Good Article On Glock

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Triple_Se7en
Id rather own the Walther PP Series than a Shield.

Glocks rule and I only one (G42)
Originally Posted By: Triple_Se7en
Id rather own the Walther PP Series than a Shield.

Glocks rule and I only one (G42)


I bought one of the new PPS M2s when they came out, it's been perfect so far. Great trigger btw, and it conceals very well. I won't lie, with the rebate S&W is offering, I might pick up one the Shield 45s. For what, like...~$275... after rebate?....it's tempting.
 
Originally Posted By: Triple_Se7en
I never consider magazine-swapping, when shopping for a new pistol. If you like Glocks, then interchanging the magazines should have nothing to do with your purchase. 95% of gun carriers nowadays carry one magazine..... it's the one that's already inserted in the handgun. We only need one magazine anyways, even at the range. I enjoy letting the handgun have a minute of rest while I reload the magazine.

Unless you are a cop or have a mental sickness that the Zombie Apocalypse is only moments away, one magazine is enough. The average Joe-Blow personal protection conflict statistically ends with only two shots fired. CPL/CCW owners nowadays need a gun to protect themselves, not the National Bank that's being robbed, as you look.

The bank has plenty of insurance for thefts. Don't get involved and leave it to the real Police. So one magazine - the one that's in your gun, is all you need for up-close personal protection.

Go Glock!


Well stated Sir! I joined several gun forums. The number of "experts" is mind numbing. Thousands who have never had to confront a [censored] are boss operators based on their post count and longevity on ...pick a forum....Taurusarmed is a classic example. Geezers posting about their medical issues in one thread and then prattling on about their "BUG" in another thread. I was a cop for years in a large city directly across the Hudson from freak show central, NYC. I never once heard the term BUG.

I never owned or shot a Glock. I intend to give one a try and if I like it, I'll get a 17 and call it a day. Many LE outfits issue them for several reasons. But not all. Sig Sauer, Springfield and Beretta have a chunk too...especially in State outfits.Ruger has a miniscule LE market share these days. I have to believe that Ruger has little interest in that market. I know of no LE outfit that issues Rugers these days. BTW, Walther P series are outstanding as are H&K.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: JDM396
Now in terms of my .40 comment it stands true. I generally don't believe in putting a .40 on a frame designed for 9mm. That goes for glock, S&W, or whomever. However, at one point, glock made things worse by providing unsupported barrels, and in my case not understanding how the recoil impulse would affect the gun with a WML. (several LE department had the same issue) Anyway, the 9mm Shields just don't have the issues that .40 one seem to have. Just like G17s never had the same issues G22s would have. The Glocks I posted consisted of several calibers and sizes and a quick google search merits significantly more. If you're trying to say the shield 9 has as many problems as the shield 40, then again, that's your point to prove.


You're just talking in circles, and shoveling B.S. at the same time. "Recoil impulses", give me a break. First off, Smith & Wesson designed the .40 S&W cartridge so it could be built into currently produced 9 MM frames. That was the whole point of the cartridge. And the main reason it was so widely accepted. Not to have to design another cartridge that required manufacturers to build a gun around. All of the 10 MM frame guns at that time were large, heavy, and didn't carry well. Second, M&P's WITH supported barrels are blowing up with factory .40 ammunition just as Glock's are without. As your photos show. This is a very common problem with many .40 M&P's, not just a few. As the S&W Forum thread pointed out. So... they are letting go in spite of having better cartridge support in the chamber area.... Why? Are they inherently weaker by design? 9 MM Glock's don't have the issues the .40's do..... Just like the M&P's don't. Your "point", if you even wish to call it that, is completely moot. And if you think Glock's are having more problems in this area, please provide a link proving it. Until you do it's just more speculation. As far as the total amount of M&P's produced we don't know.... I'll ask you yet again, do you?
 
Originally Posted By: Toros
Originally Posted By: Triple_Se7en
I never consider magazine-swapping, when shopping for a new pistol. If you like Glocks, then interchanging the magazines should have nothing to do with your purchase. 95% of gun carriers nowadays carry one magazine..... it's the one that's already inserted in the handgun. We only need one magazine anyways, even at the range. I enjoy letting the handgun have a minute of rest while I reload the magazine.

