User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/3/2023 5:46:51 PM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The M4 Sherman was not supposed to fight other tanks, it was supposed to be infantry support with the 75mm medium velocity gun firing HE at bunkers, buildings, and emplacements. M10, M18 Hellcat and M36 Jackson were what were supposed to actually fight other tanks. Look how that worked out. It WILL be employed to fight other tanks. one on one it did not work so well since less armor and crew protection. In the ambush roll though they were pretty effective dug in and hull down etc. not sure how they plan to use these in the longrun, but just because its intended for whatever purpose does not mean it won't get used for everything they never meant it to. You run with what you got when the fight comes. The humvee was just ok, till it got asked to do so much, then they started blowing the shit out of them |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2023 5:54:33 PM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: except for the part where the 1st batch of 47 sent to Ukraine were all destroyed/damaged in less than a month (at least that's what I read in the big thread) Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: yeah its funny how a vehicle that was derided as a 'laughing stock' / disaster turned out to be so effective still kicking ass almost 45 years later. combat proven. but i guess there's still people hatin' on the M4 / M16 / AR15 too...  Those brads weren’t cat kills right off the rip. A lot ran over mines, rebuilt and sent back to fight with limited casualties. There was a Brad that took a T72 round through and through the troop compartment no causalities. It was fixed and back in the fight. I’m pretty close with the 47th IN guys. It took the Russians having to stack AT mines on top of artillery rounds to have the desired effects. They turned to just shooting AT missiles at them. Brads we’re killing T72s with tows and tearing up Russian INF with 25 HE. A lot of 47th guys are alive because of the Bradley. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2023 6:35:26 PM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Up armored howitzer/arty piece. Not even close. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2023 7:40:57 PM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The 105mm can kill a t90. We found out too late that the original m1 just needed better ammo. The assumption was that Russian armor was ubotaniun, in reality it's no better than a m60. The 105mm had a 1/4 chance of penetrating the front of a T-72 in 1985. The T-90M has almost twice the armor thickness that a 105mm can penetrate, if you consider the ERA. When the US got ahold of late model Soviet armor after the wall fell they shot it and entered a crash development process to build a new round that could penetrate it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2023 6:35:02 AM EST
[#5]
Would be interesting to take the new asserted definition of tank, evaluate it against historical tanks, and find out how many were never apparently tanks after all.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2023 6:36:44 AM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There's no reason to use a 40 when the XM913 and its 50x228 is the future standard for the US. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: The M10 should have been a medium tank with a 120mm and enough armor to fight a T-90 in a pinch if not as the workhorse of a combined arms breach. Or it should have been a little sports car of a thing with a 50mm. One or the other. Agreed on that part. 35 tons with a 40mm. Maybe throw in a Javelin launcher. Faster, lighter, bridges are no problem, transports easier, and if it's really for infantry a 40mm is plenty. There's no reason to use a 40 when the XM913 and its 50x228 is the future standard for the US. OK. Done. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2023 6:57:02 AM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The 105mm had a 1/4 chance of penetrating the front of a T-72 in 1985. The T-90M has almost twice the armor thickness that a 105mm can penetrate, if you consider the ERA. When the US got ahold of late model Soviet armor after the wall fell they shot it and entered a crash development process to build a new round that could penetrate it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2023 7:02:47 AM EST
[#8]
So it's an "assault weapon" according to the Army.
