NIKON PROSTAFF - 480 CLICKS OF CAN-DO!
 

Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
#7097571 - 11/21/12 Re: hand loading defence ammo [Re: RufusG]
guyandarifle Offline
Campfire Regular

Registered: 06/13/08
Posts: 937
Originally Posted By: RufusG
Originally Posted By: Savuti
guys are currently doing hard time because they weren't using factory ammo. One of them involved shooting the defendant's wife, he said suicide, prosecutor said murder.


I'm curious as to what jurisdiction it's okay to shoot your wife, as long as you use factory ammo?


It was an enormous clusterhump of a case. To cut it short the problematic part was what DD alluded to a few posts up. The rounds were super-soft handloads intended for his wife to shoot with almost no recoil. The result however was a load that left practically no GSR on the "victim" at a range that, the prosecution's argument went, should have had at least some GSR. The court ruled that handloads weren't admissable since it's essentially impossible to provide a testable/repeatable exemplar. You don't KNOW what THAT cartridge did until you fired it, basically destroying the evidence. Sure, you can testify that it's POSSIBLE to create a load that left the GSR signature in question but there's no way verify that the one used in the actual shooting was the same. (don't try to argue it, that's what the case said)

I don't particularly like this case since any SD ammo I can imagine anyone here would load would be roughly a factory analogue so the above wouldn't have happened with anything I, for instance, would have loaded in a SD weapon. Still, there IS the issue of factory ammo providing a vetted exemplar for forensic testing that is on MUCH firmer ground than anything a court is likely to accept from handloads.

I'm sticking with my "death by meteorite" position. You would have to be one SERIOUSLY unlucky bastage to have things turn out where the fact you were using handloads mattered...but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen.
_________________________
If there's one thing I've become certain of it's that there's too much certainty in the world.

Top
RV 728 BP
#7097580 - 11/21/12 Re: hand loading defence ammo [Re: rost495]
Savuti Offline
Campfire Ranger

Registered: 01/31/07
Posts: 1552
Loc: Collier Co. Florida
Don't recall all the details, but if you really were interested in the subject I'd suggest contacting Ayoob. He doesn't bite.

GAAR and I overlapped. Thanks for the post.

Pete


Edited by Savuti (11/21/12)
_________________________
There is nothing made by man,
which cannot be broken by woman.

Top
#7098054 - 11/21/12 Re: hand loading defence ammo [Re: Savuti]
rost495 Online   content
Campfire Oracle

Registered: 01/05/05
Posts: 38320
Loc: La Grange, TX
anything is possible, just saying that in the scheme of things worrying about your ammo, other than it being totally reliable, is about the last thing I'd worry about.

You can get sued for damn near anything.
_________________________
May the road rise to meet you, May the wind be always at your back, May the sun shine warm upon your face, The rains fall soft upon your fields and, Until we meet again, May God hold you in the palm of His hand.

Top
#7098131 - 11/21/12 Re: hand loading defence ammo [Re: rost495]
Rancho_Loco Offline
Campfire Kahuna

Registered: 12/06/04
Posts: 20071
Loc: MONTANA/WYOMING
#1 - Biggest myth on the internet since e-mails saying microsoft will give you money for using their e-mail.

#2 - If you can't rely on your reloads, under any conditions, you should take up knitting.
_________________________
Originally Posted By captain seafire
I replace valve cover gaskets every 50K, if they don't need them sooner...

Top
#7098184 - 11/21/12 Re: hand loading defence ammo [Re: rost495]
guyandarifle Offline
Campfire Regular

Registered: 06/13/08
Posts: 937
Originally Posted By: rost495
anything is possible, just saying that in the scheme of things worrying about your ammo, other than it being totally reliable, is about the last thing I'd worry about.

You can get sued for damn near anything.


IMHO it's the extremes on both sides that are overwrought. Anyone that claims there are NO actual risks involved in carrying handloads hasn't boned up on the legalities. What some other the other side posit would have you think that it's better to just leave your weapon at home than risk carrying handloads.

There IS a risk and there are actual cases that set this forth.

BUT

You are almost as likely to be driving by a river and be the only person there to pull the Victoria's Secret models to safety after their bus crashed, thereby earning their profound sexual gratitude, than having handloads (or caliber, or trigger, etc) be an issue in a shooting. (unless you really did screw up and then they really will throw anything and everything at you)
_________________________
If there's one thing I've become certain of it's that there's too much certainty in the world.

Top
#7098210 - 11/21/12 Re: hand loading defence ammo [Re: guyandarifle]
ldholton Offline
Campfire Guide

Registered: 01/08/07
Posts: 3778
Loc: lawrence county MO
Originally Posted By: guyandarifle
Originally Posted By: RufusG
Originally Posted By: Savuti
guys are currently doing hard time because they weren't using factory ammo. One of them involved shooting the defendant's wife, he said suicide, prosecutor said murder.


I'm curious as to what jurisdiction it's okay to shoot your wife, as long as you use factory ammo?


It was an enormous clusterhump of a case. To cut it short the problematic part was what DD alluded to a few posts up. The rounds were super-soft handloads intended for his wife to shoot with almost no recoil. The result however was a load that left practically no GSR on the "victim" at a range that, the prosecution's argument went, should have had at least some GSR. The court ruled that handloads weren't admissable since it's essentially impossible to provide a testable/repeatable exemplar. You don't KNOW what THAT cartridge did until you fired it, basically destroying the evidence. Sure, you can testify that it's POSSIBLE to create a load that left the GSR signature in question but there's no way verify that the one used in the actual shooting was the same. (don't try to argue it, that's what the case said)

I don't particularly like this case since any SD ammo I can imagine anyone here would load would be roughly a factory analogue so the above wouldn't have happened with anything I, for instance, would have loaded in a SD weapon. Still, there IS the issue of factory ammo providing a vetted exemplar for forensic testing that is on MUCH firmer ground than anything a court is likely to accept from handloads.

I'm sticking with my "death by meteorite" position. You would have to be one SERIOUSLY unlucky bastage to have things turn out where the fact you were using handloads mattered...but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen.
ok let ask a different way if the round fired in this case had been a factory , would the defendent have walked ?


Edited by ldholton (11/22/12)

Top
#7098268 - 11/21/12 Re: hand loading defence ammo [Re: ldholton]
guyandarifle Offline
Campfire Regular

Registered: 06/13/08
Posts: 937
Originally Posted By: ldholton
Originally Posted By: guyandarifle
Originally Posted By: RufusG
Originally Posted By: Savuti
guys are currently doing hard time because they weren't using factory ammo. One of them involved shooting the defendant's wife, he said suicide, prosecutor said murder.


I'm curious as to what jurisdiction it's okay to shoot your wife, as long as you use factory ammo?


It was an enormous clusterhump of a case. To cut it short the problematic part was what DD alluded to a few posts up. The rounds were super-soft handloads intended for his wife to shoot with almost no recoil. The result however was a load that left practically no GSR on the "victim" at a range that, the prosecution's argument went, should have had at least some GSR. The court ruled that handloads weren't admissable since it's essentially impossible to provide a testable/repeatable exemplar. You don't KNOW what THAT cartridge did until you fired it, basically destroying the evidence. Sure, you can testify that it's POSSIBLE to create a load that left the GSR signature in question but there's no way verify that the one used in the actual shooting was the same. (don't try to argue it, that's what the case said)

I don't particularly like this case since any SD ammo I can imagine anyone here would load would be roughly a factory analogue so the above wouldn't have happened with anything I, for instance, would have loaded in a SD weapon. Still, there IS the issue of factory ammo providing a vetted exemplar for forensic testing that is on MUCH firmer ground than anything a court is likely to accept from handloads.

I'm sticking with my "death by meteorite" position. You would have to be one SERIOUSLY unlucky bastage to have things turn out where the fact you were using handloads mattered...but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen.
ok please tell me there wasa lot more eveidence that got one convicted than questioable hand load


The defendant's name was Daniel Bias. The case is NJ v Bias. If you're curious enough you can look up the whole thing but the part germane to the topic is pretty much summed up by this quote from John Lanza, the defense att in the first* case:

“When a hand load is used in an incident which becomes the subject of a civil or criminal trial, the duplication of that hand load poses a significant problem for both the plaintiff or the prosecutor and the defendant. Once used, there is no way, with certainty, to determine the amount of powder or propellant used for that load. This becomes significant when forensic testing is used in an effort to duplicate the shot and the resulting evidence on the victim or target. With the commercial load, one would be in a better position to argue the uniformity between the loads used for testing and the subject load. With a hand load, you have no such uniformity. Also, the prosecution may utilize either standard loads or a different hand load in its testing. The result would be distorted and could be prejudicial to the defendant. Whether or not the judge would allow such a scientific test to be used at trial, is another issue, which, if allowed, would be devastating for the defense. From a strictly forensic standpoint, I would not recommend the use of hand loads because of the inherent lack of uniformity and the risk of unreliable test results. Once the jury hears the proof of an otherwise unreliable test, it can be very difficult to ‘unring the bell."

*There were actually 4(!) trials. The first and second trials both ended in hung juries. So after giving up on trying to get him on murder charges the state fell back and on the third attempt, though falling short of the Agg Manslaughter charge they did manage to make a Reckless Manslaughter stick in the third trial. There were enough questions to actually get him a 4th trial but he got RM in that one too.
_________________________
If there's one thing I've become certain of it's that there's too much certainty in the world.

Top
#7098288 - 11/21/12 Re: hand loading defence ammo [Re: guyandarifle]
DocRocket Offline
Campfire 'Bwana

Registered: 09/02/06
Posts: 14200
Loc: Gone To Texas
Sonofabitch. Ayoob had it right, after all.

Who'd a thunk it?
_________________________
"Texas, by God!" - John Wesley Hardin

Top
#7098614 - 11/22/12 Re: hand loading defence ammo [Re: ldholton]
Scott F Offline
Campfire Oracle

Registered: 12/28/00
Posts: 34029
Loc: Missing In Action
I cast a 235 grain truncated cone and load it for all my 45 shooting. It is my bowling pin load, my plinking load and my every day carry and defense load.

I believe in the KISS principle.
_________________________
Not only Turd Like but also on at least five government watch lists.

Sorry MattClark, but I am still alive.

Meniere's Sucks!!!

Top
#7098931 - 11/22/12 Re: hand loading defence ammo [Re: DocRocket]
RufusG Offline
Campfire Tracker

Registered: 12/16/03
Posts: 5150
Loc: In the weeds, AZ
Originally Posted By: DocRocket
Sonofabitch. Ayoob had it right, after all.

Who'd a thunk it?





Yeah. We have one case that is completely irrelevant to use of reloads in a defensive situation, and another "mystery" case we have no details on. Sorry, not buying it.

A couple years back Ayoob was involved in a long piss-fight type thread on the smith-wessonforum. He was defending Marshall and Sanow, which is itself irrelevant, but his arguments and demeanor were less than impressive to me for someone supposed to be a font of wisdom. His name alone, which is essentially all that we have been presented with here, isn't enough to convince me.

Top
#7099030 - 11/22/12 Re: hand loading defence ammo [Re: RufusG]
RufusG Offline
Campfire Tracker

Registered: 12/16/03
Posts: 5150
Loc: In the weeds, AZ
Here's a question for the tinfoil crowd:

If your factory ammo uses a bullet that is available separately as a component, how do you intend to prove that your ammo was not a special "baby-killer" handload you concocted specifically to violate your victim's civil rights?

Top
#7100093 - 11/22/12 Re: hand loading defence ammo [Re: RufusG]
guyandarifle Offline
Campfire Regular

Registered: 06/13/08
Posts: 937
Originally Posted By: RufusG
Originally Posted By: DocRocket
Sonofabitch. Ayoob had it right, after all.

Who'd a thunk it?





Yeah. We have one case that is completely irrelevant to use of reloads in a defensive situation, and another "mystery" case we have no details on. Sorry, not buying it.

A couple years back Ayoob was involved in a long piss-fight type thread on the smith-wessonforum. He was defending Marshall and Sanow, which is itself irrelevant, but his arguments and demeanor were less than impressive to me for someone supposed to be a font of wisdom. His name alone, which is essentially all that we have been presented with here, isn't enough to convince me.


Forget Ayoob, it's the lawyer's statement I quoted concerning forensic evidence that's carrying the water here. There is absolutely demonstrable court precedence that handloads can badly muddy the water in the forensic dept of reconstructing a shooting. If that evidence would have proven exculpatory wouldn't it be best to have it on the firmest ground possible?

Setting aside the actual "likelihood" of it being an issue it's simply not possible to rationally dismiss the fact there IS a risk associated with handloads over factory IF forensic reconstruction of a shooting matters.
_________________________
If there's one thing I've become certain of it's that there's too much certainty in the world.

Top
#7100259 - 11/22/12 Re: hand loading defence ammo [Re: guyandarifle]
RufusG Offline
Campfire Tracker

Registered: 12/16/03
Posts: 5150
Loc: In the weeds, AZ
Originally Posted By: guyandarifle

Forget Ayoob, it's the lawyer's statement I quoted concerning forensic evidence that's carrying the water here. There is absolutely demonstrable court precedence that handloads can badly muddy the water in the forensic dept of reconstructing a shooting. If that evidence would have proven exculpatory wouldn't it be best to have it on the firmest ground possible?

Setting aside the actual "likelihood" of it being an issue it's simply not possible to rationally dismiss the fact there IS a risk associated with handloads over factory IF forensic reconstruction of a shooting matters.


I'm not all that impressed with the lawyer's statement either, and the precedent doesn't seem remotely relevant to a defense shooting.

What if I provided 100 or more of my reloads to an independent lab to take down and measure the powder charge or do whatever they wanted to? That would provide more than enough statistical "certainty" that the effects could be recreated. And I'm not sure I even see how this would come up in a defense shooting, to be honest.

I blew up a 1911 once with factory ammo. I'd like to hear something about the certainty of that powder charge.

Top
#7100261 - 11/22/12 Re: hand loading defence ammo [Re: guyandarifle]
ldholton Offline
Campfire Guide

Registered: 01/08/07
Posts: 3778
Loc: lawrence county MO
Originally Posted By: guyandarifle
Originally Posted By: RufusG
Originally Posted By: Savuti
guys are currently doing hard time because they weren't using factory ammo. One of them involved shooting the defendant's wife, he said suicide, prosecutor said murder.


I'm curious as to what jurisdiction it's okay to shoot your wife, as long as you use factory ammo?


It was an enormous clusterhump of a case. To cut it short the problematic part was what DD alluded to a few posts up. The rounds were super-soft handloads intended for his wife to shoot with almost no recoil. The result however was a load that left practically no GSR on the "victim" at a range that, the prosecution's argument went, should have had at least some GSR. The court ruled that handloads weren't admissable since it's essentially impossible to provide a testable/repeatable exemplar. You don't KNOW what THAT cartridge did until you fired it, basically destroying the evidence. Sure, you can testify that it's POSSIBLE to create a load that left the GSR signature in question but there's no way verify that the one used in the actual shooting was the same. (don't try to argue it, that's what the case said)

I don't particularly like this case since any SD ammo I can imagine anyone here would load would be roughly a factory analogue so the above wouldn't have happened with anything I, for instance, would have loaded in a SD weapon. Still, there IS the issue of factory ammo providing a vetted exemplar for forensic testing that is on MUCH firmer ground than anything a court is likely to accept from handloads.

I'm sticking with my "death by meteorite" position. You would have to be one SERIOUSLY unlucky bastage to have things turn out where the fact you were using handloads mattered...but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen.
let me ask a different way if this round that was fired in the case had been a factory round , would the guy have walked ?

Top
#7100470 - 11/22/12 Re: hand loading defence ammo [Re: ldholton]
anachronism Offline
Campfire Regular

Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 1182
Loc: Lincoln, NE
Factory ammo is assembled with the freshest of components, pass through innumerable double checks and safeguards, and are developed after extensive testing, including terminal bullet performance. How do your reloads stack up against that? My error rate for handloads is practically nonexistent, but the factorys error rate is much lower than mine.

Would I use my own ammo for self-defense if necessary? Without question. Is it my first choice? Nope, but it should be adequate.
_________________________
Those who believe there is safety in numbers never heard of Auschwitz- Me




Top
#7100563 - 11/22/12 Re: hand loading defence ammo [Re: RufusG]
guyandarifle Offline
Campfire Regular

Registered: 06/13/08
Posts: 937

Originally Posted By: RufusG
Originally Posted By: guyandarifle

Forget Ayoob, it's the lawyer's statement I quoted concerning forensic evidence that's carrying the water here. There is absolutely demonstrable court precedence that handloads can badly muddy the water in the forensic dept of reconstructing a shooting. If that evidence would have proven exculpatory wouldn't it be best to have it on the firmest ground possible?

Setting aside the actual "likelihood" of it being an issue it's simply not possible to rationally dismiss the fact there IS a risk associated with handloads over factory IF forensic reconstruction of a shooting matters.


I'm not all that impressed with the lawyer's statement either, and the precedent doesn't seem remotely relevant to a defense shooting.

What if I provided 100 or more of my reloads to an independent lab to take down and measure the powder charge or do whatever they wanted to? That would provide more than enough statistical "certainty" that the effects could be recreated. And I'm not sure I even see how this would come up in a defense shooting, to be honest.

I blew up a 1911 once with factory ammo. I'd like to hear something about the certainty of that powder charge.


And what, exactly, would be your answer to the lawyers's observations GLEANDED FROM WHAT HE ACTUALLY FACED AT TRIAL. There is nothing hypothetical about the issues that CAN arise from the use handloads vs factory. None. I have stated many times in this thread that I condisider the conditions that would make that an issue "unlikely" but it can happen because it HAS happened. The SD aspect is a bit of a red herring. Think of it this way- if a case, ANY case, comes down to forensic evidence being pivotal then wouldn't it damn well behoove a person to have that evidence on the most solid ground possible?

Your second question shows you've not yet grasped what the lawyer was trying to impart. With handloads YOU literally manufactured the evidence and there is no way you're going to be able to demonstrate, to a court's satisfaction, that anything else YOU produced is necessarily going to be indicative of what was actually used in the shooting itself as the firing of a round destroys that evidence. Look at it yet another way-just because what you are trying to argue makes sense in YOUR head or even MY head does not mean it's going to be allowable in whole or even in part at trial.

We've got 20/20 hindesite on this one. It absolutely (no statement of likelihood here mind you) CAN AND HAS mattered.
_________________________
If there's one thing I've become certain of it's that there's too much certainty in the world.

Top
#7100593 - 11/22/12 Re: hand loading defence ammo [Re: anachronism]
Mackay_Sagebrush Online   content
Campfire Guide

Registered: 07/04/07
Posts: 4662
The amusing thing is in the last xxx shootings I have been involved in investigating(suicide, self defense, drive-by, armed robbery, etc), not once did anyone give a rats ass if the ammo was a reload or factory.

Not once.
_________________________
THE CHAIR IS AGAINST THE WALL.

Top
#7100630 - 11/22/12 Re: hand loading defence ammo [Re: ldholton]
guyandarifle Offline
Campfire Regular

Registered: 06/13/08
Posts: 937
Originally Posted By: ldholton
Originally Posted By: guyandarifle
Originally Posted By: RufusG
Originally Posted By: Savuti
guys are currently doing hard time because they weren't using factory ammo. One of them involved shooting the defendant's wife, he said suicide, prosecutor said murder.


I'm curious as to what jurisdiction it's okay to shoot your wife, as long as you use factory ammo?


It was an enormous clusterhump of a case. To cut it short the problematic part was what DD alluded to a few posts up. The rounds were super-soft handloads intended for his wife to shoot with almost no recoil. The result however was a load that left practically no GSR on the "victim" at a range that, the prosecution's argument went, should have had at least some GSR. The court ruled that handloads weren't admissable since it's essentially impossible to provide a testable/repeatable exemplar. You don't KNOW what THAT cartridge did until you fired it, basically destroying the evidence. Sure, you can testify that it's POSSIBLE to create a load that left the GSR signature in question but there's no way verify that the one used in the actual shooting was the same. (don't try to argue it, that's what the case said)

I don't particularly like this case since any SD ammo I can imagine anyone here would load would be roughly a factory analogue so the above wouldn't have happened with anything I, for instance, would have loaded in a SD weapon. Still, there IS the issue of factory ammo providing a vetted exemplar for forensic testing that is on MUCH firmer ground than anything a court is likely to accept from handloads.

I'm sticking with my "death by meteorite" position. You would have to be one SERIOUSLY unlucky bastage to have things turn out where the fact you were using handloads mattered...but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen.
let me ask a different way if this round that was fired in the case had been a factory round , would the guy have walked ?


Speaking absolutes here is dubious but as I understand the case the incongruity of the GSR evidence (due to the particular handload used) with the known distance (arms length) in play was the key piece of evidence that turned this case from a possible suicide to a murder charge. A factory load would A: have left GSR evidence consistent with what the ME would have anticipated and B: would have allowed for a readily available and court approved exemplar for confrimation.

At an absolute minimum a factory load would have supported the story as presented by the defence at trial. At best that evidence would have been sufficient, along with whatever else backed up the story, to have never had charges brought in the first place. Obviously we'll never know what would have happened but we do know what DID happen.
_________________________
If there's one thing I've become certain of it's that there's too much certainty in the world.

Top
#7100642 - 11/22/12 Re: hand loading defence ammo [Re: Mackay_Sagebrush]
guyandarifle Offline
Campfire Regular

Registered: 06/13/08
Posts: 937
Originally Posted By: Mackay_Sagebrush
The amusing thing is in the last xxx shootings I have been involved in investigating(suicide, self defense, drive-by, armed robbery, etc), not once did anyone give a rats ass if the ammo was a reload or factory.

Not once.


It would take a really nasty set of circumstances for it to be an issue. Which is a good thing of course.
_________________________
If there's one thing I've become certain of it's that there's too much certainty in the world.

Top
#7100801 - 11/22/12 Re: hand loading defence ammo [Re: guyandarifle]
Scott F Offline
Campfire Oracle

Registered: 12/28/00
Posts: 34029
Loc: Missing In Action
Two lessons here, avoid all really nasty set of circumstances, and avoid at all costs NJ.

In common sense states this is a non issue. There is absolutely nothing that prohibits citizens from protecting themselves with any kind of ammunition.
_________________________
Not only Turd Like but also on at least five government watch lists.

Sorry MattClark, but I am still alive.

Meniere's Sucks!!!

Top
#7100940 - 11/22/12 Re: hand loading defence ammo [Re: guyandarifle]
RufusG Offline
Campfire Tracker

Registered: 12/16/03
Posts: 5150
Loc: In the weeds, AZ
Originally Posted By: guyandarifle
as the firing of a round destroys that evidence.


Applies equally to factory ammo, is my point, which you have failed to grasp. And I think that lawyer is a dumbass.

Top
#7100965 - 11/22/12 Re: hand loading defence ammo [Re: guyandarifle]
RufusG Offline
Campfire Tracker

Registered: 12/16/03
Posts: 5150
Loc: In the weeds, AZ
Originally Posted By: guyandarifle
. It absolutely (no statement of likelihood here mind you) CAN AND HAS mattered.


Here is something else going completely over your head. All your screwy "precedent" claims to show is that the ballistics of your reloads cannot be established "with certainty" after the shooting, which would actually tend to work in your favor in the tinfoil scenarios proposed. How can they claim to prove you were using evil nasty reloads in that case?

Top
#7100997 - 11/22/12 Re: hand loading defence ammo [Re: RufusG]
RockyRaab Offline
Campfire 'Bwana

Registered: 05/23/03
Posts: 14610
Loc: Ogden, Utah
Two points I always make:

First, just because nobody has ever been convicted because they used handloads (NJ vs Bias notwithstanding) does NOT mean nobody ever will. Smugly repeating that line will be no comfort to the first unlucky SOB who is.

Second, you can prevent that from ever happening to you simply by using factory ammo for carry and handloads for practice.
_________________________
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult.


Top
#7101098 - 11/22/12 Re: hand loading defence ammo [Re: RockyRaab]
jwp475 Offline
Campfire Kahuna

Registered: 04/25/05
Posts: 19401
Loc: USA
Originally Posted By: RockyRaab
Two points I always make:

First, just because nobody has ever been convicted because they used handloads (NJ vs Bias notwithstanding) does NOT mean nobody ever will. Smugly repeating that line will be no comfort to the first unlucky SOB who is.

Second, you can prevent that from ever happening to you simply by using factory ammo for carry and handloads for practice.



The way to prevent an unfair conviction is to not use a weapon in a questionable situation, the load is not the most important factor to consider
_________________________
Originally Posted By: Jeff_O
….they WAY over penetrate on deer...


Top
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >

Moderator:  RickBin, SYSOP 
RV 180 2
CLICK HERE for HUGE SUMMER DAYS SAVINGS on ZEISS OPTICS at CAMERA LAND!
RV 160 1 2
RV 160 2 2
Who's Online
352 registered (257robertsimp, 257heaven, 17_wizzer, 257wby, 1lesfox, 39 invisible), 744 Guests and 309 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
RV 160 3 2
Forum Stats
53,263 Registered Members
72 Forums
687,337 Topics
9,928,271 Posts

Most users ever online: 4,830 @ 12/02/14










Copyright © 2000-2015 24hourcampfire.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.