Unless you are a cop or have a mental sickness that the Zombie Apocalypse is only moments away, one magazine is enough. The average Joe-Blow personal protection conflict statistically ends with only two shots fired. CPL/CCW owners nowadays need a gun to protect themselves, not the National Bank that's being robbed, as you look.

The bank has plenty of insurance for thefts. Don't get involved and leave it to the real Police. So one magazine - the one that's in your gun, is all you need for up-close personal protection.

Go Glock!


Well stated Sir! I joined several gun forums. The number of "experts" is mind numbing. Thousands who have never had to confront a [censored] are boss operators based on their post count and longevity on ...pick a forum....Taurusarmed is a classic example. Geezers posting about their medical issues in one thread and then prattling on about their "BUG" in another thread. I was a cop for years in a large city directly across the Hudson from freak show central, NYC. I never once heard the term BUG.

I never owned or shot a Glock. I intend to give one a try and if I like it, I'll get a 17 and call it a day. Many LE outfits issue them for several reasons. But not all. Sig Sauer, Springfield and Beretta have a chunk too...especially in State outfits.Ruger has a miniscule LE market share these days. I have to believe that Ruger has little interest in that market. I know of no LE outfit that issues Rugers these days. BTW, Walther P series are outstanding as are H&K.


Magazines in general, are considered to be a disposable item, with a limited shelf life. It is why so many manufacturers provide more than one. Glock provides 3 with the Gen 4 guns. And some variants of the Sig P-226 provide 4 with every gun. It's a limited life component that can be easily damaged, by simply dropping one on to a hard surface. Even if not damaged, springs wear out and become weak after a given amount of cycles. So it simply is good common sense to have several extras. Having a single magazine is too limiting to the operational success of your weapon. It is useless without one. Be it empty or damaged.
 
Glock is Glock... it's as simple as that. They are the APPLE of the gun market. They do what they want - how they want - when they want - and for the price they want. We can debate until the cows come home if they're really all they're hyped up to be, but at the end of the day - you can't argue with their success. My personal experience is the thing that trips people up the most with Glock has little to do with the brand itself, and more to do with their "feel" in the hand when compared to other firearms. Their grip holds differently (some say more "aggressive angle") compared to their direct competition that causes people who do not train with it consistently to have a bad initial point of aim (often shoot high). As a result - a lot of people will say the gun "isn't accurate" or simply just pass it off as being inferior to their current preferred firearm. The 1911 essentially created the "preferred" American grip angle that many shooters initially got used to, so many other brands utilize it in their weapons (Springfield, S&W, CZ, SIG, etc)... and I believe it's the grip angle that many prefer (me included). It doesn't make Glock bad, it just means the shooter needs to re-train their muscle memory to get the same level of accuracy... especially in initial point of aim. On the same vein - the more aggressive grip angle Glock utilizes allows for easier bullet feeding (more ramp like) - and helps give them their reputation for being reliable.

For the record - I own and operate multiple handgun brands (Glock, Springfield, S&W included)... and am in no way a "fan-boy" of any single brand. I'd trust my life to any of them, but that's because I regularly train with them. Too many "keyboard commandos" get too wrapped up in debating which brand is the best, when the reality is you can't go wrong with most firearms from the big brands. The actual gun doesn't matter as much as how comfortable and proficient you are with it... and you can't get proficient with it until you train with it for a consistent period of time. If you prefer one over the other - right on! - buy it, buy A TON of ammo, and train the heck outta it until that bullet goes right where you want it to without having to think much about it.
 
Originally Posted By: JDM396
Back to the original subject though, Glocks are great, end all be all? Nah... not even close.... not any more.

Wondering why your great need to down glocks and trumpet your Shield? I had a shield, got rid of it and bought another Glock. I don't sit here downing shields and trumping Glocks. Shield is a good gun. I just happen to like glocks better.

And you keep talking great triggers. I believe (as I have said) if you talk to a COMPETANT trainer he/she will totally downplay trigger actioin unless it it too long. spongy, and has proor reset. In self defense situations you don't make love to a trigger.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Al
.....In self defense situations you don't make love to a trigger.


Exactly. These are self defense service weapons. Not target pistols.
 
