Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Tue 05/27/2008 View Mon 05/26/2008 View Sun 05/25/2008 View Sat 05/24/2008 View Fri 05/23/2008 View Thu 05/22/2008 View Wed 05/21/2008
1
2008-05-27 Home Front: WoT
US uses bullets ill-suited for new ways of war
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by gorb 2008-05-27 05:04|| || Front Page|| [11127 views ]  Top

#1 The debate about high velocity vs. heavy is one that has been going on a long time amongst all shooters, not just military. As a hunter, I can attest to the fact that ever since the invention of high powered modern rifle cartridges, this argument has raged in clubs and in the mags, most famously O'Connor (who thought you could kill everything with a .270 if you just pushed the bullet fast enough) vs Ruark (who thought the .270 was a high-powered varminter and didn't like to shoot any big game animal with a bullet less than 200 gr, and usually much heavier).

Bullet design has a lot to do with how any particular cartidge performs. When you are shooting small thin skinned game, you want a bullet which will penetrate and open quickly - a very fast round which gets past the skin and then opens up and fragments transfers all of its energy to the vitals, making for quick and sure kills. Against larger, thick skinned animals, a bullet which is designed primarily for penetration instead of expansion is the key - a close hit with a small, thinly jacketed hyperveolcity round may actually blow up when hitting a shoulder bone of a moose, for example, and leave the animal with an ugly but definitely nonfatal flesh wound. Unarmored humans fall into the first category, generally speaking.

And yet, there are guys who hunt deer in close cover where your shots are limited to 75 yds or less who opt for a third way, slow but very heavy. These guys will hunt with rifles chambered to take what are essentially pistol rounds, or modifications of old black powder cartridges from the immediate post Civil War era. Also falling into this category are shotguns with rifled slugs.

Various ways of altering the size and composition of the jacket of a bullet will affect the way bullets behave on impact. As the commentary pointed out, the military is limited to full metal jacket or solid lead or copper rounds. This greatly reduces options for what you can accomplish with a given weight round moving at a given speed. It might be a better idea to let soldiers and marines use more modern designs for bullets, they would certainly be more efficent at stopping the enemy than FMJ designs. However, these more modern types are more expensive to manufacture, so that has to be factored in.

In the end, I think it's true that multiple sizes and speeds of cartridges, as well as multiple designs for the bullet and its jacket, would allow the soldiers and marines to tailor their weapons to the mission at hand. This will definitely be more expensive, since the bullets are more costly to manufacture, and you lose the economy of scale of producing a whole lot of one type of cartridge.
Posted by no mo uro 2008-05-27 06:17||   2008-05-27 06:17|| Front Page Top

#2 The 5.56 benefits and shortcomings long have been a flamewars stater, for the enlightement of non-gun-toting wannabes like myself, it's akin to the 9mm vs .45, or the whole "stopping power" debate. From an outsider pov, it's interesting, and sometime funny, to see problems that DO affect real persons in the Real LifeĀ™ be tackled with something of a religious fervor by each side. Jiahd!

Just to be marginally useful for once and add a ressource I found very interesting while first looking at that quite a few years ago, when my WWW journey (pr0n, rightwing websites and online shopping) began, cf.

WOUNDING PATTERNS OF MILITARY RIFLE BULLETS (by Martin L. Fackler) (pdf, most of the url I had for this seem to be gone, and not shown in the Internet Archive; more Fackler article here. Great ressources, from a "permanent cavity" side guy).

Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness
(alternate)

The AR15_com Ammo Oracle

Anyway, the 5.56 is here to stay, most probably, even with the 6.5 Grendel which will be a civilian round most likely, and the 6.8 SPC which will remain a niche cartridge... what could and should be done is look at better bullets, either a tad heavier, or prone to fragmentation at lower velocities, I mean the US civilian gun industry is expert at churning out hi-tech bullets that work very well. It's not like the US DOD lacks money, and boosting individual firepower should be important for small wars.

Regarding the M855/SS109, IIUC, it is flawed in a way from the start, having designed by FN to be better at piercing light armor (which it is, FN engineers are great at what they do) and to reach out a bit further than the bullets it was replacing, with the FN Minimi/M249 in mind; and its Nato adoption was due to the fact western armies were expected to eventually face the soviet, with helmets and body armors, and light-skinned vehicles.

