Page 7 of 13 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 243

Thread: Better than M4, but you canít have it

  1. #121
    Council Member Mark O'Neill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    307

    Default

    Not convinced. In our Army mixing dummy with live ammo, under any circumstances , is regarded as a major breach of safety. Definitely would not consider ever advocating your approach in our battlespace or in front of an Aussie,

    Mark
    Last edited by Mark O'Neill; 10-19-2007 at 12:09 PM. Reason: fixing macro

  2. #122
    Council Member Stan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    3,817

    Default I Fully Concur with Mark

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark O'Neill View Post
    Not convinced. In our Army mixing dummy with live ammo, under any circumstances , is regarded as a major breach of safety. Definitely would not consider ever advocating your approach in our battlespace or in front of an Aussie,

    Mark
    Why would one mix dummy ammo with live to practice for a failure instead of practicing training and sound doctrine that was intended to preclude failure ?

    Best listen to a Soldier named RTK:

    Quote Originally Posted by RTK View Post
    Now I get it.

    Here's the deal. There's a right way to clear a weapon malfunction and then there are a ton of shortcuts.

    Outside a paintball range, shortcuts get people killed.

    In our line of work, on the two-way live-fire range, good training, done the correct way without shortcuts, means the difference between Joe coming home with his unit and Joe coming home in a box to be met by an escort in Dover, Deleware.

    Failing to observe the chamber during a misfire could precipitate a rather nasty and catastrophic weapon malfunction.
    This is not a sporting event we're discussing and second prize is Dover via C141

  3. #123
    i pwnd ur ooda loop selil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Belly of the beast
    Posts
    2,112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark O'Neill View Post
    Not convinced. In our Army mixing dummy with live ammo, under any circumstances , is regarded as a major breach of safety. Definitely would not consider ever advocating your approach in our battlespace or in front of an Aussie,

    Mark
    I hear what you're saying but it may be a case of different rules for different situations (and missions). Regardless it is not "dummy" ammunition. It is still a live fire situation, on the range, and handled as live fire. If you don't do this how are you going to teach real world clearance procedures during a course of fire without warning?
    Sam Liles
    Selil Blog
    Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
    The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
    All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.

  4. #124
    Council Member Mark O'Neill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Canberra, Australia
    Posts
    307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by selil View Post
    I hear what you're saying but it may be a case of different rules for different situations (and missions). Regardless it is not "dummy" ammunition. It is still a live fire situation, on the range, and handled as live fire. If you don't do this how are you going to teach real world clearance procedures during a course of fire without warning?
    Two points:

    1. If you train correctly, the distinction between 'live' and 'not' is moot. We treat the thing the same - leads to instinctive behaviour and safe practices whilst ensuring the soldier has every confidence in his or her ability to apply lethal effect as required.

    2. If you want to 'jazz' up your live fire, fill yoru mags with random numbers of rounds and then mix them up. This way you do not know when you will get a stoppage and will have to react accordingly. Take it a step further and engage in applied rather than deliberate shoots, which places pressure on to do the IA and rectify the stoppage in order to complete the serial or exposure. Jazz it up even further by pretending it is two way and adopting cover to conduct your drill... there are literally a lot of things you can do.

    Cheers

    Mark

  5. #125
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by selil View Post
    Because contrary to popular belief not all bullets go bang. Especially when you work for a law enforcement agency that has you dutifully unload your street loads, and then use training ammunition that is much cheaper. So you might be carrying rounds that have been on your hip for decades. In the weather, oiled, and horribly mistreated. I see all the hackles on military guys necks rising, and the LE trainers going "now wait a second" yeah it sucks, yeah it is wrong, and yet it still happens enough to be an issue. Then there is the training ammunition hand loaded using the cheapest materials on the planet.

    Clearance procedures changed almost monthly the last time I was training. I was caught in the era of bigger/better/more as we transitioned from wheels to slides. Our first method of clearing was to hit the back of the slide (big mistake). Then rack the round out after a cooling period. Following that advice I saw a round cook off on extraction which is a bad day. Then they had us start dropping the magazine as we saw double feeds. Finally with my weapon (P85 Ruger) it was "click, slap, rack" when you hit nothing it was slap the back of the slide, (fire or click) then rack it back and load another (fire or click). Squibs and torn cartridges were do not fire again situations and transition to shotgun.

    Any fuzziness on technique can be blamed on a decade and half of distance between now and then.
    Is there some sort of standards and disciplinary authority to oversee and enforce the proper training and certification of LE trainers, formulation of TTP's, and the proper use and care of ammo? Or is each agency/department more or less on its own, Selil?

