|
|
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,305
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,305 |
My "reamer" ain't kurze.  Is it at least +P 
Semper Fi
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 48,092 Likes: 6
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 48,092 Likes: 6 |
One could always try a 338 Ultra Kurzerschwanzcompensator. You have a reamer  That sounds like the reamer I have.
I try to stick with the basics, they do so well. Nothing fancy mind you, just plain jane will get it done with style. You want to see an animal drop right now? Shoot him in the ear hole. BSA MAGA
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 5,172
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 5,172 |
And that 1000 pounds of energy becomes very relevant at "long range" Not really. Sufficient impact speed to cause bullet upset and expansion is far more important. I see what your saying. I get that speed translates into energy delivered upon impact, but what is speed without energy? Shoot a 25-06 with a 100 grain bullet at 1000 yards. Shoot a 7 mag with a 175 grain bullet at 1000 yards. Both will reach the target within 100 to 200 fps of one another. Probably somewhere in the 1500 fps mark. That 25 will hit with a third the energy that the 7 will. Energy is the end goal. Not speed. An object cannot have speed without kinetic energy, nor kinetic energy without speed. The two quantities are directly correlated and proportional. But what matters most is enough impact speed to cause bullet expansion, which will translate into destroyed tissue. Contrary to a decades old narrative, the quantity of interest is not kinetic energy (within reason), but impact speed. In your example above, if neither bullet arrives with enough speed to expand, then what does it matter if the 7mm bullet has 3x more energy? If both arrive with enough speed to expand and both have enough mass to penetrate, then they will both destroy bone and tissue. Gun writers have overhyped kinetic energy for so long that many guys see it as the primary quantity of interest, when in fact it is an important but peripheral quantity in the assessment of killing power. Kinetic energy at bullet impact really only becomes relevant in extreme cases. One such case is if the bullet has enough impact speed to expand but lacks the mass (and therefore KE) to penetrate (e.g., a .177” 25 gr bullet impacting an elephant humerus at 2200 fps). But in the vast majority of reasonable cases, i.e., bullet weights and calibers that a reasonable person might use in a given hunting scenario, KE just is not the most important quantity in describing how well an expanding bullet kills. Impact speed matters far more. Since a ELD-X opens faster wouldn't it be a better long range bullet than the ELD-M?
Life is good live it while you can.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,510
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,510 |
If you plan on using a brake, might as well get a 30 or 33. Contrary to a decades old narrative, the quantity of interest is not kinetic energy (within reason), but impact speed. In your example above, if neither bullet arrives with enough speed to expand, then what does it matter if the 7mm bullet has 3x more energy? If both arrive with enough speed to expand and both have enough mass to penetrate, then they will both destroy bone and tissue. You state speed is important, not KE, then in your example you say you need both speed AND mass to be of sufficient quantity. I'm no expert but isn't that the two components that make up kinetic energy? 1/2MV(squared) I stated that KE IS important, but that it is not the primary quantity of interest. Perhaps the real issue here is that two quantities that are both important, mass and impact speed, are convoluted into one quantity called kinetic energy. The consequence of this convolution is that kinetic energy does not sufficiently describe the nature of the collision that occurs when a projectile hits a target. As a reminder from classical Newtonian mechanics, energy is the capacity to do work. Not the amount of work done, but the capacity to do work. That's an important point. Let's consider projectile mass and the resulting effect on kinetic energy and terminal performance. A heavy wad of paper may have more kinetic energy than a lighter steel ball bearing, and even though both have the same impact speed the paper wad will not penetrate nearly as well. Information gets lost when we consider only the kinetic energy, rather than the mass and impact speed individually. To continue with this example, given the construction of the paper wad, it requires much more mass to penetrate an animal than does the steel ball bearing. Kinetic energy alone does not describe the different collision outcomes. You are correct in pointing out that kinetic energy is dependent on both mass and