User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/13/2020 1:06:01 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They are both good rifles, if you want a full-size .308 magazine fed semi-auto. Honestly, I think either is a great choice, and so "the best" is going to be more a matter of personal preference and ergonomics, and well as the particular role you need it for. Obviously the M14 is a more accurate rifle, and perhaps has slightly better slights, but the FAL probably has slightly better ergonomics for a generalist infantry rifle. Both are longer than they need to be, IMO. If I was forced to make a choice, I'd probably pick the FAL, but I'd be perfectly happy with either.  I like both setups but invested into the M1A world. I like how the m1a handles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2020 1:06:57 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
@lilMAC25 Let me know the next time you visit your folks. I could let you shoot one (18" barrel though). Railed topcover and ACR stock. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I want a 16" FAL with a railed top cover and ACR/ACR style stock. 
I don't want to spend the $$ to feed it.  Let me know the next time you visit your folks. I could let you shoot one (18" barrel though). Railed topcover and ACR stock. ETA: I have MP5 clones (S/A only, unfortunately) that you can use to play bullet hose with in exchange. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2020 1:07:58 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sort of, that is a 1st order approximation I'd say. It is probably true for rack grade rifles. The M14 can be made into a true MOA rifle (but not much better), but it doesn't keep that long, it shoots itself lose quickly. Just as the M1 did. I don't think anyone has a reliable MOA FAL. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Accuracy is a wash. The M14 can be made into a true MOA rifle (but not much better), but it doesn't keep that long, it shoots itself lose quickly. Just as the M1 did. I don't think anyone has a reliable MOA FAL. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2020 1:09:56 PM EDT
[#4]
Everyone is all wrong. The AR10 for the win.
But keeping in with the thread. FAL |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2020 1:11:07 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's potentially true, but I don't know of hard evidence to support that. What hard data do we have on original AR-10s? The AR-10 is, in principle, the superior design. But I don't know that is true in practice. 
These guys didn’t have a problem |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2020 1:12:21 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I had a DSA Gray Wolf that would probably do it. The current SPR should do it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2020 1:12:57 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When AR15s began to stomp M1As at the 600 yard line, I took notice. M1As don't own distance, one of the reason "battle rifles" were pushed in the 80s. Since FALs can't compete in Service Rifle, their lack of success doesn't mean anything. The Brits (and other English speaking nations) used FALs in their version of Highpower, it might be interesting to compare their results to ours with M1As. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I have no idea. How is that relevant? Since FALs can't compete in Service Rifle, their lack of success doesn't mean anything. The Brits (and other English speaking nations) used FALs in their version of Highpower, it might be interesting to compare their results to ours with M1As. The M1A's sights and trigger are NOT outclassed by the FAL; two of the *most fundamental* aspects of shooting- sight alignment and trigger manipulation- are substantially better in the M1A. That tells me that the FAL doesn't outclass the M1A enough (in other ways) to justify making such a grandiose claim in favor of the FAL. I like both- I have a Para and full-size FAL, and a Standard and Scout Squad M1A- but I have held and fired them side-by-side enough to know their strengths and shortcomings. For what it's worth, they each easily beat out my PTR-91 in everything except price of mags. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2020 1:13:07 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
FAL by a mile. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2020 1:14:04 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: https://www.sturmgewehr.com/bhinton/Armalite_AR10/AR10_InAction22.jpg These guys didn’t have a problem |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2020 1:14:26 PM EDT
[#10]
I prefer my M14, but the FAL actually has a long track record as a fighting rifle worldwide.
The M14 had issues. Love the rifle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2020 1:16:03 PM EDT
[#11]
If I had to pick one of those two, the FAL.