OS or others ACTUAL end-users, not people who just read on the subject like bibi, will tell you other bullets types work pretty well, and that special forces types and otthers in the US forces use commercially available match grade bullets to fire at longer range, with a much longer fragmentation window (and thus the increased terminal ballistics).
Posted by anonymous5089 2008-05-27 06:33||   2008-05-27 06:33|| Front Page Top

#3 Shouldn't a sniper have a bolt-action rifle instead of an M-14?

And is the whole point of this article that the Army should switch to hollowpoints? Heck, hunters aren't allowed to use FMJ because they don't kill reliably.

But of course, if the US does decide to issue hollowpoints, the media will be up in arms the same way they were in the 80s with "baby-killing bullets". Link to text of relevant Hague convention.

The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions. The present Declaration is only binding for the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them.
So, the US isn't a Contracting Power, and this conflict isn't with another Contracting Power. Two reasons it doesn't apply.
It shall cease to be binding from the time when, in a war between the Contracting Powers, one of the belligerents is joined by a non-Contracting Power. The present Declaration shall be ratified as soon as possible.
Definitely qualifies under this clause as well. Nevertheless, the usual suspects will go crazy if the US issues hollowpoints.
Posted by gromky 2008-05-27 06:36||   2008-05-27 06:36|| Front Page Top

#4 An another interesting ressource I forgot :

Basic Urban Skills Training - Concealment does NOT equal Cover

It's true IIUC that 5.56 has a very poor penetration against barriers that most rifle calibers (even underpowered ones like the 7.62x39) go through like an hot knife in butter, but it has a good/better wounding potential if bullet construction & velocities are a-OK. Still, it's somehow amusing when one can read in Strategypage an (american) commenter lamenting "US troops are being thrown boulders at, and they throw back sand grains", there seems to be a lack of perspective.

What bullet type do israeli use, g(r)omgoru? Not the Nato one, but the original 55 gr.? (Note that IIRC, bullets used by the french army are bought from Israel). That one supposedly had good effects, at least in its intended range.
Posted by anonymous5089 2008-05-27 06:40||   2008-05-27 06:40|| Front Page Top

#5 Also, US SOCOM has a brown tipped round for the M-4 that is optimized for 14.5 inch barrels. SOCOM buys what it wants and needs, not what the rest of the US military uses. Perhaps what should be looked into is a large scale buy of the brown tip SOCOM 5.56 ammo.
Or perhaps simply a switchover to 6.8mm for the infantry. The US has had multiple calibers for rifles before in major wars : .30-06 for M-1 Garands and .30 Carbine for M-1 Carbine. No reason we could not do the same again.
Posted by Shieldwolf 2008-05-27 06:51||   2008-05-27 06:51|| Front Page Top

#6 Didn't we have this debate about two years ago? Is the AP just catching up, or has it gotten new information, or did the Mullahs tell them to run it?
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-05-27 07:02||   2008-05-27 07:02|| Front Page Top

#7 We've had this debate several times, here at Rantburg. As anonymous5089 said, the subject is a flamewar starter. My uninformed opinion, worth what you just paid for it, is that different missions need different equipment, bullets included.
Posted by trailing wife ">trailing wife  2008-05-27 07:25||   2008-05-27 07:25|| Front Page Top

#8 Nuke 'em from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

/end of BPs gun knowledge.
Posted by Bright Pebbles 2008-05-27 07:39||   2008-05-27 07:39|| Front Page Top

#9 As if journos know anything about bullets anyway. More hysteria to deflect from other good news and (yet) another attempt to smear Bush/GOP.
Posted by Seafarious 2008-05-27 08:02||   2008-05-27 08:02|| Front Page Top

#10 Give that woman a cigar!
Posted by anonymous5089 2008-05-27 08:10||   2008-05-27 08:10|| Front Page Top

#11 I'm sorry, what was the point of the original article, again? Some bullets are ill-suited for some applications?

It starts with the M-14 round is better ("larger and more deadly"), but quickly gets worse ("steel-penetrating M855 rounds continue to be a weak spot in the American arsenal").