Very convenient to countering leftist assault weapon bans. Will make for some great memes. "Ban assault weapons, not my AR15" |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2023 7:11:14 AM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: From the videos out of Ukraine, it seems that front to front tank engagements are about the least likely to occur. Oblique shot opportunities to the side seem to be the most common. We saw at the beginning of the conflict that Ukrainian 30mm cannon fire had no problem tearing up T72s from the side You have to plan for the worst shot, after all there are three guys in that tank whose pay and lives both depend on keeping the front towards you. And I’d caution about drawing too many lessons from that war, nobody there is fighting like we would. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2023 7:14:02 AM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Would be interesting to take the new asserted definition of tank, evaluate it against historical tanks, and find out how many were never apparently tanks after all. It would. I'm no expert on 'tanks', but I don't recall any 'tanks' designed purely as infantry support. The Sheridan filled that role in the post Vietnam 82nd, but it technically wasn't a 'tank' as the Army called it an Armored Reconnaissance/Airborne Assault Vehicle. Every non armor person that saw it called it a tank though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2023 7:18:30 AM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It would. I'm no expert on 'tanks', but I don't recall any 'tanks' designed purely as infantry support. The Sheridan filled that role in the post Vietnam 82nd, but it technically wasn't a 'tank' as the Army called it an Armored Reconnaissance/Airborne Assault Vehicle. Every non armor person that saw it called it a tank though. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Would be interesting to take the new asserted definition of tank, evaluate it against historical tanks, and find out how many were never apparently tanks after all. It would. I'm no expert on 'tanks', but I don't recall any 'tanks' designed purely as infantry support. The Sheridan filled that role in the post Vietnam 82nd, but it technically wasn't a 'tank' as the Army called it an Armored Reconnaissance/Airborne Assault Vehicle. Every non armor person that saw it called it a tank though. That is an older concept, there once were infantry support tanks and break through or penetration tanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2023 7:22:29 AM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It would. I'm no expert on 'tanks', but I don't recall any 'tanks' designed purely as infantry support. The Sheridan filled that role in the post Vietnam 82nd, but it technically wasn't a 'tank' as the Army called it an Armored Reconnaissance/Airborne Assault Vehicle. Every non armor person that saw it called it a tank though. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Would be interesting to take the new asserted definition of tank, evaluate it against historical tanks, and find out how many were never apparently tanks after all. It would. I'm no expert on 'tanks', but I don't recall any 'tanks' designed purely as infantry support. The Sheridan filled that role in the post Vietnam 82nd, but it technically wasn't a 'tank' as the Army called it an Armored Reconnaissance/Airborne Assault Vehicle. Every non armor person that saw it called it a tank though. The original tanks in WWI were infantry support vehicles. They weren’t fast or reliable enough for deep penetration, nor had the doctrine or organization been developed for that. In WWII the British had cruiser tanks and infantry tanks. What do you suppose the infantry tank was meant to do? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2023 7:34:57 AM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: From the videos out of Ukraine, it seems that front to front tank engagements are about the least likely to occur. Oblique shot opportunities to the side seem to be the most common. We saw at the beginning of the conflict that Ukrainian 30mm cannon fire had no problem tearing up T72s from the side IIRC, Brads did the same thing in Iraq with their 25mm. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2023 7:57:49 AM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: IIRC, Brads did the same thing in Iraq with their 25mm. It really seems the the 25MM chain gun on the Brad is a very useful and effective weapon in many situations. Hopefully the new 50MM they are moving towards will be as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2023 8:12:38 AM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Could just be all of the lies our Government has been rolling out over the last three years.. but I have a nagging suspicion that this non-tanks primary design function is less international and more ..domestic. Good chance that people in high levels of power.. right now are plotting the final solution for the American Patriots. Commanding officers with blue hair and mutilated genitals don't view threats to American values the same way officers in the past may have. When people ask "Has G.D. completely Lost their f'ing minds?" ...  Bigger_Hammer 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2023 8:17:38 AM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Boom. Nailed it. Primary focus is urban pasification. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Could just be all of the lies our Government has been rolling out over the last three years.. but I have a nagging suspicion that this non-tanks primary design function is less international and more ..domestic. Good chance that people in high levels of power.. right now are plotting the final solution for the American Patriots. Commanding officers with blue hair and mutilated genitals don't view threats to American values the same way officers in the past may have. Boom. Nailed it. Primary focus is urban pasification. ED-209? Bigger_Hammer
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2023 8:28:21 AM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That is an older concept, there once were infantry support tanks and break through or penetration tanks. Going back far enough the Brits had at least three kinds of tanks at Cambrai. Male and female tanks for the breakthrough and light tanks for exploitation. The M10 is specifically not meant for exploitation, or so we are told. Makes sense. Probably not what I would have spent $13m and 38t on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2023 9:28:19 AM EST
[#18]
Aside from the definition aspect, does anyone have the full story of the development here? Was it an outshoot of the MGS effort with the Stryker? Seems logical, as if there had been deliberate discussion of how to offset its limitations without getting too heavy.
