User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/23/2022 9:30:46 AM EST
[#1]
There was a story out of the UK years ago about a FV101 Avis Scorpion or something doing a speed run during mfg testing and it got up to a pretty decent speed but something happened it either the driver lost control or it threw a track.
The resulting mess was not pretty, I think afterwards the MOD required that series to be speed governed to like 45 mph. Factoid the FV100 series had rubber impregnated tracks rather than the removable rubber pads. The tracks normally aren't worn out when the rubber wears down, just can't drive it on the road anymore in the UK. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2022 9:43:04 AM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Hybrid? Serious question. The History Channel like 10 years ago before it became the garbage picker channel demonstrated electric APCs that were so stinking quiet, it's amazing. Noise on the battlefield from 50 tons of squeaking metal is one thing, but that turbine engine is loud! ETA now, if only a good gun company would make the polymer 0.70" Browning action .32 ACP or .380 ACP DOA with actual night sights and configuration that fits a man's hand .like a PSM-sized. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2022 10:02:34 AM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Dear god don't be an EV. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2022 10:12:17 AM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But why. What do you mean why? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/23/2022 4:35:50 PM EST
[#5]
We need the Eludium Q36 Explosive Space Modulator for better power.
Or, Element 115 |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2022 10:59:06 AM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The most awesome part of that turbine engine is proving that horsepower is the number to look at when you need to evaluate an engine's ability to do work. 73.6 tons is moved quite nicely by an engine that makes 395 ft-lbs of torque at peak which drops to 277 ft-lbs at the 30,000 rpm speed where 1500 hp is produced. I believe there is a gear box what is the torque at the tracks? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2022 11:07:12 AM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: i really hope they got rid of that stupid turbine engine. Why? Except for fuel consumption, it is superior in every way to a tier 4 diesel. One thing the US Army gets right is logistics. We can haul 3x the fuel for 15% better Preformance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2022 12:34:18 PM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I believe there is a gear box what is the torque at the tracks?  It's a 4 speed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2022 7:21:33 PM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why? Except for fuel consumption, it is superior in every way to a tier 4 diesel. One thing the US Army gets right is logistics. We can haul 3x the fuel for 15% better Preformance. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: i really hope they got rid of that stupid turbine engine. Why? Except for fuel consumption, it is superior in every way to a tier 4 diesel. One thing the US Army gets right is logistics. We can haul 3x the fuel for 15% better Preformance. Road consumption was similar to the M60A3. I talked to the old grognards about it when we were filling the spiffy new M1(IP)'s. It's the sitting there idling where the M1 consumes so much more, and that's a lot of the time. That's also why they added APU's. We had one of the early ones that was a box that went on the rear with a tail-light relocated on it. I hear they're on the turret using valuable space in the bustle rack now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2022 7:33:08 PM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:  Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: i really hope they got rid of that stupid turbine engine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2022 7:37:21 PM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The crew (xrew?) will have to enter their pronouns before it starts up and moves. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Dear god don't be an EV. It is an all of the crews will be LBGTQ whatever the fuck they're called The crew (xrew?) will have to enter their pronouns before it starts up and moves. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/25/2022 8:02:36 PM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: they belong in the air not on the ground. were the only ones that have made them work but at a needless cost. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2022 9:46:29 AM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: High fuel consumption. They require a tremendous amount of air when operating and this poses problems longer term in desert/arid conditions. The fine sand particulate is sucked up and through the V-Packs and into the turbine, thus causing damage. In the case of my M1A1 in Desert Storm, total turbine destruction. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Yeah, what's wrong with the turbine? The only real weakness I know of is that it consumes a lot of fuel - but being a very multi-fuel capable engine in a time where they were expecting to be retreating with supply lines that would have been getting shorter (and the ability to scrounge fuel from wherever they happened to find it), the turbine made sense. Low coolant requirements and a small size helped too. It's too bad they didn't follow through with the re-engening that got canceled with the Crusader. Same power with a lot less fuel consumption and a seamless drop-in swap. High fuel consumption. They require a tremendous amount of air when operating and this poses problems longer term in desert/arid conditions. The fine sand particulate is sucked up and through the V-Packs and into the turbine, thus causing damage. In the case of my M1A1 in Desert Storm, total turbine destruction. I’m not aware of a single Abrams in 2nd or 4th Tank Bn that suffered destroyed engines due to sand during or immediately after ODS. We removed and blew the filters out with an air want connected to another tank (“buddy system”). Even that bit of operator level PMCS has been largely if not completely eliminated with the installation of the PJAS system back in the late ‘90s. Some of you sound like the last time you read about the Abrams was during the Reagan administration. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2022 9:48:54 AM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I remember hearing once that the Abrams has thousands of pounds of copper wiring in it that could be shaved off by switching to fiber optic. Did they ever do that? Not sure about copper wire, but a bit of trivia is that the Abrams hull has 1,500 lbs of welding bead, and the turret has 500 lbs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2022 10:04:37 AM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We haven't actually built new ones in decades, they just go to Lima and get rebuilt, several times. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: A Abrams is not 10 million dollars. When I was a supply SGT my whole property book was only 64 million dollars. 14 SEP V2 tanks, 2 HMMWV, a M113 a, LMTV and a water trailer was the only big items. Everything else was cheap shit like chem detectors, radios and pistols and rifles. Tanks are pretty fucking cheap actually. Depending on the type of rebuild, the hull and turret can be stripped down to the bare hull and turret “structures” (old armor cut away and discarded, structure remachined to bring back to original dimensions) and rebuilt from the structures on up with new armor packages. Ever been inside of the turret? The interior walls of the turret are part of the turret “structure”. Completely different way of fabricating turrets and hulls compared to sand castings that were used since WW II (with a few exceptions) up until the Abrams. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2022 10:10:36 AM EST
[#16]
Really, it needs some fins, some nice chrome, and curb feelers. Gay is the new force one look.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2022 10:14:01 AM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I am a tanker, why is the turbine stupid? The whole thing comes out transmission and all in one lift. Takes no time at all really. It is incredibly quiet, much quieter than a diesel engine. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: i really hope they got rid of that stupid turbine engine. I am a tanker, why is the turbine stupid? The whole thing comes out transmission and all in one lift. Takes no time at all really. It is incredibly quiet, much quieter than a diesel engine. It’s not, but you know that due to your time in the turret. Lower life cycle / maintenance costs, higher reliability, more power, near zero visual signature (no black, sooty exhaust smoke like you have with Diesel engines), & very quiet. Diesel engines are complex, unreliable, noisy, smoky, underpowered in comparison and are maintenance intensive. To sum it up, they fucking suck. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2022 10:18:06 AM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Voted most retarded comment of the day ! Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: i really hope they got rid of that stupid turbine engine. Thread is full of stupid |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2022 10:23:30 AM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Road consumption was similar to the M60A3. I talked to the old grognards about it when we were filling the spiffy new M1(IP)'s. It's the sitting there idling where the M1 consumes so much more, and that's a lot of the time. That's also why they added APU's. We had one of the early ones that was a box that went on the rear with a tail-light relocated on it. I hear they're on the turret using valuable space in the bustle rack now. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: i really hope they got rid of that stupid turbine engine. Why? Except for fuel consumption, it is superior in every way to a tier 4 diesel. One thing the US Army gets right is logistics. We can haul 3x the fuel for 15% better Preformance. Road consumption was similar to the M60A3. I talked to the old grognards about it when we were filling the spiffy new M1(IP)'s. It's the sitting there idling where the M1 consumes so much more, and that's a lot of the time. That's also why they added APU's. We had one of the early ones that was a box that went on the rear with a tail-light relocated on it. I hear they're on the turret using valuable space in the bustle rack now. The old EAPU that the US Army tried to mount on the rear of the hull was easily damaged while operating in rough terrain, so it was relocated to the rear of the turret. They are noisy, so they suck. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2022 11:18:50 AM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The old EAPU that the US Army tried to mount on the rear of the hull was easily damaged while operating in rough terrain, so it was relocated to the rear of the turret. They are noisy, so they suck. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: i really hope they got rid of that stupid turbine engine. Why? Except for fuel consumption, it is superior in every way to a tier 4 diesel. One thing the US Army gets right is logistics. We can haul 3x the fuel for 15% better Preformance. Road consumption was similar to the M60A3. I talked to the old grognards about it when we were filling the spiffy new M1(IP)'s. It's the sitting there idling where the M1 consumes so much more, and that's a lot of the time. That's also why they added APU's. We had one of the early ones that was a box that went on the rear with a tail-light relocated on it. I hear they're on the turret using valuable space in the bustle rack now. The old EAPU that the US Army tried to mount on the rear of the hull was easily damaged while operating in rough terrain, so it was relocated to the rear of the turret. They are noisy, so they suck. My company didn't manage to hurt any, but someone pivoted one into a tree in another company the same field exercise. When were loading on the HETT it barely cleared the ground, we expected that to be where we lost one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2022 11:47:44 AM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: none of which that can really be justified in todays time for its cost. we had all the best shit in the world and we still lost Vietnam and Afghanistan. we have a ton of shit that is so needlessly expensive for its combat effectiveness. i also dont trust the competency of the old military contract industries, hell upstart Space X could build a F35 for 2/3rd the cost if they wanted. we are so fucking lucky to have two oceans and for our competitors in this world to be so grossly incompetent or we would be fucked. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: There are many reasons why the Abrams turbine engine is still quite relevant. none of which that can really be justified in todays time for its cost. we had all the best shit in the world and we still lost Vietnam and Afghanistan. we have a ton of shit that is so needlessly expensive for its combat effectiveness. i also dont trust the competency of the old military contract industries, hell upstart Space X could build a F35 for 2/3rd the cost if they wanted. we are so fucking lucky to have two oceans and for our competitors in this world to be so grossly incompetent or we would be fucked. We did not lose in Vietnam and Afghanistan. The politicians lost those wars. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2022 12:37:03 PM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: oh i know. there is a reason they never made the jet car into production. each engine was near $100,000 in todays money. they are extremely expensive. A Abrams is like what? 10 million? would not be surprised if 3 million of that is just of the engine itself. sure back in the 70s conventional engines could not do the power output required but now? fuck we can make a v12 have 2000 hp easy, maybe even multi fuel just put a fucking normal engine in it already for half the cost. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Hey, now - That turbine shares the same lineage as the mighty Mopar you're driving!  oh i know. there is a reason they never made the jet car into production. each engine was near $100,000 in todays money. they are extremely expensive. A Abrams is like what? 10 million? would not be surprised if 3 million of that is just of the engine itself. sure back in the 70s conventional engines could not do the power output required but now? fuck we can make a v12 have 2000 hp easy, maybe even multi fuel just put a fucking normal engine in it already for half the cost. How much does those v12s weight? Dry weight: 400 lb (180 kg) (YT700-GE-700) 437 lb (198 kg) (T700-GE-700) 537 lb (244 kg) (T700/T6E) |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2022 12:57:14 PM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How much does those v12s weight? Dry weight: 400 lb (180 kg) (YT700-GE-700) 437 lb (198 kg) (T700-GE-700) 537 lb (244 kg) (T700/T6E) 3,968 lb (1800) (MTU 883) But it gets better. Add 350 pounds, 159kg, for fluids that a turbine doesn’t use. And I’m not sure if the published MTU figure includes the cooling system. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2022 1:01:44 PM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 3,968 lb (1800) (MTU 883) But it gets better. Add 350 pounds, 159kg, for fluids that a turbine doesn't use. And I'm not sure if the published MTU figure includes the cooling system.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2022 1:05:57 PM EST
[#25]
We haven’t gotten to the part where a smaller turbine engine could give you room for a spare 50 rounds in the hull. Theoretically you could also shorten by a road wheel but that might fuck up the width to length ratio.
