User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 11:15:58 PM EDT
[#1]
Do you know about what one weighs?
The type D stock on my 6.5 lb 603ish rifle weighs 10.489 ozs. on calibrated and calibration weight checked digital scales. Pulled it and weighed it for you. That was with swivel attached less screw. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 11:37:34 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mine weighs 7 lbs. 7.3ozs. with the sling and empty 20-round magazine. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mine weighs 7 lbs. 7.3ozs. with the sling and empty 20-round magazine. According to my scales, an empty 20-round GI magazine weighs 2.8 ounces, and an M1 sling (the nylon "seatbelt" version) weighs 4.7 ounces. Subtract 7.5 oz. from the weight of your gun, and you have 6 lbs., 15.8 oz. Your rifle is 1 oz. lighter than the new weight of my rifle (7 lbs., 0.8 oz.) How much of your rifle is GI? Quoted:
Do you know about what one weighs? The type D stock on my 6.5 lb 603ish rifle weighs 10.489 ozs. on calibrated and calibration weight checked digital scales. Pulled it and weighed it for you. That was with swivel attached less screw. Thanks for weighing it. So it's about 4.8 oz. lighter than my 15.3 oz. type E stock. That's a big difference. If I had that stock my rifle would only weigh 6¾ lbs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/18/2016 2:05:00 AM EDT
[#3]
Edgewater buffers weigh less. I think someone already mentioned specifications from older models may have been used in the newer manual. I know a rifle with an edgewater buffer is noticeably lighter, does anyone know the weight of each one?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/18/2016 2:41:45 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Edgewater buffers weigh less. I think someone already mentioned specifications from older models may have been used in the newer manual. I know a rifle with an edgewater buffer is noticeably lighter, does anyone know the weight of each one? According to this page, the Edgewater buffer is 56.5 grams (1.99 oz.) and the M16A1 buffer is 146.1 grams (5.15 oz). So a type D stock combined with an Edgewater buffer would drop about ½ lb. off the weight of the rifle. I believe that the last rifle that would have had such a combination was the early 603 (XM16E1), and was probably the last version of the M16 to weigh about 6½ lbs. The 601, 602, and early 604 would have likely weighed less than 6½ lbs., maybe even the 6.35 lbs. (6 lbs., 5.6 oz) that's stated in the Army marksmanship manual, due to their pre type E buttstocks, Edgewater buffers, and lack of forward-assist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/18/2016 8:27:15 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
According to my scales, an empty 20-round GI magazine weighs 2.8 ounces, and an M1 sling (the nylon "seatbelt" version) weighs 4.7 ounces. Subtract 7.5 oz. from the weight of your gun, and you have 6 lbs., 15.8 oz. Your rifle is 1 oz. lighter than the new weight of my rifle (7 lbs., 0.8 oz.) How much of your rifle is GI? Thanks for weighing it. So it's about 4.8 oz. lighter than my 15.3 oz. type E stock. That's a big difference. If I had that stock my rifle would only weigh 6¾ lbs. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Mine weighs 7 lbs. 7.3ozs. with the sling and empty 20-round magazine. According to my scales, an empty 20-round GI magazine weighs 2.8 ounces, and an M1 sling (the nylon "seatbelt" version) weighs 4.7 ounces. Subtract 7.5 oz. from the weight of your gun, and you have 6 lbs., 15.8 oz. Your rifle is 1 oz. lighter than the new weight of my rifle (7 lbs., 0.8 oz.) How much of your rifle is GI? Quoted:
Do you know about what one weighs? The type D stock on my 6.5 lb 603ish rifle weighs 10.489 ozs. on calibrated and calibration weight checked digital scales. Pulled it and weighed it for you. That was with swivel attached less screw. Thanks for weighing it. So it's about 4.8 oz. lighter than my 15.3 oz. type E stock. That's a big difference. If I had that stock my rifle would only weigh 6¾ lbs. The only things that are not original USGI M16A1 parts are the lower, hammer, trigger, and disconnector. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/18/2016 8:57:24 AM EDT
[#6]
We can always ask someone with a colt m16a1 in factory form to help us out.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/18/2016 11:44:38 AM EDT
[#7]
Army TM's are never wrong........................