I have trigger time on all of the mainstream .308 Battle Rifles and I prefer them in this order FN SCAR 17S AR10 Galil ACE 308 FAL HK91 M14 Of those, our family has the SCAR and the HK. Pretty much just get used for hog hunting, and the AR's are the more serious fighting weapons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2020 1:21:08 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You both are basically hovering around my point. The M1A's sights and trigger are NOT outclassed by the FAL; two of the *most fundamental* aspects of shooting- sight alignment and trigger manipulation- are substantially better in the M1A. That tells me that the FAL doesn't outclass the M1A enough (in other ways) to justify making such a grandiose claim in favor of the FAL. I like both- I have a Para and full-size FAL, and a Standard and Scout Squad M1A- but I have held and fired them side-by-side enough to know their strengths and shortcomings. For what it's worth, they each easily beat out my PTR-91 in everything except price of mags. The FAL advantages are a more closed action (more reliable) and an in-line stock (faster follow up shots). Slight advantage to the FAL. The G3 type is very reliable, and cheap to make using 70s manufacturing. Also seem to have a higher level of intrinsic accuracy (which doesn't buy it much due to its trigger and recoil impulse). Your PTR-91 might not have the accuracy of an HK due to the barrel, I once had an HK-91 and it shot very well despite the horrid trigger. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2020 1:21:48 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sort of, that is a 1st order approximation I'd say. It is probably true for rack grade rifles. The M14 can be made into a true MOA rifle (but not much better), but it doesn't keep that long, it shoots itself lose quickly. Just as the M1 did. I don't think anyone has a reliable MOA FAL. Shutting the gas off on either rifle helps considerably but is kind of disingenuous when being semi auto is kind of a key part of the gun. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2020 1:23:58 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote History |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2020 1:24:10 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
FAL M-14 should have never existed. People shit all over the AK for having an opening for dirt to get into the action when the safety is off, but the fully exposed bolt on the M1 M14/M1A gets a pass. The M14 can be made accurate? Even without it shooting itself loose, the common field conditions/handling will see likely see to it. Infantry rifles aren’t going from a pelican case to a bench on the range. If we are talking a modern context (and we are if talking about an “accurized” M14) - then Modularity favors the FAL design, which also means the sights - the BUIS - matter less. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2020 1:38:55 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Perhaps, but I don't know the actual record. America made oodles of M14s. No client states wanted to buy them. FALs were Commonwealth and cost Commonwealth riches and were sourced mainly from Belgium. Pricey to make but not prohibitively so. Africa made some. G3s were stamped sheet metal and could be made by anybody who could make them to spec. Arguably more prolific as a lot were/are made in SWA. There were fewer AR-10s because they required people who could work with legit Aluminum. That narrowed it down quite a bit. Not “buying”. Able to make. The Dutch had more success and West Germany was interested but more expensive. But the ones that have survived the years of intermittent production are still better off than the other three 
On paper, all three were more “successful” solely because more were made. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2020 1:40:30 PM EDT
[#17]
I have a few of both,and I like both equal. I have all the other battle rifles,they are all fun to shoot,for different reasons.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2020 1:45:52 PM EDT
[#18]
Best Target Rifle: M14
Best Main Battle Rifle: FN FAL 50.63 |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2020 1:50:15 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Some of you are seriously on dope. AR-10 was hugely successful in many places of heavy fighting with less than ideal ammo where few white men dared to tread. It’s ALWAYS been successful aside from Eagle Arms and Knights Armament, the only real revisions were made in the early 70s. Its only drawback was the odd for its era charging handle. The only issues it had were outright sabotage. Anyone else who just used it and kept it lubed had few problems if any. A lot of this “muh M14” “muh FAL” and “muh G3” boils down to fashion statements and emotions or wanting to be different. Why do I want a gun with wood, more moving parts, and a lot of personality with the gas valve when I can have something that is accurate, lightweight, and works? Even 50 years ago AR-10 was the right answer. Gimme a break with the wolf talk on muh Cold War and muh Rhodesia I still remember when KAC couldn’t even reliably produce components to spec... |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2020 1:58:21 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Lol. The AR-10 was never fielded in any significant numbers because it wasn’t a reliable enough platform till the last 20 years. The Port military didn’t even have a significant sample size... I still remember when KAC couldn’t even reliably produce components to spec... KAC has nothing to do with it. Modern AR10s were upscaled AR15s, moreso than a continuation of original AR10s. The effort placed in developing modern AR10s in the 90s wasn't the same as put into developing the AR15 from the AR10, because the intent was to market to a small civilian market. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2020 2:07:33 PM EDT