The Abrams should have had the turbine mounted transversely from day one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2022 1:08:29 PM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: once you get to 65 tons....whats a couple more? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 3,968 lb (1800) (MTU 883) But it gets better. Add 350 pounds, 159kg, for fluids that a turbine doesn't use. And I'm not sure if the published MTU figure includes the cooling system. Also, the cooling and lubrication system takes 150hp to run. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2022 1:16:32 PM EST
[#27]
Rather wondering why the focus on quiet, when RPAs don't hunt based on sound...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2022 1:24:30 PM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Rather wondering why the focus on quiet, when RPAs don't hunt based on sound... Because the sound of tanks alerts the enemy, who has ears. Look at that famous Russian bridging effort that got blown up, they were compromised by outboard engines on engineers boats. RPAs aren’t the greatest threat to an Abrams in major combat anyway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2022 1:50:53 PM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Dear god don't be an EV. Guaranteed that's what it is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2022 1:55:59 PM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Guaranteed that's what it is. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Dear god don't be an EV. Guaranteed that's what it is. What’s wrong with that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2022 2:06:10 PM EST
[#31]
A hybrid drive system wouldn't be bad. Keep the lightweight and powerful turbine (but set it up as a generator), combine it with electric motors driving the drive wheels (which removes the need for a transmission), and add a large battery so the tank can run silent for a while if needed or use battery power in stationary positions (which removes the need for the APU and still saves tons of fuel).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2022 2:17:11 PM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: none of which that can really be justified in todays time for its cost. we had all the best shit in the world and we still lost Vietnam and Afghanistan. we have a ton of shit that is so needlessly expensive for its combat effectiveness. i also dont trust the competency of the old military contract industries, hell upstart Space X could build a F35 for 2/3rd the cost if they wanted. we are so fucking lucky to have two oceans and for our competitors in this world to be so grossly incompetent or we would be fucked. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2022 2:41:22 PM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Because the sound of tanks alerts the enemy, who has ears. Look at that famous Russian bridging effort that got blown up, they were compromised by outboard engines on engineers boats. RPAs aren't the greatest threat to an Abrams in major combat anyway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2022 2:55:57 PM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: RPAs are going to be doing the recon, Artillery and ATGMs doing the killing. Not always, not everywhere, but that is what has been the takeaway over the last several years. Battlefield sensing gets you much better PK than anything else. Knowing is half the battle... I completely agree, but that doesn’t mean that sound isn’t important. It can enable the enemy to locate you non line of sight and there are sensor arrays that listen also. I suspect also that a hybrid vehicle will have a smaller thermal signature, perhaps significantly so if the engine can be smaller. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2022 4:58:36 PM EST
[#35]
There is no way that a diesel-electric drivetrain is lighter than a turbine drivetrain.
Yes, turbines are usually used in planes, because they are so light for the power you get. Very few planes have ever used diesel engines, and not with a heavy generator/motor set to go along with the diesel. Yes, 2020 diesels now get much better fuel consumption than 1960's diesels, and so do 2020 turbines compared to 1960 turbines. BOTH are more expensive than the old versions, mostly because of the electronics used for controls and the more expensive material costs. edit to add: The New Mexico, Tennessee and Colorado class battleships built in WWI had turbo-electric propulsion; steam turbines driving generators and electric motors spinning the propellers. The system was more flexible as far as space as the electric motors didn't need to be where the steam turbines were in the middle of the ship, allowing the heavy prop shafts to be much shorter and greatly reducing vibration problems. But the system overall was heavier, and had problems with salt air getting to the motors. It was the weight of the system that caused the navy to go back to the standard steam turbine shaft drive for the later class battleships as they were built under the displacement (weight) limitations of the Washington Naval treaty and couldn't afford the heavier weight of the electric system. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2022 11:28:39 PM EST
[#36]
An EV would be fine if it wasn't a fuckin computer on wheels. Granted you're not gonna traverse the country side in a tank without support in the rear
But have you seen the amount of computer gear in a modern tank? Displays, weapons systems etc. It ain't your WW2 tank with nothin but a periscope Then again, modern wars with tanks aren't really traversing the countryside anymore like its the Battle of the Bulge. We have drones and reconnaissance support and the tank isn't the weapon it used to be. Unless your're in some shithole war zone you shouldn't be involved in the first place. So I can totally see an EV tank for very short battles since who the hell uses a tank anymore unless your in some shithole Ukraine war with no support . Just send in the drones these days |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2022 11:55:54 PM EST