  6. #126
    Council Member RTK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Wherever my stuff is
    Posts
    824

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark O'Neill View Post

    2. If you want to 'jazz' up your live fire, fill yoru mags with random numbers of rounds and then mix them up. This way you do not know when you will get a stoppage and will have to react accordingly. Take it a step further and engage in applied rather than deliberate shoots, which places pressure on to do the IA and rectify the stoppage in order to complete the serial or exposure. Jazz it up even further by pretending it is two way and adopting cover to conduct your drill... there are literally a lot of things you can do.

    Cheers

    Mark
    I wrote about this same and much safer TTP on page 68 in this publication in May 2005.
    Example is better than precept.

  7. #127
    i pwnd ur ooda loop selil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Belly of the beast
    Posts
    2,112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Norfolk View Post
    Is there some sort of standards and disciplinary authority to oversee and enforce the proper training and certification of LE trainers, formulation of TTP's, and the proper use and care of ammo? Or is each agency/department more or less on its own, Selil?
    I want to make sure EVERYBODY understands I am in no way saying I'm currently an expert. In the original post I tried to make sure I said this is 15 years old and how I was trained.

    If you really want to change my mind invite me to your training sometime.

    Sgt R, and Cpl. M I'm sure had some standards to follow but I distinctly remember them pulling our magazines and inserting "dud" ammunition when we transitioned from wheels to slides for the "tire house" or "Hogans Alley" type training. Don't know if it makes any difference but this was not during the marksmanship courses of fire.

    I'm still not sure what the exact problem in simulating/forcing a malfunction during a real course of fire is for combat training? I "googled" the terms to see what others are doing and even the Army is using dummy cartridges in a belt of live ammunition for machine guns to simulate something called a gas stoppage.

    Like I've told my sons standing in the local sportsman club shooting in lanes is not combat shooting. IPSC and better IDPA are better venues but unfortunately more competition than training for civilians.

    There appears to be a Washington State firearms training organization now WSLEFIA.COM, but I'm not sure if they're a community or standards body.
    Sam Liles
    Selil Blog
    Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
    The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
    All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.

  8. #128
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Got two sons who are cops and have worked in various

    Quote Originally Posted by Norfolk View Post
    Is there some sort of standards and disciplinary authority to oversee and enforce the proper training and certification of LE trainers, formulation of TTP's, and the proper use and care of ammo? Or is each agency/department more or less on its own, Selil?
    States and departments. The basic answer is that most States in the US have adopted standards, mostly based on those of the FBI and generally enshrined in the statutes. Many Departments have even tougher standards than the State requires.

    A lot of the professional magazines -- the true item, not the news stand variety -- have lengthy discussions and interchanges on standards and techniques.

    Selil is right on training versus duty Ammo -- though many departments are moving into not using handloads or even lower quality training ammo and are thus getting a forced rotation of stock. Most also rigidly define what ammo is acceptable as a duty load. Some are designed for maximum stopping power; others for lowest possible incidental damage (mostly depending on how many lawsuits the Department has had filed over shootings).

  9. #129
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default Hey gang...

    It's actually a common practice among non-military trainers to advocate mixing live and "dummy" (or snap cap) ammunition to simulate failures to fire and failures to feed at random times, to train in instinctive reaction with the appropriate clearance drill.

    I've had it done to me on in a combat pistol course, and have used the technique as well. Having said that, I would not do the same on a range involving a rifle...just because.

  10. #130
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tequila View Post
    Military Times article on the HK416, which according to the article (which appears to be heavily sourced from HK itself) is superior to the M4 in wide use among U.S. forces in Iraq & Afghanistan.

    Comments?
    In three tours to Iraq, I've never come across anyone who complained about the performance or reliability of their M4.

    Fix it until it's broke.

  11. #131
    Council Member Erick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    11

    Default

    I'll concur with jcustis.

    While loading magazines to different levels works, it only gives you an empty weapon. Loading with dummy rounds, in my opinion & experience, is not a safety issue. It also gives the shooter the opportunity to actual clear a malfunction with a "loaded" weapon. It is just another another rung on the training ladder.

    As a side note, I spent two weeks back in May running a KD range for a deploying Bn. Nearly all had new M4s. Lubrication (or lack of emphasis on it) was an issue. We were doing both 100-300M and short range work.

