that photo. However i included the source and copyrigth of whatever I posted.

Obviously the Pietta is the same as Colt since it is its copy. That is why I bought an 357 mag instead 45 lc since the 357 mag is inherently stronger. The Pietta 357 mag is about the same as the Ruger New Vaquero 357 mag referred to its cylinder metal content.
TheGuyOfSouthamerica is offline  
Old December 17, 2016, 02:29 AM   #17
Driftwood Johnson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2014
Location: Land of the Pilgrims
Posts: 1,246
You didn't post the photo? Then how come I can see it?

I am not disputing who posted the photo, I am telling you that I took the photo.
Driftwood Johnson is offline  
Old December 17, 2016, 02:33 AM   #18
TheGuyOfSouthamerica
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 10, 2016
Posts: 578
Oh yes you are rigth. I meant i did not post the same photo you posted here recently.
TheGuyOfSouthamerica is offline  
Old December 17, 2016, 05:13 AM   #19
DaleA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 3,285
Driftwood Johnson the wealth of information you post for us and the clear manner you post it are VERY much appreciated! Thanks.
DaleA is offline  
Old December 17, 2016, 07:59 AM   #20
TheGuyOfSouthamerica
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 10, 2016
Posts: 578
I second that about Driftwood Johnson, DaleA.

Last edited by TheGuyOfSouthamerica; December 17, 2016 at 09:37 AM.
TheGuyOfSouthamerica is offline  
Old December 17, 2016, 09:51 AM   #21
TheGuyOfSouthamerica
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 10, 2016
Posts: 578
The steel from hole to outside the cylinder measures 0.120" and the steel between cylinder holes measures 0.140".
This is for the Heritage Rough Rider 357 Magnum 5.5" SAA Revolver (made by Pietta as they Claim according to the model 1873 SAA).

Driftwood Johnsson. it would be interesting to know the steel thickness between cyclinder holes of the Ruger OLD Vaquero and Ruger New Vaquero in 357 Magnum both.
TheGuyOfSouthamerica is offline  
Old December 17, 2016, 01:35 PM   #22
dgludwig
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 12, 2005
Location: North central Ohio
Posts: 6,029
Hey, TheGuyOfSouthamerica, some friendly advice: Don't get into a spitting match with Driftwood Johnson when it comes to revolvers, especially sa ones. My advice is to take notes and stop sending them.

This is a pretty old thread. Maybe there weren't many "New" Vaqueros out there five years or so ago to compare cylinder measurements with.
__________________
ONLY AN ARMED PEOPLE CAN BE TRULY FREE ; ONLY AN UNARMED PEOPLE CAN EVER BE ENSLAVED
...Aristotle
NRA Benefactor Life Member
dgludwig is offline  
Old December 17, 2016, 02:25 PM   #23
TheGuyOfSouthamerica
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 10, 2016
Posts: 578
There is no match or competition of any Kind.

I just was interested in measurements about the <<steel thickness between cyclinder holes of the Ruger OLD Vaquero and Ruger New Vaquero in 357 Magnum both.>>

Just wondering how the Pietta SAA 1873 357 mag compares to the Ruger Vaqueros in 357 mag.

These Forums I do not see as any competition but as an complement and Knowledgebase. We are working together instead of against each other.
TheGuyOfSouthamerica is offline  
Old December 17, 2016, 03:56 PM   #24
dgludwig
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 12, 2005
Location: North central Ohio
Posts: 6,029
I was just messing with you a little bit, TheGuyOfSouthamerica. Your inputs are valued and have much to recommend.
__________________
ONLY AN ARMED PEOPLE CAN BE TRULY FREE ; ONLY AN UNARMED PEOPLE CAN EVER BE ENSLAVED
...Aristotle
NRA Benefactor Life Member
dgludwig is offline  
Old December 17, 2016, 05:38 PM   #25
Driftwood Johnson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2014
Location: Land of the Pilgrims
Posts: 1,246
Howdy Again

Let's back up the bus a moment.