Originally Posted By: sdude2k2000

For the record - I own and operate multiple handgun brands (Glock, Springfield, S&W included)... and am in no way a "fan-boy" of any single brand. I'd trust my life to any of them, but that's because I regularly train with them. Too many "keyboard commandos" get too wrapped up in debating which brand is the best, when the reality is you can't go wrong with most firearms from the big brands. The actual gun doesn't matter as much as how comfortable and proficient you are with it... and you can't get proficient with it until you train with it for a consistent period of time. If you prefer one over the other - right on! - buy it, buy A TON of ammo, and train the heck outta it until that bullet goes right where you want it to without having to think much about it.


I couldn't agree more, right on!
 
Quote:
You're just talking in circles, and shoveling B.S. at the same time. "Recoil impulses", give me a break. First off, Smith & Wesson designed the .40 S&W cartridge so it could be built into currently produced 9 MM frames. That was the whole point of the cartridge. And the main reason it was so widely accepted. Not to have to design another cartridge that required manufacturers to build a gun around.


Not talking in circles by any means if one understand what I'm referring to. While that's true of the intention of the .40S&W, some companies have executed it better than others. Glock's issues with this are well known. Suffice the Shield specifically, the M&P line has not, as they incorporated supported barrels, whereas Glock at one point, did not.

Quote:
M&P's WITH supported barrels are blowing up with factory .40 ammunition just as Glock's are without. As your photos show. This is a very common problem with many .40 M&P's, not just a few. As the S&W Forum thread pointed out. So... they are letting go in spite of having better cartridge support in the chamber area.... And if you think Glock's are having more problems in this area, please provide a link proving it.


No actually they are not, not even close. If you need reference then by all means google Glock and KB or Kaboom. Pages of fun.

Quote:
As far as the total amount of M&P's produced we don't know.... I'll ask you yet again, do you?


Reading is fundamental my friend, not interesting in trying to prove a moot red herring. Don't know, don't care, know that S&W sold 1 million Shields (per your link you didn't read), know that they have a large line of several other models. So anyone logical and halfway intelligent could deduce that your 10 to 1 number was incorrect. Are you stating that S&W has sold no other guns from it's M&P line?
 
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: Toros
Originally Posted By: Triple_Se7en
I never consider magazine-swapping, when shopping for a new pistol. If you like Glocks, then interchanging the magazines should have nothing to do with your purchase. 95% of gun carriers nowadays carry one magazine..... it's the one that's already inserted in the handgun. We only need one magazine anyways, even at the range. I enjoy letting the handgun have a minute of rest while I reload the magazine.

Unless you are a cop or have a mental sickness that the Zombie Apocalypse is only moments away, one magazine is enough. The average Joe-Blow personal protection conflict statistically ends with only two shots fired. CPL/CCW owners nowadays need a gun to protect themselves, not the National Bank that's being robbed, as you look.

The bank has plenty of insurance for thefts. Don't get involved and leave it to the real Police. So one magazine - the one that's in your gun, is all you need for up-close personal protection.

Go Glock!


Well stated Sir! I joined several gun forums. The number of "experts" is mind numbing. Thousands who have never had to confront a [censored] are boss operators based on their post count and longevity on ...pick a forum....Taurusarmed is a classic example. Geezers posting about their medical issues in one thread and then prattling on about their "BUG" in another thread. I was a cop for years in a large city directly across the Hudson from freak show central, NYC. I never once heard the term BUG.

I never owned or shot a Glock. I intend to give one a try and if I like it, I'll get a 17 and call it a day. Many LE outfits issue them for several reasons. But not all. Sig Sauer, Springfield and Beretta have a chunk too...especially in State outfits.Ruger has a miniscule LE market share these days. I have to believe that Ruger has little interest in that market. I know of no LE outfit that issues Rugers these days. BTW, Walther P series are outstanding as are H&K.


Magazines in general, are considered to be a disposable item, with a limited shelf life. It is why so many manufacturers provide more than one. Glock provides 3 with the Gen 4 guns. And some variants of the Sig P-226 provide 4 with every gun. It's a limited life component that can be easily damaged, by simply dropping one on to a hard surface. Even if not damaged, springs wear out and become weak after a given amount of cycles. So it simply is good common sense to have several extras. Having a single magazine is too limiting to the operational success of your weapon. It is useless without one. Be it empty or damaged.