[#21]
Finally, a thread with original content. Thank God!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2020 2:10:14 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Primarily ergonomics and manual of arms, imo. If you consider them equal in combat accuracy and reliability then the FAL wins simply by being pistol gripped, thumb selector, left side charging handle and folding stock capable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2020 2:10:19 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well first off here’s what we know: America made oodles of M14s. No client states wanted to buy them. FALs were Commonwealth and cost Commonwealth riches and were sourced mainly from Belgium. Pricey to make but not prohibitively so. Africa made some. G3s were stamped sheet metal and could be made by anybody who could make them to spec. Arguably more prolific as a lot were/are made in SWA. There were fewer AR-10s because they required people who could work with legit Aluminum. That narrowed it down quite a bit. Not “buying”. Able to make. The Dutch had more success and West Germany was interested but more expensive. But the ones that have survived the years of intermittent production are still better off than the other three On paper, all three were more “successful” solely because more were made. As I understand, early on Colt was trying to sell AR10s and AR15s in Asia, no one wanted the AR10, there was huge interest in the AR15. It's possible the AR10 was the best 7.62 (it had the potential to be), but I don't see sufficient evidence to assume that it is true. The truth is that the market success of the FAL and G3 don't mean quite what some people think. Just because 90 countries adopt a rifle doesn't mean it is better than the rifle only one country adopted. I think you are right that AR10 had the potential to be the best 7.62, but the 5.56 AR15 was still more better. We can't say the AR10 lived up to that potential. The wide adoption of FAL doesn't mean it is better than M14 (although I think it is--slightly). |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2020 2:11:14 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Best Target Rifle: M14 Best Main Battle Rifle: FN FAL 50.63 The ergonomics of the FAL do greatly aid it *as a fighting rifle* over the M1A/M14, if each were to do the same duty. My LAR-8* has a better companion in the FAL than the M1A, for obvious reasons. *Bought long before RRA went retarded.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2020 2:15:41 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Finally, a thread with original content. Thank God! |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2020 2:18:42 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I really want a FAL Para Congo. 
17" barrel was what I decided to go with for my second build. It's a great length for the FAL. Drilling out the sight aperture to 5mm was also a good call as far as practicality goes. 
Or you could always go with something like the rifle used in the iconic SANParks K-9 Ranger pic posted here from time to time. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2020 2:20:10 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
16" with a para stock feels perfect imho. Im a small guy though, and even for me the para stock seems a wee bit short Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I really want a FAL Para Congo. Im a small guy though, and even for me the para stock seems a wee bit short |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2020 2:21:06 PM EDT
[#28]
In a total SHTF situation I would go with my FAL. It's almost AK47-like in it's ability to function with no cleaning or maintenance:
Old Dirty |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2020 2:22:26 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well first off here’s what we know: America made oodles of M14s. No client states wanted to buy them. FALs were Commonwealth and cost Commonwealth riches and were sourced mainly from Belgium. Pricey to make but not prohibitively so. Africa made some. G3s were stamped sheet metal and could be made by anybody who could make them to spec. Arguably more prolific as a lot were/are made in SWA. There were fewer AR-10s because they required people who could work with legit Aluminum. That narrowed it down quite a bit. Not “buying”. Able to make. The Dutch had more success and West Germany was interested but more expensive. But the ones that have survived the years of intermittent production are still better off than the other three https://i1.wp.com/silahreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Screen-Shot-2017-10-01-at-20.23.56.png?resize=643%2C510 On paper, all three were more “successful” solely because more were made. First, M14 production was bungled (which is