We have been arguing apples and oranges here.

TheGuyOfSouthamerica: I did not realize you were trying to compare the strength of a 357 Magnum Pietta to the strength of a 357 Magnum Ruger. Looking back at your first post I should have realized it.

The fact is, it is a moot point. It does not matter which one is stronger, they are both very strong. Sometimes folks ask if it is OK to shoot full power 357 Magnum ammunition in a 357 Magnum replica of a Colt, such as an Uberti or a Pietta. They ask if they should just be shooting light Cowboy loads in them.

A Colt sized single action revolver is a big gun, and it has a big cylinder. Colt began chambering the Colt Single Action Army for the 357 Magnum cartridge shortly after the cartridge was developed, way back in 1935. Since 1935 metallurgy has advanced quite a bit and modern cylinders are even stronger than the 1935 Colt cylinders. Questioning the strength of a SAA sized cylinder when chambered for a large caliber such as 45 Colt is one thing, because the web between chambers will be much thinner than the web between chambers with smaller calibers. But it is not a cause for concern with a large cylinder, such as the Colt SAA or it's Italian made clones when chambered for the smaller diameter 357 Magnum. Of course, good sense has to be applied. Any gun can blow up if its design limits are exceeded.

Just for the fun of it, I just grabbed a S&W Model 28, which is a large frame (N frame to be specific) double action revolver, basically the same size as the original 357 Magnum revolver that S&W built for the brand new 357 Magnum revolver in 1935. Overall diameter of the N frame S&W cylinder is only about .050 larger than a Colt SAA cylinder. In a large caliber such as 45 Colt or 44 Magnum, that is a significant number. For 357 Magnum it does not matter a hill of beans.

OK, let's get back to the question at hand. The webs between chambers (the thinnest point between chambers) of my 357 Mag New Vaquero are running around .140. There is a little bit of variation, but lets call it .140 to keep things simple. The distance from a chamber to the outside of the cylinder is running around .128. This is actually not such an important number as you might think, we will get into why in a little bit.

Just for comparison, the thickness of the web between chambers on the S&W Model 28 is running around .165, and the distance at the thinnest point between chambers and the outside of the cylinder is running about .128. Again, the second number needs a little bit more explanation, we will get into that in a minute.

OK, let's look at, left to right, the Cattleman, the big, 'original model' Vaquero, and the Colt SAA cylinders now. All three are chambered for 45 Colt.



Web Thicknesses:

Uberti Cattleman: averaging about .043
Ruger 'Big' Vaquero: averaging about .065
Colt Single Action Army: averaging about .045

Distance from chamber wall to OD of cylinders:

Uberti Cattleman: averaging .065
Big Vaquero: averaging .078
Colt SAA: averaging .058

(I have a pretty big pile of guns without cylinders out on the bench right now, I hope I don't get them confused).

OK, now it's time to talk about why that second number is not as significant as one might think.

The thinnest cross section of metal on most revolver cylinders is usually not the web between chambers, nor is it the section between the chamber and the outer diameter of the cylinder. The thinnest spot is usually the thickness of metal between the slot cut into the cylinder for capturing the bolt and an underlying chamber. When a cylinder ruptures from an over pressure event, that is usually the place the failure starts, and then the crack propagates from there.

I first became aware of this phenomenon about ten years ago in a conversation I had with an engineer who was working for Ruger at the time. He told me they had decided to test a Vaquero with ever hotter loads until the cylinder burst. They took high speed video and I remember he told me that when they played back the video in slow motion they could see plain as day that the rupture started at the bolt locking slot, then the crack spread forward and back along the thin cross section between the chamber and the outer diameter of the cylinder. Then, it wasn't finished, both chamber walls on either side of the chamber in question folded out like hinges at their narrowest point. As these walls folded, they ruptured, and then two more cracks appeared, at the bolt locking slots of the two adjacent chambers. This pair of cracks also propagated forward and back along the thinnest part of the chambers, and two chunks of steel exploded off the cylinder, leaving three chambers blown open.