Personally, I don't dispose of magazines unless damaged. It's too simple to switch out a spring or follower, especially on a glock or a number of other mags out there. This is not to justify having a single mag, I own several of the platforms I shoot. However, I don't throw them away. Glock mags will last seemingly forever if you take care of them.
 
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: JDM396
Back to the original subject though, Glocks are great, end all be all? Nah... not even close.... not any more.

Wondering why your great need to down glocks and trumpet your Shield? I had a shield, got rid of it and bought another Glock. I don't sit here downing shields and trumping Glocks. Shield is a good gun. I just happen to like glocks better.

And you keep talking great triggers. I believe (as I have said) if you talk to a COMPETANT trainer he/she will totally downplay trigger actioin unless it it too long. spongy, and has proor reset. In self defense situations you don't make love to a trigger.


To clarify, I never said I owned a Shield? That was Bill's red herring. I'm beginning to wonder if you guys read what has been said. I've said Glock are good guns, that I've evolved from them (personal preference) but they're not the end all be all.

Now in terms your suggestions on "competent" training, I'll pass. Namely because again, I don't trust the information you've relayed previously, and I've definitely evolved from a number of things you stated that he has taught you. I have been taught different by multiple instructors in terms of certain philosophies and I'll go with what's been taught locally, and at larger national institutions. If what you are doing works for you then bless you, however again, as just one example you've relayed that you pocket carry. I learned in one of the first SD/FOF classes I took how stupid it is to pocket carry as your ability to draw your weapon can be compromised in a very simple manner in a whole bunch of scenarios. Don't worry I'm still guilty sometimes but as a main method of carry, it's inherently ignorant to real world scenarios IMO but YMMV.

In terms of trigger, there are more classes of triggers than Glock and target, hence there's lots of in between. Hopefully this is obvious? Nothing wrong with not wanting the mush, and preferring a defined wall, and nice reset. Also, this discussion has evolved to carry guns only? Why? Sorry but I do want a hallway decent trigger on my HD/Bedside gun or anything I might hunt or shoot a match with.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: JDM396
Not talking in circles by any means if one understand what I'm referring to.


That's exactly what you're doing. You don't have a single clue of what you are talking about. There are no "red herrings" here, that you repeat more than a Mynah bird at a bar. Only the rotten Sardines you've been shoveling for the last 3+ pages.

Originally Posted By: JDM396
I generally don't believe in putting a .40 on a frame designed for 9mm.


No manufacturer has built a handgun around the .40 S&W, because it's not necessary, and would be a waste of time and money. It's got nothing to do with "execution". Stop posting all of your nonsense, and do yourself, and everyone else a big favor. Go to SAAMI and educate yourself. You'll see that the 9 MM has a max pressure of 38,500 psi in its +P loading. (And +P+ goes about 10-15% over that, but SAAMI doesn't have guidlines there, or even recognise "+P+".) Glocks were designed for NATO, on the high end of the 9 MM pressure spectrum.

You'll also see while your browsing SAAMI, that the .40 S&W has a max pressure of 35,000 psi. There is no such thing as a SAAMI approved .40 +P out there. The fact is the .40 S&W operates at a lower pressure than the 9 MM. The frame is not the issue. Or has it ever been. You're just trying unsuccessfully to make it one. And at the same time, trying to cover your rear for making a stupid statement. You can try to make an issue about Glock's unsupported chamber. But that makes the kabooms happening with the .40 M&P pistols even more discouraging. Because they never had the unsupported chamber to begin with. They're coming apart in shooters hands with factory ammunition for a completely different, and as of yet, undetermined reason.
 
Quote:
That's exactly what you're doing. You don't have a single clue of what you are talking about. There are no "red herrings" here, that you repeat more than a Mynah bird at a bar. Only the rotten Sardines you've been shoveling for the last 3+ pages.


I get that you may not understand what you post and why I said what I said, but it's a pretty textbook case. LOL.