a large part of why the M16 was adopted) and fewer than 1.4 million were made. Second, the Taiwanese license produced the M14 as the Type 57 and used it as their standard service rifle. https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/57%E5%BC%8F%E6%AD%A5%E6%A7%8D |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2020 2:25:41 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Some of you are seriously on dope. AR-10 was hugely successful in many places of heavy fighting with less than ideal ammo where few white men dared to tread. It’s ALWAYS been successful aside from Eagle Arms and Knights Armament, the only real revisions were made in the early 70s. Its only drawback was the odd for its era charging handle. The only issues it had were outright sabotage. Anyone else who just used it and kept it lubed had few problems if any. A lot of this “muh M14” “muh FAL” and “muh G3” boils down to fashion statements and emotions or wanting to be different. Why do I want a gun with wood, more moving parts, and a lot of personality with the gas valve when I can have something that is accurate, lightweight, and works? Even 50 years ago AR-10 was the right answer. Gimme a break with the wolf talk on muh Cold War and muh Rhodesia Have you seen the difference between what happens in such an event between steel rifles and enclosed aluminum ones? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2020 2:26:30 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Were we trying to sell M14s? Much of the FAL success was being first to market, but the items on the market were G3s and FALs. The M14 was a US army thing, TRW couldn't just sell it to make a profit to other countries. As I understand, early on Colt was trying to sell AR10s and AR15s in Asia, no one wanted the AR10, there was huge interest in the AR15. It's possible the AR10 was the best 7.62 (it had the potential to be), but I don't see sufficient evidence to assume that it is true. The truth is that the market success of the FAL and G3 don't mean quite what some people think. Just because 90 countries adopt a rifle doesn't mean it is better than the rifle only one country adopted. I think you are right that AR10 had the potential to be the best 7.62, but the 5.56 AR15 was still more better. We can't say the AR10 lived up to that potential. The wide adoption of FAL doesn't mean it is better than M14 (although I think it is--slightly). They literally couldn’t give them away. NOBODY wanted them. That’s why whatever wasn’t kept for parade, D&C, etc was shredded. Colt very briefly tried to market AR-10s, hence AR-10A(that wasn’t something Eagle Arms pulled out of the air). You’re wanting to play the baseball statistics game in order to have ammunition for some debate with autistic people and economics majors. The fact is that all 3 of the “Battle Rifles” were obsolete the day the AK-47 was made. Why carry a larger weapon with less ammo and more weight? And the AK-47 was definitely obsolete the day the AR-15 was made. I won’t say a semi automatic 308 didn’t have a place but the G3, FAL, and M14 just aren’t it. We’re kinda applying 2020 hindsight to an era where profits were to be made from political tension. I fear we have romanticized the image of some cigar chomping Marine route stepping through a rice paddy with an M14, some Rhodie wearing hot pants with a painted FAL, and some West German dude goose stepping with a G3 when all three of those guns were kinda assbackwards since at least 1959. Even the caliber was wrong. A .308? Really? Whatever. I’m in 2020. I have AR10s. I see no reason to go back. I say this as a person whose first rifle I bought of my own was an STG-58. It was fun at the time when SR-25s were impossible to get and I simply wasn’t educated on AR-10s. I had a tape deck in the 90s. Fun. Listened to Van Halen and Weird Al on it. Doesn’t mean I want one again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2020 2:26:30 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
FAL is better no doubt. But I can understand why some prefer the M14. Probably because being American it's more familiar. I do like the M14 iron sights and trigger better. But that's about it. Wish we dropped the Garand and picked up the FAL instead of the M14. It's just a far more modern design. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2020 2:29:06 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
6.5/.260 FAL would have been a great choice in the 50's. Design it around some of the 140 grain 6.5 projectiles. Decent compromise of weight and performance. But still, an AR-10 design is superior in most ways. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2020 2:31:20 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're a lone civilian. Shit has HTF (or not). You have a case head failure. Have you seen the difference between what happens in such an event between steel rifles and enclosed aluminum ones? But I’m not a lone civilian and if I am then I am not going to be in that scenario. If so, I find another gun. This nation sends people to hellholes with SR-25s. How is it that my ass back on the block is catching all these doomsday scenarios worse off than they would be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2020 2:33:27 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I want a 16” FAL with a railed top cover and ACR/ACR style stock.