speed, but these two quantities should not be convoluted in the discussion about a bullet's killing effectiveness. "Sufficient" bullet mass is a complex specification that depends on bullet construction, impact speed, and target composition. Now, we're not talking about firing paper wads versus ball bearings at animals, and most bullets used to kill critters have sufficient mass and integrity to penetrate the target within a specified window of impact speed. Sufficient bullet mass can typically be taken as a given for any reasonable bullet one might choose, but impact speed varies with distance, muzzle speed, and BC. That is why I am suggesting that people should focus more on bullet construction and making sure their bullets arrive with enough speed to expand, and worry less about bullet mass and impact speed in excess of the minimum for proper expansion, and the corresponding kinetic energy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,510
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,510 |
And that 1000 pounds of energy becomes very relevant at "long range" Not really. Sufficient impact speed to cause bullet upset and expansion is far more important. I see what your saying. I get that speed translates into energy delivered upon impact, but what is speed without energy? Shoot a 25-06 with a 100 grain bullet at 1000 yards. Shoot a 7 mag with a 175 grain bullet at 1000 yards. Both will reach the target within 100 to 200 fps of one another. Probably somewhere in the 1500 fps mark. That 25 will hit with a third the energy that the 7 will. Energy is the end goal. Not speed. An object cannot have speed without kinetic energy, nor kinetic energy without speed. The two quantities are directly correlated and proportional. But what matters most is enough impact speed to cause bullet expansion, which will translate into destroyed tissue. Contrary to a decades old narrative, the quantity of interest is not kinetic energy (within reason), but impact speed. In your example above, if neither bullet arrives with enough speed to expand, then what does it matter if the 7mm bullet has 3x more energy? If both arrive with enough speed to expand and both have enough mass to penetrate, then they will both destroy bone and tissue. Gun writers have overhyped kinetic energy for so long that many guys see it as the primary quantity of interest, when in fact it is an important but peripheral quantity in the assessment of killing power. Kinetic energy at bullet impact really only becomes relevant in extreme cases. One such case is if the bullet has enough impact speed to expand but lacks the mass (and therefore KE) to penetrate (e.g., a .177” 25 gr bullet impacting an elephant humerus at 2200 fps). But in the vast majority of reasonable cases, i.e., bullet weights and calibers that a reasonable person might use in a given hunting scenario, KE just is not the most important quantity in describing how well an expanding bullet kills. Impact speed matters far more. OK. That's good and all, but of the two cartridges I used as an example, only one will arrive at the speed necessary to have good enough bullet performance. Not all cartridges are created equal. You have to have powder and bullet weight. No way around that. He's building an elk rifle, not a prairie dog gun. Once he decides on a cartridge that is adequate, that's when bullet construction can be decided. As far as KE, think of a light, fast arrow versus a slow heavy one. At 15 or 20 yards, it won't make a difference. At 30 it will factor. But the broadhead remains constant. A bullet needs both speed and weight to transfer into energy, enough that is to kill an animal of that size (the elk). You have to have mass with the speed at those ranges or you have a pea shooter. Do whatever you wish, it's your deal, but for me, I want 1000 pounds at 1000. Shoot a good bullet and you'll be worry free, because whatever cartridge you decide, if you got that kind of energy at that range, you got speed, and you'll have bullet performance. There are a few misunderstood points here. First, you mentioned that both the .257" and .284" bullets arrive at about 1500 fps, which is generally below most bullets' minimum impact speed for proper expansion. Second, I'm not advocating for a .17 HMR as an elk rifle (although it can do the job in certain circumstances), and most reasonable bullets have enough mass to penetrate the animal. Given that kinetic energy is a function of only mass and impact speed, and enough mass is reasonably given, the only variable left (and the quantity of interest) is impact speed. Third, one of the flaws in the energy argument can be seen in your final statement about 1000 ft-lbs being the gold standard; an arbitrary amount of kinetic energy does not guarantee sufficient impact speed for expansion. Rather than set an arbitrary amount of kinetic energy and then assume that impact speed will be sufficient, why not set the minimum impact speed, based on the bullet manufacturer's specification, and assume that energy will be sufficient?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,510