Quote:
No manufacturer has built a handgun around the .40 S&W, because it's not necessary, and would be a waste of time and money. It's got nothing to do with "execution". Stop posting all of your nonsense, and do yourself, and everyone else a big favor


You're exhibiting an impressive amount of ignorance of several .40 platforms..... as for starters....S&W built the 4006...ground up, around the .40 and (gasp) the first full size M&P was built around the .40 and released in .40, to compete in the LE markets. It seems several guns have been built or essentially had to be rebuilt around the .40. Off the top of my head.... let see, H&K VP40 and USP40, Walther PPQ, SA EMP in 40, Several Kahrs, Several CZs, Sig P229, Steyr M40, FNS40, Hipower and I believe the Beretta Cougar. So you can try your theory about frames that the "frame is not an issue" but many companies feel differently. So I didn't make it an issue, THEY DID. Take it up with them.

Basically several companies out there are smarter than glock, they figured out that the .40 can cause more wear and tear on a platform. Many companies now build a platform around the .40 and then chamber it in 9mm knowing it's within a wear and tear spec. OR they will build the model standalone with different dimensions/specifications altogether. Glock merely adapted a .40 to a 9mm platform and they had issues, not with just Kbs either.

Finally, you're misinformed so you're looking at SAAMI pressure only, whereas it's muzzle energy that also causes wear and tear. Recoil is what beats up the gun, as you can look up the .44 mag max pressure.... hint.... it's lower than the 9mm. Which round is more likely to tear up a gun? Why do I have to explain this?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: JDM396
S&W built the 4006...ground up, around the .40 and (gasp) the first full size M&P was built around the .40 and released in .40, to compete in the LE markets. It seems several guns have been built or essentially had to be rebuilt around the .40. Off the top of my head.... let see, H&K VP40 and USP40, Walther PPQ, SA EMP in 40, Several Kahrs, Several CZs, Sig P229, Steyr M40, FNS40, Hipower and I believe the Beretta Cougar.


More of your useless rambling. And how many of these guns were also built in 9 MM? Most all of them. None of them were built to any different specs, or added dimensions to handle the .40 S&W. You're not talking in circles... You're running in them.
 
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: JDM396
S&W built the 4006...ground up, around the .40 and (gasp) the first full size M&P was built around the .40 and released in .40, to compete in the LE markets. It seems several guns have been built or essentially had to be rebuilt around the .40. Off the top of my head.... let see, H&K VP40 and USP40, Walther PPQ, SA EMP in 40, Several Kahrs, Several CZs, Sig P229, Steyr M40, FNS40, Hipower and I believe the Beretta Cougar.


More of your useless rambling. And how many of these guns were also built in 9 MM? Most all of them. None of them were built to any different specs, or added dimensions to handle the .40 S&W. You're not talking in circles... You're running in them.



You can't see the forest for the trees here. I'm saying that many of the guns out there now were designed with the .40 as starting point, sure you can cherry pick one or two that were not designed around the .40 but many full size platforms have been over the last 10-15 years. S&W released the M&P in .40 first did they not? Steyr did the same with the M40 and the M9. How about the CZ 40b? Not specifically designed for the .40? Do tell.

On the flip side, if not designed specifically for the .40, many companies have made adjustments for the perceived wear and tear in .40cal guns. The SA EMP 9 frame is made out of aluminum, the EMP 40 out of carbon steel... why is that? The Sig P229 uses a stainless steel slide built for the .40/.357sig cartridges, in lieu of the stamped P228. It was released in .40 and eventually..... 9mm. but why not just use the old P228 specs if they worked? Do I need to go on with Kahrs? CZs? How about the classic Hipower? I'm taking it that you've never held a .40 cal BHP vs a 9mm one? The slide is significantly heavier and the barrel has 3 locking lugs, not two with the 9mm, speaking from ownership.
 
Originally Posted By: JDM396
I'm saying that many of the guns out there now were designed with the .40 as starting point...


Are you even cognizant of what you're typing? The Browning Hi Power went into production in 9 MM back in 1935. A full 55 years before the .40 S&W cartridge was introduced. The 4006 was built on a modified 1006 frame that was originally designed for the 10 MM cartridge, not the .40 S&W. Are you making this stuff up as you go along, hoping no one will catch it?

The H&K USP line of pistols were all available in both 9 MM as well as .45 ACP before they chambered it in .40 S&W. Again, the gun already existed. The same thing can be said about the Sig P-229 and the Beretta M-9 / 92 FS, and the CZ-75... Which incidentally, was first produced in 9 MM back in 1976. A full 14 years before the .40 was even conceived. ALL were built in 9 MM before they were chambered in .40 S&W. I really like jerking your chain. However you make it less enjoyable when you prove my point for me. But thanks anyway.
 