Lemme guess the author. AP?
Posted by Bobby 2008-05-27 08:12||   2008-05-27 08:12|| Front Page Top

#12 Give that man a cigar!
Posted by anonymous5089 2008-05-27 08:16||   2008-05-27 08:16|| Front Page Top

#13 Or perhaps simply a switchover to 6.8mm for the infantry. The US has had multiple calibers for rifles before in major wars : .30-06 for M-1 Garands and .30 Carbine for M-1 Carbine. No reason we could not do the same again.

The 6.8 will have some of the same problems as the 5.56, though, Shieldwolf. The bullet is larger and heavier (similar to a .270 in diameter) but the case is similar to the 5.56 and not large enough to hold a lot of powder. Although the bullet will have higher energy at close range due to its weight, it will actually be less accurate than the 5.56 at longer ranges and lose its energy more quickly, for any given bullet shape.

It's interesting that you bring up the '06, which could still be a very useful military caliber, if not for its high recoil. Smaller variants of the same case still pack a huge punch downrange with much less recoil. The .270 is basically a '06 slightly shortened and necked down to take a 6.8 mm bullet. The .280 Remington is a '06 necked down to take a 7 mm bullet. Both have a LOT more stopping power than any of the current rounds being carried by infantry. And production is already ramped up for '06 casings, which could be readily converted, as well as 7 mm bullets, which are extremely popular and come in a lot of different weights and jacket configurations. Granted, worldwide the 7.62, a .308 round, and its 7 mm variant, the 7 mm-08, are somewhat more commonly manufactured, but as has been pointed out, they are considerably less powerful.

I don't know the cost differential, maybe that's why they are not considering 6.8 or 7 mm variants of the '06.
Posted by no mo uro 2008-05-27 08:19||   2008-05-27 08:19|| Front Page Top

#14 How the US came up with the 9mm round and pistol vs the very reliable old 45 cal would make a interesting point of discussion.
Posted by Besoeker 2008-05-27 08:30||   2008-05-27 08:30|| Front Page Top

#15 Indeed. The simplistic answer would include the observation that European nations in NATO pushed for a round that would cause fewwer collateral casualties in peacekeeping sic roles.
Posted by lotp 2008-05-27 08:54||   2008-05-27 08:54|| Front Page Top

#16 fewwer fewer
Posted by lotp 2008-05-27 09:01||   2008-05-27 09:01|| Front Page Top

#17 "If I'm going into a room against somebody that's determined to kill me, I want to put him down as fast as possible."

Forget both the 5.56 and the 7.62. Use a grenade. Or three. Or better still, an Abrams main gun flechette round. Or a JDAM.
Posted by Menhadden Snogum6713 2008-05-27 09:04||   2008-05-27 09:04|| Front Page Top

#18 Re: 9mm vs .45 I've also heard that this was a decision made due to women not being as capable with the larger cartridge.

The fact that we were in the suck up to Euros mode vis a vis NATO probably had more to do with the choice of Beretta.
Posted by AlanC 2008-05-27 09:10||   2008-05-27 09:10|| Front Page Top

#19 Personally, I've long thought that the infantry squad could do with an optional 20mm or greater "rifle-cannon":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9NxHj1R04g

Two points: the first is that 20mm was traditionally the dividing line between infantry weapons and artillery. But if we can make a practical 20mm+ infantry weapon, that tradition is unimportant.

The second is that the weapon portrayed on this video is too much for practical squad use. A 20mm+ weapon would have to be shorter and lighter, with an emphasis on recoil neutralization.

The advantage would be in its ability to penetrate a lot of concrete in an urban area. Importantly, in a lot of infantry duels, there is sufficient cover for most small arms, but this is not the case with one of these weapons.

Infantrymen are very comfortable with carrying several LAWs into urban combat, for similar reasons. There are lots of times when they are just the ticket. But the typical guy is burdened carrying four of them, yet could pack both a (smaller and lighter) 20mm+ weapon and 20 or 30 rounds without much problem.
Posted by Anonymoose 2008-05-27 09:13||   2008-05-27 09:13|| Front Page Top

#20 Having survived a hit from a 12.7 mm Soviet MG, I have my own perspective on stopping power.