    One thing I noted that was of interest was a significant number of what is being called a Type Ate (as in Ate The ---- Up) malfunctions. I was seeing at least two of these a day and I was getting 40-60 shooters per day. [Single round between the bolt lugs & the inside of the charging handle. Tugging back on the charging handle will not clear it]

    I don't recall having any Soldiers who had seen this before or knew how to clear it. The only reason I did was due to training I'd sought out on my own. When it occurred, we shut down the line, brought those present in and conducted training on how to clear, taking the Soldier through it.

  12. #132
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Erick View Post
    I'll concur with jcustis.

    While loading magazines to different levels works, it only gives you an empty weapon. Loading with dummy rounds, in my opinion & experience, is not a safety issue. It also gives the shooter the opportunity to actual clear a malfunction with a "loaded" weapon. It is just another another rung on the training ladder.

    As a side note, I spent two weeks back in May running a KD range for a deploying Bn. Nearly all had new M4s. Lubrication (or lack of emphasis on it) was an issue. We were doing both 100-300M and short range work.

    One thing I noted that was of interest was a significant number of what is being called a Type Ate (as in Ate The ---- Up) malfunctions. I was seeing at least two of these a day and I was getting 40-60 shooters per day. [Single round between the bolt lugs & the inside of the charging handle. Tugging back on the charging handle will not clear it]

    I don't recall having any Soldiers who had seen this before or knew how to clear it. The only reason I did was due to training I'd sought out on my own. When it occurred, we shut down the line, brought those present in and conducted training on how to clear, taking the Soldier through it.
    I don't know if can be attributed to a lack of lubrication, but I have seen a good number of the same stoppages with our new M16A4s and M4s (within 18 months old). I support a Reserve unit, so high round counts these weapons do not have, except for the scouts. Same scenario, but in ours a fresh round is getting up over the bolt lugs when the owner is in the middle of turning a simple stoppage and morphing it into a double-feed by doing things like riding the charging handle. I think the tight tolerances of these new weapons mean that the Type Ate malfunction comes often because the weapon isn't as forgiving as a rifle with a lot of slop in the takedown pins.

    The lubrication issue seems to come from the fact that the new metal is so porous and hasn't been "slicked up" from the friction you get over time.

    On a side note, I am disappointed almost every time we run a live-fire by the number of Marines who can't tell (just from the feel and sound) that they actually chambered a round. You always have to do the brass check to be sure, but too many of these guys get the loud click, give the magazine a weak slap, and then run the bolt back and forth 2-3 times over an improperly seated magazine. They are inducing some of the bad stoppages, but I think I recall that last year the Ate Up stoppage occured and the Marine hadn't caused it through improper immediate/remedial action.

    BTW, I'm all ears as to the training you gave your guys to resolve this type of stoppage. We've had ones where the armorer had to take off the buttstock just to releive the tension on the charging handle and free the round. *And good point about stopping the line and walking the shooter through it. Too often the position safety officers tend to grab the weapon and resolve it for the sake of getting back to the drills.

  13. #133
    Council Member 120mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wonderland
    Posts
    1,284

    Default

    Now HERE's something that actually "might" be an improvement over the current M16/M4 "system".

    http://www.fnhusa.com/downloads/FNH_SCAR_Brochure.pdf

    In lieu of going to a single, larger round for both individual and crew-served weapons, this system has the possibility of providing individual weapons in 5.56 AND 7.62 NATO. This would do a lot to help increase individual weapon lethality against barrier material and longer than 200 meter shots, without having to rely on the crew-serveds.

    Rather than rework the entire logistics system to accept a compromise round, like the 6.8 SPC, this seems to be a possible solution.

  14. #134
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    499

    Default

    I just finished the Colt armorer's course yesterday (a worthwhile course by the way, Mike Heath is a great instructor). It reaffirmed my view that the AR-15/M16 in it's many variants does the job well enough that it's not worth changing for something incrementally better. Not for SCARs, H&Ks, etc.

    The same for the .223/5.56. Yes, I think there could be some advantage to a 6.5 Grendal or the 6.8 SPC. It's likely not going to be such a big improvement that it's worth the changeover.

    Abandon the product upgrade approach and focus efforts on something revolutionary: fielding a reliable caseless ammo.

    Having said all that.....I bet I'd like the SCAR and I hope it's a success for SOCOM.
    Last edited by Rifleman; 11-17-2007 at 02:04 PM.
    "Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen." - Jeff Cooper

  15. #135
    Council Member 120mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wonderland
    Posts
    1,284

    Default

    I tend to agree with you, Rifleman. I'm more interested in something modern to replace the M14, however. The M14 was never a really good solution, and it's nice to have a 7.62 rifle, sometimes.

    Plus, I like toys. And guns.