Other than legal implications, adopting a "light tank" for support to light units is also admitting a failure in MBT doctrine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2023 9:30:14 AM EST
[#19]
Something to keep in mind is the current version of the Abrams is nearly 75 tons. So this thing is about 30 tons lighter. That should allow easier deployment to theatre and also better mobility within theatre - with a lot fewer road and bridge restrictions. It might actually be a useful vehicle even without the greater protection of a full blown MBT. I am surprised they did not use a smaller and lighter turret with an autoloader though. If the vehicle works out OK I could see a Bradley replacement using the same drive train and suspension components.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2023 9:40:29 AM EST
[#20]
You paid for its transition.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2023 9:50:49 AM EST
[#21]
Do we know if this vehicle has either a steel or aluminum hull and turret?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2023 10:20:32 AM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: For Better or Worse we found out pretty quick that the Bradley is a better Tank Killer than the Abrams is. And the end the Abrams has been more of a assault gun than a tank in actual combat so why not make a assault gun? Upgrading to the Rhinemetall 120mm was seen as the only possible way that we would ever be able to punch through Soviet armor and we spent billions upon billions of dollars to do that only to find out that the original 120 mm gun would have done just fine. Meanwhile the rest of the world still makes crap ton of Highly Effective 155 mm ammo. Along with that this thing is much lighter weight much easier to repair much more mobile and is more fitting for what a future war is likely to have especially with what we're seeing in ukraine. Mast armored columns won't have value in the future flying it. This is the dumbest thing I’ll read today |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2023 10:23:09 AM EST
[#23]
So, basically a modern Sherman? Infantry support / not a tank, and easily killed by anything with even minimal anti armor capability.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2023 10:31:06 AM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wait... What? This is confusing. Did you mix up some of the numbers here? This all seems pretty wrong to me. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: For Better or Worse we found out pretty quick that the Bradley is a better Tank Killer than the Abrams is. And the end the Abrams has been more of a assault gun than a tank in actual combat so why not make a assault gun? Upgrading to the Rhinemetall 120mm was seen as the only possible way that we would ever be able to punch through Soviet armor and we spent billions upon billions of dollars to do that only to find out that the original 120 mm gun would have done just fine. Meanwhile the rest of the world still makes crap ton of Highly Effective 155 mm ammo. Along with that this thing is much lighter weight much easier to repair much more mobile and is more fitting for what a future war is likely to have especially with what we're seeing in ukraine. Mast armored columns won't have value in the future flying it. Wait... What? This is confusing. Did you mix up some of the numbers here? This all seems pretty wrong to me. Starting to think this was parody. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2023 10:39:57 AM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So, basically a modern Sherman? Infantry support / not a tank, and easily killed by anything with even minimal anti armor capability. The Sherman had frontal armor equivalent to a tiger. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2023 10:45:41 AM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Bradley turned out to be a pretty damn good War machine though. Quote HistoryQuoted: The Bradley turned out to be a pretty damn good War machine though.  Greatest "Not A Tank" Of All Time - The Bradley Fighting Vehicle |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2023 10:50:57 AM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So, basically a modern Sherman? Infantry support / not a tank, and easily killed by anything with even minimal anti armor capability. The Sherman was a good tank. It's also the only tank in WW2 that fought in just about every corner of the globe and did it well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2023 12:44:03 PM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It would. I'm no expert on 'tanks', but I don't recall any 'tanks' designed purely as infantry support. The Sheridan filled that role in the post Vietnam 82nd, but it technically wasn't a 'tank' as the Army called it an Armored Reconnaissance/Airborne Assault Vehicle. Every non armor person that saw it called it a tank though. the Sheridan has always been considered a light tank. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2023 12:51:02 PM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: the Sheridan has always been considered a light tank. By who? You? FDC posted exactly what the LIN identified it as within the Army. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2023 12:54:10 PM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So this is a trans-tank? Weighs less, weaker armament, & costs millions more than a real tank. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2023 2:38:41 PM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: By who? You? FDC posted exactly what the LIN identified it as within the Army. Light tank Light tank 2.0 Yet again.......a light tank Light tank in Vietnam Still a light tank And once again........a light tank Articles in Armor magazine call it a tank RP Hunnicutt calls it a light tank in Sheridan: A History Of The American Light Tank, Volume 2 So it appears one or two people other than me call the Sheridan a light tank. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2023 2:45:03 PM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Light tank Light tank 2.0 Yet again.......a light tank Light tank in Vietnam Still a light tank And once again........a light tank Articles in Armor magazine call it a tank RP Hunnicutt calls it a light tank in Sheridan: A History Of The American Light Tank, Volume 2 So it appears one or two people other than me call the Sheridan a light tank. Quote HistoryQuoted: Light tank Light tank 2.0 Yet again.......a light tank Light tank in Vietnam Still a light tank And once again........a light tank Articles in Armor magazine call it a tank RP Hunnicutt calls it a light tank in Sheridan: A History Of The American Light Tank, Volume 2 So it appears one or two people other than me call the Sheridan a light tank. Every single link of yours lists it as "Armored Reconnaissance/Airborne Assault Vehicle" as FDC stated, which is what it is. Words mean things. The program name and assignment on the MTOE declare what it is, not you or article authors. The fact that people simplify it by calling it a light tank does not mean it actually is, or that it is not what FDC (and all of your links) state it is. I guess it's too much to ask that you read your own cites.  Attached File Attached File Attached File Attached File Attached FileIt's almost as if he addressed what you are claiming. Quoted: The Sheridan filled that role in the post Vietnam 82nd, but it technically wasn't a 'tank' as the Army called it an Armored Reconnaissance/Airborne Assault Vehicle. Every non armor person that saw it called it a tank though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2023 2:53:05 PM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: At 42 tons, it's as heavy as a T-72B with less armor, smaller gun, slower and about 12x the price. Sure it has far superior fire control and has newer composite armor, but it will burn just as bright as all those T-72/80/90 when fighting anyone that not arabs with decent equipment. Whos' bright idea is to have a front engine chassis with its massive weight penalty? On a supposedly lighter tank! It wasn't made for tank on tank battles.. it's an infantry fire support vehicle |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2023 2:57:42 PM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Every single link of yours lists it as "Armored Reconnaissance/Airborne Assault Vehicle" as FDC stated, which is what it is. Words mean things. The program name and assignment on the MTOE declare what it is, not you or article authors. The fact that people simplify it by calling it a light tank does not mean it actually is, or that it is not what FDC (and all of your links) state it is. I guess it's too much to ask that you read your own cites. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/45449/Screenshot_2023-09-04_134810_png-2942680.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/45449/Screenshot_2023-09-04_134752_png-2942681.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/45449/Screenshot_2023-09-04_134703_png-2942683.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/45449/Screenshot_2023-09-04_134633_png-2942684.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/45449/Screenshot_2023-09-04_135332_png-2942690.JPG It's almost as if he addressed what you are claiming. By reading my own cites; I see that it is called either a "light tank" or "tank" in each one to include the link to Armor. So, it is light tank even if the Army hung a different name on it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2023 3:00:27 PM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So, it is light tank even if the Army hung a different name on it. Technically it's not, as FDC and your articles pointed out to you. But you are free to make up whatever you feel. The editorial portions refer to it as a tank, the references to formal nomenclature do not. So that first part is made up. None of your cites are formal Army sources. It was actually crewed by scouts versus tankers, and for a reason, which is why words mean things. Is the M3 CFV a light tank? Both were designed for scouts to use in recon missions, and focused heavily on ATGM employment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2023 3:01:01 PM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You have to plan for the worst shot, after all there are three guys in that tank whose pay and lives both depend on keeping the front towards you. And I’d caution about drawing too many lessons from that war, nobody there is fighting like we would. I can tell who hasn’t seen any NTC rotations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2023 3:42:19 PM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Sherman was a good tank. It's also the only tank in WW2 that fought in just about every corner of the globe and did it well. And it kicked the shit out of the T-34/85 in Korea. Sherman was more than a match for the majority of Axis tanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2023 3:52:22 PM EST
[#38]
Now this is a tank..