Suffice to say that no projectile a human being could fire from a hand-held weapon will literally knock an enemy down by kinetic energy alone. If it could do that, the recoil would similarly knock down the shooter.
Even so, a larger bullet will simply do more damage from the larger volume it occupies and through which it passes. Various kinetic effects are problematical at best, at least without expanding bullets. I agree with Gorb, the latter are the real answer, but the media would go apeshit. This is yet another demonstration of the willfull idiocy of media beasts: It's ok to shred jihadis with canister shot or bomb fragments, but you better not shoot them with the kind of bullets police and private citizens use every day.

We might consider issuing a .45 sub-machinegun, like the WW2 M-3 "grease gun," and combining this with intensified marksmanship training. It is possible to hit a small target with a pistol round at ranges that would amaze many people, but it takes a lot of practice.
The M-3 cost peanuts to make, btw.

Many GIs carry shotguns these days, usually one to a squad. These are excellent in urban warfare and (like sub-guns) usable over ranges that many would find hard to credit. There is no doubting their stopping power. A lot of special ammo has been developed for them, mostly for the police market and this includes some fairly exotic items.

You can't arm every soldier with one, just as you can't arm everybody with a sub-gun or a sniper rifle. As Gorb says, though, some kind of mix is probably needed.
Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2008-05-27 09:22||   2008-05-27 09:22|| Front Page Top

#21 The problem is you have 3 different tactical problems to solve, and each requires a different round.

Nobody seems to get that into their heads.

If they want the best possible bullt/weapon combo, the need 3 rifles of different caliber.

A slow heavy high volume round, like the old M3 grease gun would do for short short sharp urban ambush gunfights. Same goes for the 7.62x39 AK round. Both as combined arms with shotguns and a squad LMG. Basically the same setup the Germans and Russians used in Stalingrad.

For standard large scale organized military actions, something similar to the current M-16+556 (or 6.5) will do.

Long range patrols, counterinsurgency where you have brief shots ad few targets and plenty of range (think Afghanistan), you need something like the M-14/762NATO

There is *NO* one size fits all solution.

Its like hunting. In Virginia, in the thickets, slower heavy rounds win the day at 60m. Out here in Colorado, you need a big enough, high speed long range round at 250m.

Right tool for the job.

And its like a symphony - you need more than one instrument to complete the harmony for the squad leader (pistol, shotgun, sniper/counter-sniper, grenade launcher, maybe even a LMG).
Posted by OldSpook 2008-05-27 10:25||   2008-05-27 10:25|| Front Page Top

#22 The fact that we were in the suck up to Euros mode vis a vis NATO probably had more to do with the choice of Beretta.

Once the 9mm was chosen, that came into play re: the selection of Beretta. But NATO people I've talked with were quite clear that the Euros pressed hard for a standard cartidge of less power geared mainly for peacekeeping.
Posted by lotp 2008-05-27 10:28||   2008-05-27 10:28|| Front Page Top

#23 Larger rounds are not necessarily better, they also said. Other factors such as the weather, the amount of light and the bullet's angle of entry also figure into how lethal a single shot may be.

Global Warming It's Bush's fault.
Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2008-05-27 12:23||   2008-05-27 12:23|| Front Page Top

#24 Once the 9mm was chosen, that came into play re: the selection of Beretta. But NATO people I've talked with were quite clear that the Euros pressed hard for a standard cartidge of less power geared mainly for peacekeeping.

cartidges Bullets For Peace. [haz a lovely sound to it.. eh?]

We need to develope Cool Bullets to Combat Global Warming!
>:
Posted by RD">RD  2008-05-27 12:36||   2008-05-27 12:36|| Front Page Top

#25 The beauty of the M-3 and its predecessor, the Thompson (known appropriately as a 'trench broom') was that they were cheap to manufacture and fired the same cartidge as the excellent 1911 Colt .45. That round was perfect for both of these applications and therefore afforded the military some cost cutting via economy of scale, as well as interchangeabilty between weapons platforms.

Bad move, switching to 9 mm. Why is it better to use a smaller round for peacekeeping vs regular combat? Dead is dead.

Shotguns also have a place. In the jungle wars in late WWII and in Vietnam, a lot of shotguns were used. Double-oh buckshot or pumpkin-ball slugs are great weapons in dense brush.

Some of each weapon should be present. Standardize cartridges across weapons if you can, realize that different cartridges may be necessary for some roles, and move on from there.