I don’t want to spend the $$ to feed it. It'd be nice if ammo of either type was still as cheap as it was back when I was in high school. I could swear I was paying $40 for 200-round cans of Aussie 7.62mm. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2020 2:34:28 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's not really a question at all FAL Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Real question is FAL vs G3 FAL |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2020 2:35:13 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That bolded part isn't true on both counts. First, M14 production was bungled (which is a large part of why the M16 was adopted) and fewer than 1.4 million were made. Second, the Taiwanese license produced the M14 as the Type 57 and used it as their standard service rifle. https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/57%E5%BC%8F%E6%AD%A5%E6%A7%8D A lot of the Asian M14s were meant to be sold commercially to boomercore Americans who “knew dat Mattel made gun was a piece of shit I tell ya hwut” Big wow, America’s permanent Aircraft Carrier in the South China Sea used an M14. It’s not like Israel literally said “Naw we’re good. We don’t need M14s” or anything |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2020 2:36:54 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
AR-10 wasn’t a reliable enough platform till recently and even now has issues mostly stemming from a lack of standards. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Moar beddah than FN-FAL or M-14.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2020 2:39:58 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I wonder what the AR-10 would look like if the actual AR-10 had succeeded and its development continued instead of the bunch of upsized 7.62mm AR-15 derivatives we have today. 
The world may never know |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2020 2:41:10 PM EDT
[#40]
i like them both but for those peeps that just can't handle the fact that the M14 even exists....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2020 2:41:47 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My old Portuguese G3S had a 17lb trigger pull, all grit and stack. It was stupid-reliable and fed everything I could find, though. I have another local member’s butchered semi-auto trigger pack in my parts box. He sent it off to a guy who’s supposed to be a genius with lowering pull weights and smoothing them out. Instead, there is mostly hammer-follow, 2.5lbs of pull in FIRE, 7lbs on SAFE(yes, it fires on that position), and he was able to make his rifle fire by wiggling the trigger housing. There is so much metal missing from the trigger, sear, and hammer, that only a little spring pressure is holding everything back. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: It is probably the most reliable of that class of rifles. Also probably wins out on intrinsic accuracy as well. Recoil impulse and the heavy trigger make it much less fun to shoot. I have another local member’s butchered semi-auto trigger pack in my parts box. He sent it off to a guy who’s supposed to be a genius with lowering pull weights and smoothing them out. Instead, there is mostly hammer-follow, 2.5lbs of pull in FIRE, 7lbs on SAFE(yes, it fires on that position), and he was able to make his rifle fire by wiggling the trigger housing. There is so much metal missing from the trigger, sear, and hammer, that only a little spring pressure is holding everything back. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2020 2:41:48 PM EDT
[#42]
I have both. Also an AR-10.
It is kinda like like having blond, brunette and redhead girl friends. They are different and sometimes you prefer one over the others but they are all good. I actually prefer the M1A over the FAL but that is only because I was trained in the Army with a M-14 in 1966. The FAL and AR-10 are better scope platforms but the M1A has better iron sights. I personally like the ergonomics of the M1A better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2020 2:42:53 PM EDT
[#43]
I WILL own a FAL one day, especially a short barrel variant.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2020 2:45:45 PM EDT
[#44]
I think the M14 is one of the sexiest rifles out there but the reality is that it’s looks are about all it’s got going.
There are eternal truths in life. For example attractive women don’t have to try hard (m14). Ugly things (ak47, fal, etc) have to try real hard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2020 2:46:05 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How many high-power matches have been won with a FAL? But we're talking about using them in the field here, right? Like in strange situations...  2019 RockCastle RnG stage 5 FROM A BOAT! 4th overall for that stage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2020 2:47:25 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I recall Jeff Cooper saying that it was a rare G-3 that could have its trigger successfully made excellent by event the most qualified G-3 'smith. Luckily for him, he had one of those few. He seemed to really like his HK-91, as well as his BM-59. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2020 2:49:37 PM EDT
[#47]
The M14 was a good rifle, it was just a dozen years too late.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2020 2:50:52 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes! The US tried to unload M14s in Middle East and Africa. They literally couldn’t give them away. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2020 2:51:37 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't think it is "obvious" the 14 is more accurate. Match grade M1As are more accurate, but for rack grade rifles it is more a tie. It takes a lot of work to keep M1As shooting well. I know in the UK they used to shoot FALs out at 1,000 yards, not sure what they did to make them accurate or how much success they had. Currently if you want an M1A that holds 1 MOA there are a lot of good options, most of which are neither cheap nor light (although some are) but it is easily doable with a credit card. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/13/2020 2:53:01 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How many high-power matches have been won with a FAL? |
|
|
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.