  16. #136
    Council Member Ender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rifleman View Post
    Abandon the product upgrade approach and focus efforts on something revolutionary: fielding a reliable caseless ammo. Having said all that.....I bet I'd like the SCAR and I hope it's a success for SOCOM.
    Agreed. Caseless ammo, how huge would that be? Or something else that has that special American spark? I think the mental energy we expend micromentally improving our lot (digging ourselves in intellectually and institutionally) could be better served by using those same calories to come up with completely innovative ways to ride a new groove. We are the best in the game when it comes to innovation but aren't we also the best in the game at mass producing that same innovation in 31 different varieties and flavors to saturate the market and then riding that horse until it is good and dead?

    I agree with Rifleman. What we have works just fine. I would love new kit but if we are going to talk massive overhaul let's do it do it right and really add something to the equation and not just find the newest and best way to do the same old thing. Our thinking should not just push the margins, it should blow the envelope away. The M-4, M-16 family is by no means perfect but if you do what you are told every time it will do what it is told every time. I am not sure the DoD wants to hump a combat load of 6.8, 7.62 etc.. or any "caliber that starts in 4" all day long. (Some guys have a hard enough time with 5.56)To me it is not so much about the size of the little bullet that's out there so much as the number of little bullets that are out there and how many are going which way... the (500) 5.56 rounds going outbound could care less that the (20) 7.62 rounds coming inbound have a 2.06mm "bigger package" than they do.

  17. #137
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default Gunfighting part 1.

    Last weekend, the unit I support sent over 66K rounds downrange across four days of learning the art of gunfighting. I make the distinction between gunfighting and shooting because the skills that were being imparted to those Marines were geared towards resolving an unfriendly contact in their favor, even though the qualification program this all fell under is termed ďcombat marksmanship.Ē

    Assisting as primary instructors were three Marines from the training cell at 2/LAR, and they brought with them considerable teaching skill earned as trainers for a number of other packages with both 2/LAR and earlier incarnations of the Anti-Terrorism Battalion. The instruction was very deliberate, concise, and all about explaining the ďwhyĒ part of the way we run our weapons.

    As with most quality instruction, there was some variation in terminology between what is in vogue today and what older hands like myself came up learning. We were introduced to three ďindicatorsĒ of our weaponís current condition, running in order #1 to #3, which we were expected to assess by physically rotating the rifle about 5-10 deg and observing the ejection port area for bolt positioning . This was the first time I had the utility of inspecting the location of the bolt explained to me. After I stopped to think about it for a couple of minutes, it is so simple and almost effortless to do that it could be viewed as important as a brass check. After dispensing any number of rounds and putting the weapon on safe, you could be headed to the next engagement with a weapon that has experienced a nasty stoppage and wonít fire or ran dry, thus the case for inspecting it each time. The instructors even discussed checking the bolt at night with oneís fingers, and since Iím fortunate to have a long index finger, I incorporated a sweep of it into my normal routine of closing the ejection port cover. Now before I come from the ready to any other carry, I tilt the rifle, visually and physically inspect the bol/ejection port area, close the cover, then place it on safe.

    Indicator 1 is when the weapon has basically failed to fire or feed and the bolt remains forward and seated. Putting the weapon back into action from this condition was the basic ďTAP-RACK-BANGĒ series of movements. The important emphasis the instructors added was to avoid striking the magazine with an extreme amount of force (more on this a bit later).

    Indicator 2 is when the weapon has run dry and the bolt has locked to the rear, prompting you to conduct a reload with a fresh magazine. Our instructors chided against inserting that magazine with extreme force. While it may look like youíve got intensity on your side, slamming a magazine home could actually unseat the top round, causing it to tip up and out of alignment with the chamber. When the bolt runs forward, youíve got the beginning of a nastier stoppage if you donít have the presence of mind to sense the bolt didnít lock and you then attempt TAP-RACK-BANG or SPORTS. I actually watched two stoppages made worse when the Marine got as far as the step of tapping the forward assist Ė a round actually became wedged above the bolt locking lugs and the gas tube. I learned that as a rule of thumb, all you have to do is seat the magazine with a firm PUSH, then confirm it is seated with a PULL. I knew this, but watching over 100 gunfighters do it either well or poorly convinced me that the PUSH is a safe bet.


    On a side note, I am disappointed almost every time we run a live-fire by the number of Marines who can't tell (just from the feel and sound) that they actually chambered a round. You always have to do the brass check to be sure, but too many of these guys get the loud click, give the magazine a weak slap I have changed my tune with this, and then run the bolt back and forth 2-3 times over an improperly seated magazine. They are inducing some of the bad stoppages, but I think I recall that last year the Ate Up stoppage occured and the Marine hadn't caused it through improper immediate/remedial action.