[#37]
I'm sure any ongoing upgrade plans are watching the orc fails and taking notes
The battlefield is changing faster than ever before. A drone with a 12 year old operator has lethality the VC never dreamed of |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2022 12:14:41 AM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Basically like a freight locomotive? Could be cool. Sounds like it may be. Diesel generator to power electric drive motors. Torque out the ass. Bet it'll be fast too |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2022 12:16:41 AM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: EV Tanks are all fun and games until the lithium-cobalt battery pack takes a hit then explodes more violently than a T-72 taking a SABOT in the ass, I mean gas tanks. https://www.ar15.com/images/smilies/smiley_abused.gif Seriously people, lithium-ion is no fucking joke.  Just because it may have electric drive doesn't mean there is a battery pack. Diesel electric locomotives don't use batteries |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2022 12:18:47 AM EST
[#40]
Quote History[b]Quoted:[b] Just send in the drones these days This is the same mistake the airpower proponents have been making for 100 years. And for 75 of those years we’ve had the evidence to know better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2022 12:19:55 AM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Just because it may have electric drive doesn't mean there is a battery pack. Diesel electric locomotives don't use batteries If it has a silent mode, it has batteries, supercapacitors, or both. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2022 10:18:00 PM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We haven’t gotten to the part where a smaller turbine engine could give you room for a spare 50 rounds in the hull. Theoretically you could also shorten by a road wheel but that might fuck up the width to length ratio. The Abrams should have had the turbine mounted transversely from day one. A smaller turbine *might* make room for more batteries (critical for the A2 variant) or an internally mounted EAPU, but the size of the “pack” is mostly transmission, not the AGT 1500 turbine engine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2022 12:03:01 AM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A smaller turbine *might* make room for more batteries (critical for the A2 variant) or an internally mounted EAPU, but the size of the “pack” is mostly transmission, not the AGT 1500 turbine engine. In the early 1990s there was a proposal for a transverse mounted AGT-1500. Just that change was expected to free up 47-76 cubic feet. Keep in mind that a likely replacement turbine is likely to be half the size of there AGT1500 and the Kinetic EX Drive is 1520x750x830mm. I can’t find dimensions for the Allison X1100 but I suspect it’s not much different. So in theory about 100 cubic feet should be workable, or about 4 times what a late model Tahoe has in the back with the seats up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2022 12:10:56 AM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In the early 1990s there was a proposal for a transverse mounted AGT-1500. Just that change was expected to free up 47-76 cubic feet. Keep in mind that a likely replacement turbine is likely to be half the size of there AGT1500 and the Kinetic EX Drive is 1520x750x830mm. I can't find dimensions for the Allison X1100 but I suspect it's not much different. So in theory about 100 cubic feet should be workable, or about 4 times what a late model Tahoe has in the back with the seats up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2022 12:46:56 AM EST
[#45]
Assuming all of near peer adversaries are dissecting NLAWS and Javelins right now courtesy of Russia/Ukraine, and adding tweaks:
I'd probably rather ride around in a M4 Sherman with a very good active protection system designed around worse case top attack munitions than a new M1 variant that doesn't take that into account. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2022 12:49:40 AM EST
[#46]
Russia probably won’t be able to copy an NLAW let alone a Javelin. China has a top attack thermal seeking missile already.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2022 12:51:56 AM EST
[#47]
Driver, engage whisper mode....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2022 1:20:49 AM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Driver, engage whisper mode.... You would give a private that switch? Good luck finding your tank in the morning ?? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2022 5:14:28 PM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A smaller turbine *might* make room for more batteries (critical for the A2 variant) or an internally mounted EAPU, but the size of the "pack" is mostly transmission, not the AGT 1500 turbine engine. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: We haven't gotten to the part where a smaller turbine engine could give you room for a spare 50 rounds in the hull. Theoretically you could also shorten by a road wheel but that might fuck up the width to length ratio. The Abrams should have had the turbine mounted transversely from day one. A smaller turbine *might* make room for more batteries (critical for the A2 variant) or an internally mounted EAPU, but the size of the "pack" is mostly transmission, not the AGT 1500 turbine engine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2022 5:45:25 PM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A hybrid system with a turbine powering electric motors doesn't need a transmission, which could be useful. I'm not sure how much smaller electric motors are versus the transmission assembly. I posted the dimensions of the Qinetic electric transmission above. |
|
|
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.