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,510 |
Bigger bullets give a margin for error not available with smaller bullets, which is related to energy. It's more directly related to a larger volume of tissue destroyed, which is "fueled" by kinetic energy. A velocity drops off, the effect of v squared drops off and mass and bullet construction play a larger role. Not really, bullet mass and construction matter just as much when integrity is strained during high-speed impact.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,510
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,510 |
And that 1000 pounds of energy becomes very relevant at "long range" Not really. Sufficient impact speed to cause bullet upset and expansion is far more important. I see what your saying. I get that speed translates into energy delivered upon impact, but what is speed without energy? Shoot a 25-06 with a 100 grain bullet at 1000 yards. Shoot a 7 mag with a 175 grain bullet at 1000 yards. Both will reach the target within 100 to 200 fps of one another. Probably somewhere in the 1500 fps mark. That 25 will hit with a third the energy that the 7 will. Energy is the end goal. Not speed. An object cannot have speed without kinetic energy, nor kinetic energy without speed. The two quantities are directly correlated and proportional. But what matters most is enough impact speed to cause bullet expansion, which will translate into destroyed tissue. Contrary to a decades old narrative, the quantity of interest is not kinetic energy (within reason), but impact speed. In your example above, if neither bullet arrives with enough speed to expand, then what does it matter if the 7mm bullet has 3x more energy? If both arrive with enough speed to expand and both have enough mass to penetrate, then they will both destroy bone and tissue. Gun writers have overhyped kinetic energy for so long that many guys see it as the primary quantity of interest, when in fact it is an important but peripheral quantity in the assessment of killing power. Kinetic energy at bullet impact really only becomes relevant in extreme cases. One such case is if the bullet has enough impact speed to expand but lacks the mass (and therefore KE) to penetrate (e.g., a .177” 25 gr bullet impacting an elephant humerus at 2200 fps). But in the vast majority of reasonable cases, i.e., bullet weights and calibers that a reasonable person might use in a given hunting scenario, KE just is not the most important quantity in describing how well an expanding bullet kills. Impact speed matters far more. Since a ELD-X opens faster wouldn't it be a better long range bullet than the ELD-M? Purely in terms of impact speed and expansion, it depends. The ELD-M has a higher BC and will retain its speed further down range. So, even if the minimum impact speed for the ELD-M to expand is higher than that of the ELD-X, it may arrive with that higher speed further down range than the ELD-X will arrive with its lesser speed. But there are other considerations in determining which is the better LR bullet, and the higher BC of the ELD-M has other benefits beside retained speed, such as less wind deflection, which gives a larger tolerance to any error in judging the wind, and is of paramount importance in the art of determining a net wind correction. There is a reason that I have a lot of experience with various models of ELD-M and very little personal experience with the ELD-X.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,659
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,659 |
[quote=slm9s]If you plan on using a brake, might as well get a 30 or 33.[quote=Jordan Smith]
Sufficient bullet mass can typically be taken as a given for any reasonable bullet one might choose, but impact speed varies with distance, muzzle speed, and BC. . Again I'm no expert.. But IMO sufficient bullet speed can typically be taken as a given for any reasonable LR scenario in which you choose to pull the trigger. If you're down the rabbit-hole far enough to know about these things, unless your hunting ELR, you've made several choices to ensure that you don't have to worry about adequate bullet speed at your self-imposed distance limit - which I would think everyone has. Unless you just decide to 'send it' at an animal way out there, then velocity and other factors can bite you in the ass... To the OP, do you plan to use a brake?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 30,283
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 30,283 |
Energy discussions are Fudd talk. As Jordan says, all that is needed is enough velocity to upset/open the bullet to a usable diameter. The rest is mental masturbation.