They probably just took the old M16 data (601, 604) and transferred it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/18/2016 12:50:10 PM EDT
[#8]
Someone has a serious case of the OCD's
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/18/2016 8:08:27 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Someone has a serious case of the OCD's Most of us here do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/18/2016 10:43:48 PM EDT
[#10]
Wanting to learn more about these rifles is "OCD"? For a long time I've heard/read that M16s started out as a ~6 lb. rifle, and I never knew how that could be. You can't realistically take all that weight off the already-thin GI M16/M16A1 barrel. I didn't know until this thread that the older style buttstocks and buffers were so much lighter. That combination alone is worth about a half-pound, and with another couple ounces saved by not having a forward-assist, 6.35 lbs. becomes believable. I don't know if they were ever 6.0 lbs.; maybe the ArmaLite prototypes were.
Ironically, with all that high-tech plastic and aluminum, even at their lightest purported weight (6.0 lbs.), they were still a half-pound heavier than the all-steel and walnut M1/M2 Carbine. Of course, even though plastic is often thought of as being "light", most of the durable types of plastic are a lot heavier by volume than walnut. American Black Walnut has a density of 0.63 g/cm³. Compare that to something like Delrin plastic, which is over twice as dense (1.41 g/cm³). The same goes for Bakelite (1.36 g/cm³). Even the lighter of the durable plastics, such as ABS, usually have a density of over 1.0 g/cm³. Most species of wood have a density of less than 1, which is why most of them float in water. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/18/2016 11:48:50 PM EDT
[#11]
My Brownells LW 20 in barrel was almost 4 oz lighter than a Colt. Taper is different and barrel is 0.600 under HG's.
I used to participate with a group where the whole concept was to build the lightest surplus parts KISS rifles for the least expense and don't ever remember anyone building under 6.0 lbs using aluminum receivers. Think 6.08 or such was the lightest. Lot of surplus around for cheap back then. Most builds were in $400-425 range. With composite or polymer receiver 5.5-5.6 lbs was very doable but 5.7-5.8 more the norm. Cav Arms was about the only player back then. Think the best I did was around 6.2 lbs weighing and using the lightest components I had. Weren't any Brownells barrels back then. Think that was good for 6 or 7th lightest overall at best. Most the savings were in the furniture and lower components. About 8 different subs for furniture and some were lighter than others. Can generally see the differences when comparing two different sub contract pieces side by side, especially HG's. Scales will definitely show it. Whacking bayo lugs and swivels weren't uncommon. Had to keep iron sights fully functional. Only a few rules. Light and cheap were the major two. Carbines fairly easy to get under 6 lbs but rifle not so. Never really looked at it as OCD just some good ole boys having a little fun trying not to break the bank doing so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2016 12:00:51 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't know if they were ever 6.0 lbs.; maybe the ArmaLite prototypes were. People have gone lighter than that in the past - see the archives for Project Uberlight: https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_6_51/446390_Project__berlight__sub_4lb_SBR__sub_5lb_suppressed_.html That can involve skeletonizing parts (including lower and upper), shortening and narrowing the barrel profile, and skeleton stocks. Probably been some stuff done out there with carbon fiber steel-lined barrels, as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2016 12:21:03 AM EDT
[#13]
There might be less material in a cast FSB, duck bill should weigh less, maybe the bakelite furniture weighs a little less too. Skinny grip will have less material too.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2016 12:59:47 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My Brownells LW 20 in barrel was almost 4 oz lighter than a Colt. Taper is different and barrel is 0.600 under HG's. Quote HistoryQuoted:
My Brownells LW 20 in barrel was almost 4 oz lighter than a Colt. Taper is different and barrel is 0.600 under HG's. So it is just 0.6" for that whole thin section under the handguards? Mine tapers from 0.67" to 0.6" along that section, and I assume a Colt/USGI barrel does too. I've been wondering about those Brownell's barrels: what is the finish like? Is it phosphated (parkerized) or black oxide? If it's phosphated like it should be, how close of a match is it to the finish on a Colt/USGI barrel? Brownell's just says it is "black". If it's truly black then it would look all kinds of wrong on a USGI build. It should be dark gray. Whoever parkerized my Citadel barrel did a great job matching the color of a USGI barrel, though it is a bit blotchy/cloudy in the area of the barrel under the handguards. Fortunately, the finish on the visible part of the barrel is good and solid/even. It is a dead-on match for the original parkerizing on the USGI flash hider. Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't know if they were ever 6.0 lbs.; maybe the ArmaLite prototypes were. People have gone lighter than that in the past - see the archives for Project Uberlight: https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_6_51/446390_Project__berlight__sub_4lb_SBR__sub_5lb_suppressed_.html That can involve skeletonizing parts (including lower and upper), shortening and narrowing the barrel profile, and skeleton stocks. Probably been some stuff done out there with carbon fiber steel-lined barrels, as well. Yeah, I've seen them under 4 lbs. before; I read this article about a 3½-lb. one about a month ago, but ones like that are a far cry from any M16 that was ever USGI. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2016 1:28:38 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The manuals are notorious for the weights not being accurate/correct. Don't overthink a ham sandwich as they say. 