For those of you who care - Google .300 Whisper, and check out this cartridge. This is an interesting , relatively new round that is becoming popular amongst law enforcement. Could be a good close range round for the future for the military, as well, although it is hampered by limited range in some ways like the 6.8.
Posted by no mo uro 2008-05-27 12:47||   2008-05-27 12:47|| Front Page Top

#26 Why is it better to use a smaller round for peacekeeping vs regular combat?

Both .45 and 9mm rounds are likely to over-penetrate, but the 9mm does less damage along the way. Lots of people have taken multiple 9mm shots and survived. Lots fewer have done so with .45 rounds.
Posted by lotp 2008-05-27 12:58||   2008-05-27 12:58|| Front Page Top

#27 In the late 1890s when we were at war in the Philippines the Army had switched to a DA .38 Long Colt caliber revolver. We were facing a new type of enemy, the Muslin extremist, the Moro. They were known to use native drugs that inhibited the sensation of pain. This meant that when they went into battle with US soldiers and got shot by a rather anemic .38 caliber revolver it just did not reliably stop the Moro. After numerous US deaths, old Colt 45 revolvers, long in storage back in the States, were rushed to the Philippines and issued to the troops.

In the late 1890s when we were at war in the Philippines the Army had switched to a DA .38 Long Colt caliber revolver. We were facing a new type of enemy, the Muslin extremist, the Moro. They were known to use native drugs that inhibited the sensation of pain. This meant that when they went into battle with US soldiers and got shot by a rather anemic .38 caliber revolver it just did not reliably stop the Moro. After numerous US deaths, old Colt 45 revolvers, long in storage back in the States, were rushed to the Philippines and issued to the troops.

LINK
Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2008-05-27 13:08||   2008-05-27 13:08|| Front Page Top

#28 In the 1980s the entire Department of Defense converted to a Beretta 9x19mm pistol and that was suppose to be the end of discussion on handguns in the military. Many special united such as Marine Recon or Army Delta Force kept right on using the 45. The Army has announced that it plans to buy 60,000 new 45 caliber semi-auto pistols for its front line troops. Most likely it will be a more modern handgun than the venerable old Colt 1911 but whatever is chosen it will be a 45 caliber round coming out the business end of barrel. Aim high, shoot big-bore.

Sorry about the double paste above:-(
Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2008-05-27 13:11||   2008-05-27 13:11|| Front Page Top

#29 Which mean four-fifths preferred what? Tank rounds?

Well, yeah...

I'm a firm believer in "peace through superior firepower" or "there's no problem that the proper application of a sufficient amount of high explosive won't resolve".

If a tank round (or a 30mm HE round or a SMAW or other anti-armor round or 500-lbs delivered by an A10 or F15 or F16) will take out a nest of vipers without my personally getting into a firefight I'd be all for it. Unfortunately, firefights don't usually develop that way. Troops on the ground want and need a weapon capable of delivering a high volume of fire on specific targets. The M4 and M16 delivers (as does the AK47, the preferred weapon of our enemies, unfortunately, but so do many other weapons in the inventories such as the MP5, the G11, the FN/FAL, the Uzi, and about 200 others). The AP just wants to try to stir this old argument up to keep us at each other's throats rather than at the throat's of our enemies because "Hey, let's all just get along" is such a good way to live.

Yes, I am being somewhat fatuous here, why?

Posted by FOTSGreg">FOTSGreg  2008-05-27 13:20||   2008-05-27 13:20|| Front Page Top

#30 Are frangibles useful in combat?
Posted by 3dc 2008-05-27 13:38||   2008-05-27 13:38|| Front Page Top

#31 The 5.56 will break in two when it yaws at high speed. Maybe the near term solution is to go back to the 55 grain (or even down to 50) bullet for the M4s and acknowledge that trying to hit anything at 500 yards with an M4 is a fantasy.

And jeebus, bullet prices have risen. I'm glad I laid down my stock (non 5.56) several years ago.
Posted by ed 2008-05-27 14:30||   2008-05-27 14:30|| Front Page Top

#32 Are frangibles useful in combat?

See the linked pdf by Fackler earlier in the comments; ideally, 5.56 tumbles (like all spitzer bullets, but very early) and then fragments violently when traveling at the right velocity (that is, 2500 fps IIRC, meaning under 200 meters from the muzzle with a 20" barrel, between 100 and 150 m with a shorter barrel like a M4, 25 m with a 12", and nothing with shorter barrels like the subcarbines variants of the M16 family, which are basically glorified .22 Hornet); this creates a very large wound cavity, much larger than the Ak's 7.62 shortie, for example, which according to Fackler is more like a low-powered handguin caliber when it hits only soft tissues and doesn't hit bone (I remember an armored car guard who had his hand ripped of by an AK round a couple years ago, so I guess it remains a rifle's caliber, even then). At lower speed, it still tumbles and breaks up, causing additional wound channels, and at even lower speed, it is a .22 bullet that tumble. That's also why the 5.56 doens't penetrate barriers well IIUC, as it fragment/tumble/stop, unlike other rifle "full calibers" which just bull their way through most anything (see the linked vid).

Trouble with the now-in-use bullet type is that is is slightly heavier and optimized for light armor penetration, and that this optimum tumble/fragmentation simply doens't occur relibably enough, depriving the 5.56 of its wounding potential.
Posted by anonymous5089 2008-05-27 15:00||   2008-05-27 15:00|| Front Page Top

#33 Btw, while I'm lecturing total strangers with a subject I don't actually know (a specialty of mine), a couple more links I've found interesting and which actually are relevant to this thread :

ASSAULT RIFLES AND THEIR AMMUNITION
.276 Pedersen
.280 British

Apparently the two above experimental calibers were two very successful intermediate calibers that were killed by bureaucratic inertia; today's equivalent would the 6.8 SPC, which had seen at least some combat use though not much has come out of that, optimized for wounding potential in a 5.56x45 rifle envelope, and the 6.5 Grendel, optimized for accuracy & long range shooting in the same envelope, both potential heirs which will most probably remain civilian calibers, due to that very same inertia.

Posted by anonymous5089 2008-05-27 15:19||   2008-05-27 15:19|| Front Page Top

#34 Actually, the decision to switch over to 9mm for pistols was made in the 1950s as part of the NATO standardization movement : the US would eventually drop the .45 pistol in favor of a 9mm. It has not been a popular decision among the troops and there have always been holdouts in the various branches of the military. Especially since it was the Beretta pistol that was chosen, instead of a design like the Browning High Power.
And the main reason that I suggested the 6.8mm is that it has been used in combat by Special Forces and has improved lethality in the 0-300 meter range that makes up so much of infantry combat. Also, all existing M-4 lowers can be used with just the uppers being switched out. That is one of the biggest issues for a new caliber right now : the bow wave of M-16/M-4 in the US inventory and the need for any new caliber to fit into the restraints of that design. So basically, we are limited to the 6.8mm or 6.5 Grendel for a replacement caliber, since both of those can use the standard M-4 lowers and require simply replacing the uppers, the magazines, and the ammo itself.
Posted by Shieldwolf 2008-05-27 15:28||   2008-05-27 15:28|| Front Page Top

#35 FYI, for a shot time, the shotgun with a "deer slug" was called a "Falluja Door Knocker" (Or Iraqi Master Key), because the USMC used them to blow open dead bolted doors. Seems a deer slug does a nifty job of blowing the lock body completely out of the door, leaving the door on its hinge and in the frame (so the entry team can storm in more easily)
Posted by OldSpook 2008-05-27 19:14||   2008-05-27 19:14|| Front Page Top

#36 When switched to the automatic fire mode, the M14 could shoot several hundred rounds a minute.

And usually injured the shooter in the process.

Shouldn't a sniper have a bolt-action rifle instead of an M-14?

A more accurate term would be 'sharpshooter'.
Posted by Pappy 2008-05-27 22:01||   2008-05-27 22:01|| Front Page Top

23:42 RD
23:29 Pappy
23:26 RD
23:25 g(r)omgoru
23:19 g(r)omgoru
23:18 g(r)omgoru
23:16 Pappy
23:15 RD
23:13 DarthVader
23:11 g(r)omgoru
23:09 Abdominal Snowman
23:08 Procopius2k
23:07 g(r)omgoru
23:04 g(r)omgoru
23:00 Pappy
22:59 Kimmie
22:57 g(r)omgoru
22:51 SteveS
22:45 Frank G
22:43 Eric Jablow
22:42 SteveS
22:42 Eric Jablow
22:40 Phomort Bourbon1944
22:36 SteveS









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com