Here is the cylinder from a very old Merwin Hulbert revolver. A friend managed to blow it up and he gave me the cylinder. (Really, I didn't do it)

You can plainly see how a crack started at that spot on a locking slot, then the crack spread forward and back, splitting the chamber. You can also see the over pressure event caused the metal at the locking slots of the two adjacent chambers to distort. If the pressure had been a bit higher, you can see how two cracks would have formed at those two chambers, and the two adjacent walls would have let go too.








If you look carefully at the position of the locking slots on most revolver cylinders, you will see that one of the edges of the slot lines up just about perfectly with the center of the chamber below it. Nobody did this on purpose, the position of the slot was dictated by the position of the bolt in the frame, and that was dictated by how the parts fit together inside. Just a bad coincidence. But this 'feature' has been incorporated in many revolver designs for well over 100 years. So that very thin point on most revolver cylinders is its Achilles Heel. Engineers today call a design flaw like that a Stress Riser, and when metal is stressed too much, that is where a rupture is likely to occur. It will then spread from there.

It is difficult for me to get a good measurement on how thick the metal is between a chamber and the thin spot under a locking slot. It is a curved surface, and the depth probe on most calipers is squared off, so any measurement will have a built in error. There are special calibers designed for this type of measurement, but I don't have one.

Anyway, let's look at our Cattleman, Vaquero, and Colt cylinders again and try to get a measurement by subtracting the depth of the cut from the thickness between the chamber and the outer diameter of the cylinder.

Cattleman: .065 - .037 = .028
Vaquero: .078 - .050 = .028
Colt: .058 - .030 = .028

Pretty scary stuff. There is a tiny section at each chamber of these cylinders that is only about .028 thick. To be fair, this spot will probably only rupture under extreme conditions. Normally the thickness of the surrounding steel will 'bridge' the gap, that is why revolvers are not blowing up all the time. Also, my measurement technique was admittedly less than ideal, so these numbers could easily be off a bit. But these numbers do say something. Subject a chamber to too much pressure, and that very thin piece of metal may start a cascade that results in a ruptured cylinder.

There is one more wrinkle to this story. Apparently (I do not have any documentation on this) Ruger realized this a long time ago. Carefully check out the position of the locking slot on a Ruger cylinder. The position of the locking slot has been shifted a bit. On my 45 Colt Vaqueros the straight edge of the locking slot is not directly over a chamber, it is shifted over a small amount. There is a bit more of a shift on the 357 Mag New Vaquero. I just grabbed an old Three Screw 44 Mag Blackhawk made in 1958 and the slot has been shifted a little bit on it too. The only double action Ruger I own is a GP 100 I bought used a bunch of years ago, and the slots on it are way out of line with the center of the chambers. What this means is by shifting the position of the slot slightly, the thinnest section of metal on a Ruger cylinder has been increased. How much depends on how far the slot has been shifted. Bill Ruger was one smart guy. Or his design engineers were real smart guys.

End of this very long and wordy post.

The pile of revolvers got bigger as I went along. Just for fun, here is a photo of the pile of revolvers used for this post. No revolvers were injured in taking this photograph.



P.S. I should add a disclaimer. I have only been talking about mechanical dimensions and have ignored factors such as the strength of the individual steel alloys used, hardness achieved through heat treating, and probably a bunch of other things. But from a purely mechanical dimension standpoint, those are my thoughts and the numbers I have come up with.

P.P.S. If you grab a seven shot revolver, you will notice that the odd number of chambers shifts the position of the locking slots dramatically. The only seven shot revolver I own is a S&W Model 686-6 that I bought a couple of years ago. The locking slots are very nicely centered over the webs between chambers and they are far away from the thin sections of the chambers between the chamber and the outer diameter of the cylinder.

Last edited by Driftwood Johnson; December 17, 2016 at 05:58 PM.
Driftwood Johnson 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 03:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2016 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.11153 seconds with 9 queries