As to a "purpose built" long range elk rifle, the world is full of great cartridges and rifle platforms. I'm not a LR hunter, and have no plans to be. I find joy in getting close. However, if so inclined, I still like the 300 WSM, but mostly I'd think hard about the 6.5 PRC or 7PRC. Whatever I chose would have an 18" barrel and a can.
“Perfection is Achieved Not When There Is Nothing More to Add, But When There Is Nothing Left to Take Away” Antoine de Saint-Exupery
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 8,297
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 8,297 |
i built my L.R. rifle 4 years ago Mark 5 action ,fiber stock i reglassed , Brux 28 inch , contour heavy 4 ,338 Lapua my new reamer , muzzle brake , 8-32x56 Nightforce Picatinny mnts. trigger reworked , rifle shoots excellent weighs 14 lbs. with 6 loaded cartridges in boot and a sling.
LIFE NRA , we vote Red up here, Norseman
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 390
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 390 |
Once you see the wisdom of deprioritizing energy as the main quantity of interest, as Jordan says, you can place more priority on recoil and mass of the rifle as Scotty alluded to. Instead of the .300 PRC being the be-all end-all and the 9.5 pound rifle you'll need to shoot it well, you could maybe go with the 6.5 PRC or 7 PRC in a lighter package. I'm not an elk hunter but, hope to be some day. I recently approached your problem by choosing the platform first. How much do you want this thing to weigh? Then, I knew I wanted high BC, heavy for caliber bullets somewhere around 2,900. OK, in what caliber will I be able to shoot those bullets well given the weight of the rifle and resulting recoil.
All those PRC cartridges (and their equivalents) kill elk way out there. But you've got to shoot them from a rifle.
"One should not talk to a skilled hunter about what is forbidden by the Buddha."
- Hsiang-yen by way of Gary Snyder
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2022
Posts: 2,326
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2022
Posts: 2,326 |
And that 1000 pounds of energy becomes very relevant at "long range" Not really. Sufficient impact speed to cause bullet upset and expansion is far more important. I see what your saying. I get that speed translates into energy delivered upon impact, but what is speed without energy? Shoot a 25-06 with a 100 grain bullet at 1000 yards. Shoot a 7 mag with a 175 grain bullet at 1000 yards. Both will reach the target within 100 to 200 fps of one another. Probably somewhere in the 1500 fps mark. That 25 will hit with a third the energy that the 7 will. Energy is the end goal. Not speed. An object cannot have speed without kinetic energy, nor kinetic energy without speed. The two quantities are directly correlated and proportional. But what matters most is enough impact speed to cause bullet expansion, which will translate into destroyed tissue. Contrary to a decades old narrative, the quantity of interest is not kinetic energy (within reason), but impact speed. In your example above, if neither bullet arrives with enough speed to expand, then what does it matter if the 7mm bullet has 3x more energy? If both arrive with enough speed to expand and both have enough mass to penetrate, then they will both destroy bone and tissue. Gun writers have overhyped kinetic energy for so long that many guys see it as the primary quantity of interest, when in fact it is an important but peripheral quantity in the assessment of killing power. Kinetic energy at bullet impact really only becomes relevant in extreme cases. One such case is if the bullet has enough impact speed to expand but lacks the mass (and therefore KE) to penetrate (e.g., a .177” 25 gr bullet impacting an elephant humerus at 2200 fps). But in the vast majority of reasonable cases, i.e., bullet weights and calibers that a reasonable person might use in a given hunting scenario, KE just is not the most important quantity in describing how well an expanding bullet kills. Impact speed matters far more. OK. That's good and all, but of the two cartridges I used as an example, only one will arrive at the speed necessary to have good enough bullet performance. Not all cartridges are created equal. You have to have powder and bullet weight. No way around that. He's building an elk rifle, not a prairie dog gun. Once he decides on a cartridge that is adequate, that's when bullet construction can be decided. As far as KE, think of a light, fast arrow versus a slow heavy one. At 15 or 20 yards, it won't make a