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2023 3:52:59 PM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I can tell who hasn’t seen any NTC rotations. I'm glad NTC rotations aren't real because Blackhorse generally curb stomps the rotational unit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2023 5:59:35 PM EST
[#40]
Quote History Attached FileThe Brad is one of the best armored vehicles that any country has ever built. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2023 7:05:37 PM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/87D543F5-C33B-475C-95CD-45D86133DAC9-476.gif The Brad is one of the best armored vehicles that any country has ever built. Quote HistoryQuoted: /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/87D543F5-C33B-475C-95CD-45D86133DAC9-476.gif The Brad is one of the best armored vehicles that any country has ever built. Never served in the military and only go by what I read, but I have to agree with you. Aside from the Leftist media doing Leftist media things back during the build up to Desert Storm, I've never read anything overly critical about the Brad. If anything, it's only had stellar reviews, especially when compared to similar offerings from other countries that have seen combat. Heck, IIRC, it was Bradleys that did a shitload of damage to the Republican Guard T-72s during the Battle of 73 Easting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2023 7:42:50 PM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I can tell who hasn’t seen any NTC rotations. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You have to plan for the worst shot, after all there are three guys in that tank whose pay and lives both depend on keeping the front towards you. And I’d caution about drawing too many lessons from that war, nobody there is fighting like we would. I can tell who hasn’t seen any NTC rotations. Are you suggesting that the Army is wrong to put the thickest armor on the front of the tank or that at NTC you dig trenches and assault in 5 man sections? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2023 7:57:32 PM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: By who? You? FDC posted exactly what the LIN identified it as within the Army. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: the Sheridan has always been considered a light tank. By who? You? FDC posted exactly what the LIN identified it as within the Army. Yup, never been a tank, Armored reconnaissance vehicle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2023 8:04:51 PM EST
[#44]
I still think that the CV90-120T with it's 120mm gun would have been the better choice
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2023 8:06:36 PM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Clankity-clank, looks like a tank AR-15s look like assault rifles, therefore, they're assault rifles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2023 8:12:27 PM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: AR-15s look like assault rifles, therefore, they're assault rifles. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Clankity-clank, looks like a tank AR-15s look like assault rifles, therefore, they're assault rifles. Select fire isn't part of some quite arbitrary definition, it's the fundamental characteristic of the weapon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2023 9:01:58 PM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Technically it's not, as FDC and your articles pointed out to you. But you are free to make up whatever you feel. The editorial portions refer to it as a tank, the references to formal nomenclature do not. So that first part is made up. None of your cites are formal Army sources. It was actually crewed by scouts versus tankers, and for a reason, which is why words mean things. Is the M3 CFV a light tank? Both were designed for scouts to use in recon missions, and focused heavily on ATGM employment. I think "the first part" isn't made up, it's the historical term. The army nomenclature was created for some kind of army reason, no doubt. So I think you're both kind of wrapped around the axle since you're both using the correct term for the vehicle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2023 9:04:05 PM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: he army nomenclature was created for some kind of army reason, no doubt. Yes, because it was a reconnaissance vehicle, not a tank. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2023 9:13:58 PM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes, because it was a reconnaissance vehicle, not a tank. What I'm suggesting is that the army had abandoned the light tank and so the vehicle could not be called that. Upon (very quick) investigation, I see that it does indeed seem to have been deployed only as a reconnaissance vehicle, even in vietnam. I wonder, because I couldn't find it in my brief skim of wiki, in what capacity it was used by the 82nd, and if they served a role other than reconnaissance there. I don't understand why you're denying that it meets the standards of a light tank, as opposed to other armored recon vehicles like brads, m113s, or greyhound armored cars. I still think you're both right. *I was a light guy, never mech or armor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2023 9:16:29 PM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't understand why you're denying that it meets the standards of a light tank, as opposed to other armored recon vehicles like brads, m113s, or greyhound armored cars. I still think you're both right. What exactly are those standards? Why doesn't an M3 CFV meet them? The only knowns we have here are nomenclature and doctrine. Everything else is made up. |
|
|
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.