  18. #138
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default Gunfighting part 2.

    Iíve become fortunate enough to develop the ability to recognize several aspects of bolt movement (e.g. when it locks back, when it locks home, etc.) by sound alone, but for some gunfighters, observing the chamber area when depressing the bolt catch during a reload may answer the mail.

    Indicator 3 is the notorious double-feed, requiring you to lock the bolt to the rear in order to relieve tension on the magazine, rip that magazine out, and work the bolt to the rear three times to clear the bolt/chamber of rounds inducing the stoppage, and then either load a fresh magazine or fix the rounds in the original magazine if necessary and re-insert (not preferred).

    The last aspect of gunfighting that I resolved in my head that weekend was the debatable issue of reload terminology. For a long time, I have read the many pages of text devoted to the semantics of tactical and speed reloads, reloads with retention, etc. Many writers will reference some legendary gunwriter or instructor, such a Col Jeff Cooper, when making their point. Even still, where you stand is where you sit, and the dynamics of a speed reload could vary widely depending on who you are talking to. The training I came up through taught me that a speed reload was when youíd run completely dry, resulting in either bolt or slidelock (pistol). You did not retain the magazine, but rather released it to fall freely and fed a fresh one in as soon as possible. Semantics can get folks killed sometimes if the result is poor tactics, and if I ever get back into the private training game again, I think Iím going to describe reloads to students in the following manner:

    Condition 1 reload with or without retention: I see this best described as the venerable ďtactical reloadĒ, where youíve got a break in the battle and exchange a magazine of unknown rounds for a full one (or at least one with more rounds then the current one in the weapon). Because your tactical situation could change during the conduct of the reload, what you do with the first magazine is up to you. If a threat suddenly presents itself, you may very well have to consciously break your stride as you try to stow it in a dump pouch and get back on the gun immediately.

    Condition 4 reload with or without retention: Although the weapon wonít truly be in Condition 4 but rather locked to the rear on an empty magazine, its close enough to that weapon condition that I just call it such. Whether the magazine is retained (e.g. dump pouch, cargo pocket, or in the weak hand in fact) is the gunfighterís choice, and should be based again on a narrow set of factors. First, has the threat been neutralized? Second, how close is the next threat? Are you behind cover or caught in the open or in a structureís hallway?

    Iím beginning to change my mind to when it comes to ďdoctrinalĒ weapons-handling techniques, and am more inclined to force the individual to make a decision as to what to do while running the gun. Some critics may say that the loss of gross motor skills, tunnel vision, etc., will conspire to get you killed, but there just isnít enough evidence in my mind to support making all of our techniques ďthe only way to do it.Ē Take for example the ďspeed reload.Ē If we fought until we ran dry and dumped the magazine on the deck every time, we could find a snail trail of magazines as we moved through a contact down a city street. The opposite situation is when youíre attempting to put someone down at 5-25m and run dry and have no means of moving to cover. The gunfighter needs to make that conscious decision regarding where the spent magazine goesÖit should be generally the case that it gets dumped to the deck, but what if it is pitch black outside and the battle has just begun? Iím actually beginning to think that exchanging magazines in the same manner as a Condition 1 reload with retention is a better tactical choice; all one needs to do is skip the step of stowing the magazine and keep it keep it tucked between his fingers while he finishes putting down the immediate threat, then finds the dump pouch.

    The final point I re-learned is that most Marines simply do not have the muscle memory to run a gun without looking at it or at their gear. Try as we might to keep them focused downrange on the threat area, they simply cannot do it without actually taking longer to resolve a problem or reload. When bullets are in short supply, nothing works better then a few hours of dry-fire reload and weapons-clearance drills.


    For our friends across the pond or up north, what type of wpns-handling mantras do you guys learn in the formal schoolhouse? What do you learn/teach for use on the real range, if the schoolhouse stuff is lacking?

  19. #139
    i pwnd ur ooda loop selil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Belly of the beast
    Posts
    2,112

    Default

    Jcustis,

    Dang I wish I could train with you all. Sounds like training is taking on a more practical approach. I imagine these were M16's? Curiosity but are the Marines training with shotguns anymore?
    Sam Liles
    Selil Blog
    Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
    The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
    All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.

  20. #140
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Yes, we still have shotguns, but they are pretty much limited to military police, certain security forces, and at the Regimental armory level, IIRC.

    I learned the ways of a shotgun on an issued Mossberg 500, which I like a lot.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •