User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 1:34:27 PM EDT
[#1]
Because starting a turbine is a no shit process that takes time and theyre much more suited to constant speed vs up/down like an ICE.
Plus if you think repairing a modern diesel is expensive, your head may explode when you consider turbine maintenance. ** I only have experience with bigger turbines, that stuff may not hold in the smaller ones. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 1:35:57 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
Always thought that turbine engines are the most efficient platform with the least parts and produce the most power. The internal combustion engine is a product of the industrial age and fairly antiquated as a means to produce a vehicles momentum. It works, but only so well. Much of the energy produced is wasted. Why haven't we produced a turbine style engine to power our automobiles? I would have thought that it would be the next logical step. People smarter than me chime in please Chrysler did a testbed series of turbine cars, Jay Leno owns one. They had their advantages but some pretty big issues. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 1:37:32 PM EDT
[#3]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 1:40:45 PM EDT
[#4]
Look on youtube for the turbine powered chrysler prototypes made in the early 60's. They leased a few hundred to the public, and that is about as far as the program went.
Sorta like the GM EV1 from the early 90's. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 1:41:17 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Chrysler did a testbed series of turbine cars, Jay Leno owns one. They had their advantages but some pretty big issues. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Always thought that turbine engines are the most efficient platform with the least parts and produce the most power. The internal combustion engine is a product of the industrial age and fairly antiquated as a means to produce a vehicles momentum. It works, but only so well. Much of the energy produced is wasted. Why haven't we produced a turbine style engine to power our automobiles? I would have thought that it would be the next logical step. People smarter than me chime in please Chrysler did a testbed series of turbine cars, Jay Leno owns one. They had their advantages but some pretty big issues. The major hurdle was access to acceptable fuel. Then, all gas was leaded and couldn't be used. If the car was introduced now, unleaded gas would not be a problem. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 1:41:30 PM EDT
[#6]
Exhaust heat is the main thing. Also expensive to work to the point where most consumer would not want to pay for it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 1:42:31 PM EDT
[#7]
Look up the turbine Corvette on Youtube.
A turbine powered car fared very well at Indy until mechanical issues took it out of the race. Between heat, fuel economy, and a general unwillingness of owners to put forth the effort that jet engines require, turbine powered cars are never going to become a thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 1:43:54 PM EDT
[#8]
No. The maintenance alone would destroy most bank accounts.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 1:45:03 PM EDT
[#9]
As mentioned chrysler tested them. Biggest hurdle I would thing would be the fuel economy hit. Probably epa emissions as well.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 1:45:57 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because starting a turbine is a no shit process that takes time and theyre much more suited to constant speed vs up/down like an ICE. Plus if you think repairing a modern diesel is expensive, your head may explode when you consider turbine maintenance. ** I only have experience with bigger turbines, that stuff may not hold in the smaller ones. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile This. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 1:47:38 PM EDT
[#11]
People bitch about turbo lag... turbine lag is much worse. Plus noise and shit fuel economy.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 1:48:16 PM EDT
[#12]
NOx......hard as hell to get rid of in a Diesel engine, damned near impossible with a gas turbine.
Plus not so great MPGs, and high costs materials. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 1:49:38 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because starting a turbine is a no shit process that takes time and theyre much more suited to constant speed vs up/down like an ICE. Plus if you think repairing a modern diesel is expensive, your head may explode when you consider turbine maintenance. ** I only have experience with bigger turbines, that stuff may not hold in the smaller ones. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I wanted to emphasize this topic primarily. A whole lot has changed within the development of the turbine engine. I want to know how the small variants stack up against the internal combustion engine these days |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 1:51:16 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
Always thought that turbine engines are the most efficient platform with the least parts and produce the most power. The internal combustion engine is a product of the industrial age and fairly antiquated as a means to produce a vehicles momentum. It works, but only so well. Much of the energy produced is wasted. Why haven't we produced a turbine style engine to power our automobiles? I would have thought that it would be the next logical step. People smarter than me chime in please I'm still wondering why they haven't built a small ICE or turbine driven generator to power Hub motors. It could be 2/4 wheel driven as needed. Very fast accel, breaking, super mileage numbers, and low GVW. No huge battery pack and its weight, replace them with capacitors. Instead they build these fucking Hybrids with two propulsion systems that "share" the propulsuin duties. Typical .gov and car company committee built pieces of crap. Simple and efficient negates the need for billions in bureaucratic waste. Oh snap seems as though I have answered my own question. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 1:53:15 PM EDT
[#15]
In addition to the above comments, the MPG of a turbine would be horrible for city driving. The turbine needs to run at a high RPM just to keep the combustion process going.
Military tanks use turbines, but they use the turbine to drive a generator, which then drives electric motors. Fuel economy and maintenance expense is not an issue for military tanks, since it is funded by taxpayers. Edit: correction |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 1:53:44 PM EDT
[#16]
If it ever happened, it would likely be a Hybrid driving a generator powering electric motors using batteries as a buffer. Emissions would make it VERY unlikely though. Notice Jet aircraft don't have much in the way of pollution control regulation by the feds?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 1:56:00 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm still wondering why they haven't built a small ICE or turbine driven generator to power Hub motors. It could be 2/4 wheel driven as needed. Very fast accel, breaking, super mileage numbers, and low GVW. No huge battery pack and its weight, replace them with capacitors. Instead they build these fucking Hybrids with two propulsion systems that "share" the propulsuin duties. Typical .gov and car company committee built pieces of crap. Simple and efficient negates the need for billions in bureaucratic waste. Oh snap seems as though I have answered my own question.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Always thought that turbine engines are the most efficient platform with the least parts and produce the most power. The internal combustion engine is a product of the industrial age and fairly antiquated as a means to produce a vehicles momentum. It works, but only so well. Much of the energy produced is wasted. Why haven't we produced a turbine style engine to power our automobiles? I would have thought that it would be the next logical step. People smarter than me chime in please I'm still wondering why they haven't built a small ICE or turbine driven generator to power Hub motors. It could be 2/4 wheel driven as needed. Very fast accel, breaking, super mileage numbers, and low GVW. No huge battery pack and its weight, replace them with capacitors. Instead they build these fucking Hybrids with two propulsion systems that "share" the propulsuin duties. Typical .gov and car company committee built pieces of crap. Simple and efficient negates the need for billions in bureaucratic waste. Oh snap seems as though I have answered my own question.
Costs. See the new truck that's supposedly coming out in December? $390k! That's a helluva lotta coin for unproven tech. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 2:00:09 PM EDT
[#18]
Would emissions be a problem if something like propane or natural gas was used as fuel? I would still want a tank of jet fuel to dump into the afterburner to discourage tailgaters. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 2:00:40 PM EDT
[#19]
Wankel engine?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 2:00:50 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wanted to emphasize this topic primarily. A whole lot has changed within the development of the turbine engine. I want to know how the small variants stack up against the internal combustion engine these days Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Because starting a turbine is a no shit process that takes time and theyre much more suited to constant speed vs up/down like an ICE. Plus if you think repairing a modern diesel is expensive, your head may explode when you consider turbine maintenance. ** I only have experience with bigger turbines, that stuff may not hold in the smaller ones. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I wanted to emphasize this topic primarily. A whole lot has changed within the development of the turbine engine. I want to know how the small variants stack up against the internal combustion engine these days The smallest turbine I have ever run was about the size of a 4 cylinder engine. It burned 29.4 gallons an hour just turning a small generator. That is $88/hr considering a $3/gal fuel price. Driving 60mph it would cost a small turbine $88 in fuel to go 60 miles. A car that gets 20mpg will cost $9 in fuel to go that same distance at the same speed at the same fuel price. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 2:07:43 PM EDT
[#21]
At the time, I heard there will little problems like whether you wanted the exhaust to melt the road or the grill of the car behind you.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 2:08:54 PM EDT
[#22]
Watch this.
Exhaust temps were not a problem. Emissions, fuel economy and expensive raw materials were the death nell for turbine cars. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 2:09:02 PM EDT
[#23]
Allied Signal (aka Honeywell) spent spent huge money in the '70s and '80s to develop a viable commercial truck motor with Mack Truck being a corporate partner.
Didn't work on it personally, but as far as I know it was a marginal technical success but the manufacturing cost was totally prohibitive and the project was killed after numerous examples were built and tested, including on-road testing between Phx and Flag. The AGT1500 gas turbine used in the M-1 series of MBTs is an example of a gas turbine being used with some success in an "automotive" (well maybe semi-automotive) application. Technically, it apparently does the job, but gas mileage is awful. No other tank in the world uses a gas turbine as the prime mover--apparently for good reason. I'm sure HW would be happy to sell gas turbine tank motors to the free world's tank producers but there's little or no interest. The US Army keeps talking about a diesel power pack as a product improvement for the M-1. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 2:10:48 PM EDT
[#24]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 2:11:02 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
At the time, I heard there will little problems like whether you wanted the exhaust to melt the road or the grill of the car behind you. What is behind me, is not my concern. 
Forward chaps.... Forward.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 2:11:10 PM EDT
[#26]
power to weight awesome, fuel efficiency not so much
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 2:11:38 PM EDT
[#27]
Turbine-electric.
Runs on anything, instant torque, traction control/torque vectoring/etc just software away. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 2:12:55 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wankel engine?
but that isn't a turbine |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 2:14:52 PM EDT
[#29]
The turbine engine is not the most thermodynamically efficient design out there, and right now a traditional piston reciprocating design is about as good as it gets. Some get close to 50% thermally efficient or higher. Turbines excel in situations where power to weight ratio is more important than fuel economy.
Without fully geeking out, it has to do with cycle efficiency...and in very simplest terms, the higher you can compress the intake charge, the more energy you can get out of it once you add the fuel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 2:18:11 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Turbine-electric. Runs on anything, instant torque, traction control/torque vectoring/etc just software away. And a helluva lotta $$$. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 2:18:33 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The smallest turbine I have ever run was about the size of a 4 cylinder engine. It burned 29.4 gallons an hour just turning a small generator. That is $88/hr considering a $3/gal fuel price. Driving 60mph it would cost a small turbine $88 in fuel to go 60 miles. A car that gets 20mpg will cost $9 in fuel to go that same distance at the same speed at the same fuel price. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because starting a turbine is a no shit process that takes time and theyre much more suited to constant speed vs up/down like an ICE. Plus if you think repairing a modern diesel is expensive, your head may explode when you consider turbine maintenance. ** I only have experience with bigger turbines, that stuff may not hold in the smaller ones. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I wanted to emphasize this topic primarily. A whole lot has changed within the development of the turbine engine. I want to know how the small variants stack up against the internal combustion engine these days The smallest turbine I have ever run was about the size of a 4 cylinder engine. It burned 29.4 gallons an hour just turning a small generator. That is $88/hr considering a $3/gal fuel price. Driving 60mph it would cost a small turbine $88 in fuel to go 60 miles. A car that gets 20mpg will cost $9 in fuel to go that same distance at the same speed at the same fuel price. K1 is more like 4ish/gallon? Sidenote- turbines give me a boner, they're cool as fuck. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 2:21:50 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
power to weight awesome, fuel efficiency not so much This. Power to weight is a huge deal in machines that fly. Not a huge deal for things that roll on wheels. The PT-6 turbine on the smallest "puddle jumper" costs over $300,000 to overhaul by the time it reaches ~3000 hours. People just don't understand how good we have it with reciprocating piston engines. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 2:24:41 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And a helluva lotta $$$. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Turbine-electric. Runs on anything, instant torque, traction control/torque vectoring/etc just software away. And a helluva lotta $$$. Meh, economy of scale could bring it way down. Piston engines are way more complicated. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 2:24:55 PM EDT
[#34]
I wonder if a turbine hybrid would be effective. It'll run on anything that burns, can run at a constant and efficient RPM vs. variable like the turbine car. When the battery is full, turn the turbine off.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 2:25:11 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The turbine engine is not the most thermodynamically efficient design out there, and right now a traditional piston reciprocating design is about as good as it gets. Some get close to 50% thermally efficient or higher. Turbines excel in situations where power to weight ratio is more important than fuel economy. Without fully geeking out, it has to do with cycle efficiency...and in very simplest terms, the higher you can compress the intake charge, the more energy you can get out of it once you add the fuel. You seem knowledgable. If most of the efficiency is lost due to heat, then why haven't people figured out a way to extract that heat and turn it into power? Electrical or otherwise. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 2:26:51 PM EDT
[#36]
My DD15 is about the apex of ICE. Common rail injection at 35k psi, the turbo is a turbo compound, adding 50hp through the crank.
Mileage with a light load(Amazon)is around 8.5-9.5mpg. Hard to beat that and still be cost effective. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 2:26:54 PM EDT
[#37]
Turbine powered cars almost took over Indy racing but they were stopped by the rule makers.
http://www.wired.com/2014/10/lotus-turbine-racecar |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 2:28:10 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wonder if a turbine hybrid would be effective. It'll run on anything that burns, can run at a constant and efficient RPM vs. variable like the turbine car. When the battery is full, turn the turbine off. I was thinking this also, but then realized that small turbines are less efficient. Also, do the think the average motorist wants to blow out the VPacks every day? Because that was a royal PITA on the M1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 2:28:49 PM EDT
[#39]
My grandfather knew an engineer for Chrysler. He said the engineer showed up to church one Sunday in the 1960s in some sort of proto-type turbine engined Chrysler.
IIRC, the car was also supposed to accept several types of fuel. Anyway, it's possible OP. Cost effective? I doubt it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 2:32:00 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You seem knowledgable. If most of the efficiency is lost due to heat, then why haven't people figured out a way to extract that heat and turn it into power? Electrical or otherwise. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The turbine engine is not the most thermodynamically efficient design out there, and right now a traditional piston reciprocating design is about as good as it gets. Some get close to 50% thermally efficient or higher. Turbines excel in situations where power to weight ratio is more important than fuel economy. Without fully geeking out, it has to do with cycle efficiency...and in very simplest terms, the higher you can compress the intake charge, the more energy you can get out of it once you add the fuel. You seem knowledgable. If most of the efficiency is lost due to heat, then why haven't people figured out a way to extract that heat and turn it into power? Electrical or otherwise. Great question, and there is a lot of work in that space! The biggest reason you don't see a lot of other devices is that the added cost usually doesn't justify the additional gains. Probably the most common way to recover waste heat is a turbocharger. While many folks see this as just a way to boost power (by adding in more air, and thus more fuel can be burned) it also typically increases thermal efficiency since the engine doesn't have to do extra work to intake that extra air. There are devices like turbo compounding devices that have a turbine that is geared to the crank shaft. There are all sorts of other turbo generator type devices that use exhaust to do useful work. The challenge is that a lot of heat goes into the engine coolant, and recovering that is a bit harder. In some stationary genset applications that waste heat can be used to heat hot water and other things to at least use that heat rather than have to pay for another heat source to make hot water. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 2:38:53 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You seem knowledgable. If most of the efficiency is lost due to heat, then why haven't people figured out a way to extract that heat and turn it into power? Electrical or otherwise. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The turbine engine is not the most thermodynamically efficient design out there, and right now a traditional piston reciprocating design is about as good as it gets. Some get close to 50% thermally efficient or higher. Turbines excel in situations where power to weight ratio is more important than fuel economy. Without fully geeking out, it has to do with cycle efficiency...and in very simplest terms, the higher you can compress the intake charge, the more energy you can get out of it once you add the fuel. You seem knowledgable. If most of the efficiency is lost due to heat, then why haven't people figured out a way to extract that heat and turn it into power? Electrical or otherwise. Wiki combined cycle power plant. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 2:40:20 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Great question, and there is a lot of work in that space! The biggest reason you don't see a lot of other devices is that the added cost usually doesn't justify the additional gains. Probably the most common way to recover waste heat is a turbocharger. While many folks see this as just a way to boost power (by adding in more air, and thus more fuel can be burned) it also typically increases thermal efficiency since the engine doesn't have to do extra work to intake that extra air. There are devices like turbo compounding devices that have a turbine that is geared to the crank shaft. There are all sorts of other turbo generator type devices that use exhaust to do useful work. The challenge is that a lot of heat goes into the engine coolant, and recovering that is a bit harder. In some stationary genset applications that waste heat can be used to heat hot water and other things to at least use that heat rather than have to pay for another heat source to make hot water. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The turbine engine is not the most thermodynamically efficient design out there, and right now a traditional piston reciprocating design is about as good as it gets. Some get close to 50% thermally efficient or higher. Turbines excel in situations where power to weight ratio is more important than fuel economy. Without fully geeking out, it has to do with cycle efficiency...and in very simplest terms, the higher you can compress the intake charge, the more energy you can get out of it once you add the fuel. You seem knowledgable. If most of the efficiency is lost due to heat, then why haven't people figured out a way to extract that heat and turn it into power? Electrical or otherwise. Great question, and there is a lot of work in that space! The biggest reason you don't see a lot of other devices is that the added cost usually doesn't justify the additional gains. Probably the most common way to recover waste heat is a turbocharger. While many folks see this as just a way to boost power (by adding in more air, and thus more fuel can be burned) it also typically increases thermal efficiency since the engine doesn't have to do extra work to intake that extra air. There are devices like turbo compounding devices that have a turbine that is geared to the crank shaft. There are all sorts of other turbo generator type devices that use exhaust to do useful work. The challenge is that a lot of heat goes into the engine coolant, and recovering that is a bit harder. In some stationary genset applications that waste heat can be used to heat hot water and other things to at least use that heat rather than have to pay for another heat source to make hot water. I'm surprised there isn't a solid state solution which can use temperature differential to generate electricity. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 2:41:37 PM EDT
[#43]
Any semi practical gas turbine for ground power has a recuperator to recover waste heat and throw it back into the cycle. The recuperators add considerable weight and cost to the package but without them gas turbines for non-airborne use are a non-starter
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 2:41:42 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Turbine powered cars almost took over Indy racing but they were stopped by the rule makers. http://www.wired.com/2014/10/lotus-turbine-racecar The PT6 is used for numerous applications. The race car was just one attempt at fun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 2:47:25 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm surprised there isn't a solid state solution which can use temperature differential to generate electricity. There is, it's called a thermo-electric generator. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_effect 
If you apply electricity to them, you can heat or cool things since they have a hot and a cold side. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 2:51:31 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
turbines give me a boner, they're cool as fuck. Then you must be familiar with the "AgentJayZ" youtube channel... turbine engines |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 2:56:10 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is, it's called a thermo-electric generator. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_effecthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_effect#/media/File:Thermoelectric_Seebeck_power_module.jpg If you apply electricity to them, you can heat or cool things since they have a hot and a cold side. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm surprised there isn't a solid state solution which can use temperature differential to generate electricity. There is, it's called a thermo-electric generator. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_effecthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_effect#/media/File:Thermoelectric_Seebeck_power_module.jpg If you apply electricity to them, you can heat or cool things since they have a hot and a cold side. Cool. Thanks, I was thinking of Thermocouples, and knew there had to be a way. How much electical energy could be produced by the waste heat of an average car engine? Not much, I guess, and I'm sure it isn't cost efficient, but it seems that this is where we should be looking. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 3:04:15 PM EDT
[#48]
Turbines are a great way to make a lot of power in a small package. The Union Pacific Turbine locomotives were awesome. Not really practical in a vehicle application. A properly sized turbine might be pretty efficient at highway speeds but probably terrible for everything else.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 3:08:39 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wonder if a turbine hybrid would be effective. It'll run on anything that burns, can run at a constant and efficient RPM vs. variable like the turbine car. When the battery is full, turn the turbine off. Once started, you want to keep it on until you really want it off. Smaller turbines are usually limited by start cycles. The greatest stress on the engine is also usually a start. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/9/2016 3:12:56 PM EDT
[#50]
I'm actually working on this for long range tractor trailers. Going with a hybrid setup. Really interesting work
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