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: JDM396
I'm saying that many of the guns out there now were designed with the .40 as starting point...


Are you even cognizant of what you're typing? The Browning Hi Power went into production in 9 MM back in 1935. A full 55 years before the .40 S&W cartridge was introduced. The 4006 was built on a modified 1006 frame that was originally designed for the 10 MM cartridge, not the .40 S&W. Are you making this stuff up as you go along, hoping no one will catch it?

The H&K USP line of pistols were all available in both 9 MM as well as .45 ACP before they chambered it in .40 S&W. Again, the gun already existed. The same thing can be said about the Sig P-229 and the Beretta M-9 / 92 FS, and the CZ-75... Which incidentally, was first produced in 9 MM back in 1976. A full 14 years before the .40 was even conceived. ALL were built in 9 MM before they were chambered in .40 S&W. I really like jerking your chain. However you make it less enjoyable when you prove my point for me. But thanks anyway.


Saying you're jerking my chain is an attempt to save face, either you believe what you have said or you don't. Given it relays a significant amount of ignorance of particular platforms chambered in .40. I all allow you to come clean and admit what you're saying is false.
laugh.gif



-Glad you're up to speed on Hi-powers. The point I made was that to build one in .40 they had to change the locking lugs and slide mass to accommodate for the extra recoil. A few seconds of handling and a field strip of one would prove the difference vs a 9mm HP. Again, speaking from ownership. Thus proving your statement
Quote:
None of them were built to any different specs, or added dimensions to handle the .40 S&W. You're not talking in circles... You're running in them.
.... incorrect.

-A 1006 and a 4006 are completely spec'ed different. Different barrel length, weight, and overall size. To clarify I was wrong about a ground up build in .40, seems they just added beef to a 59/5906 platform per Z06's link.

-I never discussed the Beretta, but isn't the slide heavier on a 96? Some beretta nut can tell me.

-Never mentioned a CZ 75 specifically but since you brought it up, the slide and locking lugs are different on a .40 too.

http://www.czfirearms.us/index.php?topic=55735.0

-Hopefully nobody can argue the difference in a EMP 9 vs .40?

-Hasn't Glock done the same over the years? 2 pins to 3? Aren't the .40 slides heavier? Wasn't the Gen4 built with the .40cal in mind? Given the gen3 in .40 problems that LE depts had? I know mine wouldn't run right with a WML and it seems several LEOs had this issue as well.

This doesn't even address platforms actually built around the .40 like the M&P, Steyr, and I guess more than a few H&Ks.
 
I'll stand corrected on the Sig P-229. The Sig website says they were specifically adopted for the .40 S&W cartridge. Being the owner of 2 Sig P-226's, and having handled and shot several P-229's they felt and shot the same. To me the P-229 felt exactly like a short P-226. But Sig says differently.... As did you.
 
Originally Posted By: JDM396

-A 1006 and a 4006 are completely spec'ed different. Different barrel length, weight, and overall size. To clarify I was wrong about a ground up build in .40, seems they just added beef to a 59/5906 platform per Z06's link.


While we're at it, does anyone know of a 4006 kaboom? I don't doubt that it's happened(pretty much any gun can blow up, esp. if you do something stupid like double or triple charge a case with Bullseye or similar). Still, though, the seem to be few and far between.

I know that when the Kentucky State Police went from revolvers(586/686s were the last issued) they first used the 1006 and then went to the 4006 before transitioning to Glocks. In fact, it was sort of big news when they did, as that was the first non-S&W that they'd issued. I don't think they were alone in being heavy users of 3rd gen S&Ws before switching over to plastic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Astro14
Range Report - Springfield Echelon
Replies
14
Views
1K
burbguy82
Nuclear_42
Henry Homesteader 9mm Review
Replies
17
Views
5K
Revving2Redline
OVERKILL
Jailbreaking AI chatbots - ChatGPT, Bard and Bing
Replies
2
Views
748
eljefino
billt460
New Contender Barrel
Replies
3
Views
904
billt460
MolaKule
Not Designed for Submarine Duty.
Replies
10
Views
1K
john_pifer
Back
Top