Sven Manticore Arms |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2016 1:41:00 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How's the weather out there this morning, in deep, deep left field? This is a technical question, i.e., what accounts for the weight difference between my rifle and an M16A1? If my rifle were 12.1 oz. lighter than an M16A1, the thread title would be: Why is my rifle so light? Then I suppose your reply would be: "If it's too light for you, I'm sure your girl could carry it for you", which would be an equally asinine reply. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If it's too heavy for you, I'm sure your girl could carry it for you How's the weather out there this morning, in deep, deep left field? This is a technical question, i.e., what accounts for the weight difference between my rifle and an M16A1? If my rifle were 12.1 oz. lighter than an M16A1, the thread title would be: Why is my rifle so light? Then I suppose your reply would be: "If it's too light for you, I'm sure your girl could carry it for you", which would be an equally asinine reply. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2016 2:01:17 AM EDT
[#17]
I did a write up on the Brownells 20 inch in comparison to a low mile Colt last June or July 2015. Markings are under HG's. Finish was as good as any. Barrel is light for a 20" and doesn't like too much heat same as Colt LW or most any LW for that matter just a little more finicky if really throwing lead. Shouldn't be too long and Brownells sub contractor will have LW production ramped up. Last word I had was new barrels will shoot a little better too.
Brownells |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2016 6:07:03 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wanting to learn more about these rifles is "OCD"? For a long time I've heard/read that M16s started out as a ~6 lb. rifle, and I never knew how that could be. You can't realistically take all that weight off the already-thin GI M16/M16A1 barrel. I didn't know until this thread that the older style buttstocks and buffers were so much lighter. That combination alone is worth about a half-pound, and with another couple ounces saved by not having a forward-assist, 6.35 lbs. becomes believable. I don't know if they were ever 6.0 lbs.; maybe the ArmaLite prototypes were. Ironically, with all that high-tech plastic and aluminum, even at their lightest purported weight (6.0 lbs.), they were still a half-pound heavier than the all-steel and walnut M1/M2 Carbine. Of course, even though plastic is often thought of as being "light", most of the durable types of plastic are a lot heavier by volume than walnut. American Black Walnut has a density of 0.63 g/cm³. Compare that to something like Delrin plastic, which is over twice as dense (1.41 g/cm³). The same goes for Bakelite (1.36 g/cm³). Even the lighter of the durable plastics, such as ABS, usually have a density of over 1.0 g/cm³. Most species of wood have a density of less than 1, which is why most of them float in water. You'd probably get more people to help if you didn't go out of your way to nitpick every post that doesn't involve people dropping what they were doing to go open a safe and weigh a rifle or bringing up perfectly good counterpoints that maybe-just maybe-not every single part is USGI. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2016 7:32:17 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I did a write up on the Brownells 20 inch in comparison to a low mile Colt last June or July 2015. Markings are under HG's. Finish was as good as any. Barrel is light for a 20" and doesn't like too much heat same as Colt LW or most any LW for that matter just a little more finicky if really throwing lead. Shouldn't be too long and Brownells sub contractor will have LW production ramped up. Last word I had was new barrels will shoot a little better too. Brownells Quote HistoryQuoted:
I did a write up on the Brownells 20 inch in comparison to a low mile Colt last June or July 2015. Markings are under HG's. Finish was as good as any. Barrel is light for a 20" and doesn't like too much heat same as Colt LW or most any LW for that matter just a little more finicky if really throwing lead. Shouldn't be too long and Brownells sub contractor will have LW production ramped up. Last word I had was new barrels will shoot a little better too. Brownells Thanks for the link; very informative review. Quoted:
You'd probably get more people to help The solution has been found thanks to people who already helped, i.e., the ~7 lb. weight of my rifle is normal, and earlier versions of the M16 series would have weighed less by at least a half-pound due to the lighter buttstock, buffer, and in some cases, lack of forward-assist. if you didn't go out of your way to nitpick every post that doesn't involve people dropping what they were doing to go open a safe and weigh a rifle This is a non sequitur, given that no such thing happened. or bringing up perfectly good counterpoints that maybe-just maybe-not every single part is USGI. It isn't a "perfectly good counterpoint" if it's wrong. I already know which parts are and which parts aren't USGI on my rifle, and I pointed out which parts are USGI early in the thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2016 8:26:22 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Carbines fairly easy to get under 6 lbs but rifle not so. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Carbines fairly easy to get under 6 lbs but rifle not so. Quoted:
I don't know if they were ever 6.0 lbs.; maybe the ArmaLite prototypes were. ArmaLite's original AR-15s were 5.32 lbs unloaded. They made a 20 inch rifle, less than 6 lbs, using aluminum, steel, and fiberglass, nearly 60 years ago. I bet if you chopped one of those prototypes into a carbine, it would be darn near 4 lbs. I find it funny that we need to use polymers or skeletonized parts these days to achieve that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2016 9:24:11 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
ArmaLite's original AR-15s were 5.32 lbs unloaded. I'd like to know how they did that. If you start with the final version of the M16A1, which weighs about 7 pounds, swap to an older style buttstock and Edgewater buffer, and delete the forward assist and fence (which leaves you with a 601 or 602 configuration), you are likely down to the 6.35 lbs. as stated in the Army Marksmanship manual. You can take some steel off the barrel to get to 6.0 lbs., but I don't know if you could get a full pound off of it while retaining sufficient wall thickness. According to the Springfield Armory Museum, serial number 000008 weighs "approximately 6 lbs." In the ArmaLite Wikipedia article it says 5.5 lbs., and cites ... Hahn, Nick, The 'Other' Autoloaders, Gun Digest 2011, 65th ed., F+W Media (2010), p. 69 ... as the source. Do you remember where you read the 5.32 lb. figure? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2016 6:41:57 PM EDT
[#22]
I have a retro M16A1 rifle with the 20 inch pencil barrel. It's all Colt ( factory M16A1 upper assy.) with rest of parts from a Colt M16A1 kit, and FCG is from a Colt 6920). With the sling and a full 20 round Colt magazine, it
weighs in at 7 1/4 pounds. Hope this helps. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2016 6:43:29 PM EDT
[#23]
I have a retro M16A1 rifle with the 20 inch pencil barrel. It's all Colt ( factory M16A1 upper assy.) with rest of parts from a Colt M16A1 kit, and FCG is from a Colt 6920). With the sling and a full 20 round Colt magazine, it
weighs in at 7 1/4 pounds. Hope this helps. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2016 7:22:43 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have a retro M16A1 rifle with the 20 inch pencil barrel. It's all Colt ( factory M16A1 upper assy.) with rest of parts from a Colt M16A1 kit, and FCG is from a Colt 6920). With the sling and a full 20 round Colt magazine, it weighs in at 7 1/4 pounds. Hope this helps. That's incredibly light. A 20-round GI magazine fully loaded with M193 weighs 11.1 oz. on my scales. You didn't say what type of sling you have, but a later black Colt nylon sling weighs 2.5 oz. and an M1 "seatbelt sling" weighs 4.7 oz. If you have an M1 sling, that would mean your rifle weighs 6 lbs., 4.2 oz. by itself, or 6 lbs., 6.7 oz. by itself if you have the black Colt sling. What kind of buttstock and buffer do you have? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2016 8:05:36 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
According to my scales, an empty 20-round GI magazine weighs 2.8 ounces, and an M1 sling (the nylon "seatbelt" version) weighs 4.7 ounces. Subtract 7.5 oz. from the weight of your gun, and you have 6 lbs., 15.8 oz. Your rifle is 1 oz. lighter than the new weight of my rifle (7 lbs., 0.8 oz.) How much of your rifle is GI? Thanks for weighing it. So it's about 4.8 oz. lighter than my 15.3 oz. type E stock. That's a big difference. If I had that stock my rifle would only weigh 6¾ lbs. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Mine weighs 7 lbs. 7.3ozs. with the sling and empty 20-round magazine. According to my scales, an empty 20-round GI magazine weighs 2.8 ounces, and an M1 sling (the nylon "seatbelt" version) weighs 4.7 ounces. Subtract 7.5 oz. from the weight of your gun, and you have 6 lbs., 15.8 oz. Your rifle is 1 oz. lighter than the new weight of my rifle (7 lbs., 0.8 oz.) How much of your rifle is GI? Quoted:
Do you know about what one weighs? The type D stock on my 6.5 lb 603ish rifle weighs 10.489 ozs. on calibrated and calibration weight checked digital scales. Pulled it and weighed it for you. That was with swivel attached less screw. Thanks for weighing it. So it's about 4.8 oz. lighter than my 15.3 oz. type E stock. That's a big difference. If I had that stock my rifle would only weigh 6¾ lbs. That seems about right. My 604 has a type D, and it has no Forward Assist, so there are a few less ounces there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2016 8:36:48 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You'd probably get more people to help if you didn't go out of your way to nitpick every post that doesn't involve people dropping what they were doing to go open a safe and weigh a rifle or bringing up perfectly good counterpoints that maybe-just maybe-not every single part is USGI. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Wanting to learn more about these rifles is "OCD"? For a long time I've heard/read that M16s started out as a ~6 lb. rifle, and I never knew how that could be. You can't realistically take all that weight off the already-thin GI M16/M16A1 barrel. I didn't know until this thread that the older style buttstocks and buffers were so much lighter. That combination alone is worth about a half-pound, and with another couple ounces saved by not having a forward-assist, 6.35 lbs. becomes believable. I don't know if they were ever 6.0 lbs.; maybe the ArmaLite prototypes were. Ironically, with all that high-tech plastic and aluminum, even at their lightest purported weight (6.0 lbs.), they were still a half-pound heavier than the all-steel and walnut M1/M2 Carbine. Of course, even though plastic is often thought of as being "light", most of the durable types of plastic are a lot heavier by volume than walnut. American Black Walnut has a density of 0.63 g/cm³. Compare that to something like Delrin plastic, which is over twice as dense (1.41 g/cm³). The same goes for Bakelite (1.36 g/cm³). Even the lighter of the durable plastics, such as ABS, usually have a density of over 1.0 g/cm³. Most species of wood have a density of less than 1, which is why most of them float in water. You'd probably get more people to help if you didn't go out of your way to nitpick every post that doesn't involve people dropping what they were doing to go open a safe and weigh a rifle or bringing up perfectly good counterpoints that maybe-just maybe-not every single part is USGI. Damn,we aint seen you in a coons age. Hope you been well my man 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2016 9:14:30 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'd like to know how they did that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
ArmaLite's original AR-15s were 5.32 lbs unloaded. I'd like to know how they did that. All of the additions add up quickly. The originals used very thin fiberglass furniture reinforced with foam for strength. The barrels had no muzzle device, they were fluted, and the 6 inches toward the muzzle was ridiculously thin. The front sight base was smaller, and there was no slip ring assembly. The buffer was different and likely weighed a few oz. less. The lower receivers lacked reinforcement that was added to the 601 so, maybe another oz. saved there. Then you have the upper that was milled out at the top for the trigger charging handle, maybe another oz. When they started adding T handles, and slip rings, and bayonet lugs, and whatever else to make the army happy, the weight went up. ... as the source. Do you remember where you read the 5.32 lb. figure?
"United States Army Infantry Board Fort Benning, Georgia Report of Project. Project 2787, Evaluation of Small Caliber High Velocity Rifles - Armalite AR-15. 27 May 1958." The report lists the rifles tested as 0012, 0013, 0016, and 0017. I also have a second document, "A Test of Rifle, Caliber .22, AR-15; Rifle, Caliber .224 Lightweight Military; and Pertinent Ammunition. US Army Ordnance Development and Proof Services. Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. 19 December 1958."0 It lists rifles 0010 and 0014 at 5.24 lbs emtpy and 6.03 lbs with a loaded 25 rd magazine. All of the rifles tested would have been as originally built with no modifications. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2016 9:51:07 PM EDT
[#28]
Thanks for the information; very interesting. So even the lightest prototypes only managed to match the weight of the all-steel and walnut M1 Carbine from the early '40s. I wonder if the military ever considered just reworking the M2 Carbine design to be chambered for the 5.56/.223 cartridge. It would have been tantamount to a Mini-14 (AC-556 specifically), beating Bill Ruger to the punch.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2016 10:09:40 PM EDT
[#29]
Did you weigh it with out the sling and mag?
Finestkind |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2016 10:25:54 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mine weighs 7 lbs. 7.3ozs. with the sling and empty 20-round magazine. <a href="http://s100.photobucket.com/user/jamesrea_2006/media/Weapons%202014/Retro%20ARs/M16A1s/001_zpsu5szhboj.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m8/jamesrea_2006/Weapons%202014/Retro%20ARs/M16A1s/001_zpsu5szhboj.jpg</a> According to my notes on the M16A1 from boot camp (1978), the rifle alone is 6.5 lbs. and fully loaded (30-round magazine) and sling, it weighs 7.6 lbs. Maybe the military did not have very accurate scales back then. Mine is in this range. All colt parts, cotton sling, CMPC barrel, empty |
|
|
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.
.jpg)