difference. At 30 it will factor. But the broadhead remains constant. A bullet needs both speed and weight to transfer into energy, enough that is to kill an animal of that size (the elk). You have to have mass with the speed at those ranges or you have a pea shooter. Do whatever you wish, it's your deal, but for me, I want 1000 pounds at 1000. Shoot a good bullet and you'll be worry free, because whatever cartridge you decide, if you got that kind of energy at that range, you got speed, and you'll have bullet performance. There are a few misunderstood points here. First, you mentioned that both the .257" and .284" bullets arrive at about 1500 fps, which is generally below most bullets' minimum impact speed for proper expansion. Second, I'm not advocating for a .17 HMR as an elk rifle (although it can do the job in certain circumstances), and most reasonable bullets have enough mass to penetrate the animal. Given that kinetic energy is a function of only mass and impact speed, and enough mass is reasonably given, the only variable left (and the quantity of interest) is impact speed. Third, one of the flaws in the energy argument can be seen in your final statement about 1000 ft-lbs being the gold standard; an arbitrary amount of kinetic energy does not guarantee sufficient impact speed for expansion. Rather than set an arbitrary amount of kinetic energy and then assume that impact speed will be sufficient, why not set the minimum impact speed, based on the bullet manufacturer's specification, and assume that energy will be sufficient? But Jordan, 1500 or 1600 fps IS what they are gonna arrive at. Never said anything about a 17hmr. Mass this and mass that. That .257 and .284 bullet is the same weight at 1000 as it was at the muzzle. I said 1000 ft-lbs is the gold standard because that's an adequate number at 1000 yards. Be as it may, if it's got the BC, weight, and speed, it'll have the energy and ok ok, the bullet, well some bullets will upset and cause tissue damage. So, after all this, I will again, recommend the feller buy a 7 rem or a 300 win. I'm sure you'll get some tissue damage with one of those cartridges reliably out to 1000 yards. Also, is this a dedicated elk rifle to be used every day year in and year out on blm and public, or is this a guided private land rifle. If it's a guided deal, I'd suggest use what you already own as the shot will be inside 3 and 500. If it ain't, look for a different outfitter. Lastly, Jordan, what cartridge would you recommend?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,510
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,510 |
Either 7RM, 7WSM, or 7PRC, depending on rifle platform and on brass availability and quality, launching the 180 ELD-M at 2900+ fps would work very well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,510
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,510 |
Given that Lapua just announced new .300 WSM brass, I’d likely build another 7WSM and use Lapua to form cases via a false shoulder. A 7WSM launching the 180 ELD at 2900+ fps from Lapua cases sounds pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2022
Posts: 2,326
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Dec 2022
Posts: 2,326 |
Don't build or buy a short mag.
They offer nothing over a standard 7 rem.
In the reality of things, nothing does.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,591 Likes: 1
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,591 Likes: 1 |
At the elevation where I live (4555), a 18" 7mm Dakota with a 175 ELD-X (2900 MV), still gives me 1800 fps impact velocity at 1000 yards. I also have ran 180's (hybrid) right at 2900 fps out of a different 18" 7mm Dakota.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,050 Likes: 3
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,050 Likes: 3 |
Given that Lapua just announced new .300 WSM brass, I’d likely build another 7WSM and use Lapua to form cases via a false shoulder. A 7WSM launching the 180 ELD at 2900+ fps from Lapua cases sounds pretty good. Or you can use Lapua or Peterson 300 & 338 Norma brass formed via false shoulder to the 7mm NMI and launch 195 gr Bergers & 197 SMK's at 3250 fps Y'know ... a REAL long range cartridge
"The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,591 Likes: 1
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,591 Likes: 1 |
Hey all I’m having the itch for a purpose built long range elk and mule deer gun and at a bit of a mental dilemma. I really like the looks of the new rem 700 long range I just can’t decide on caliber or if there are better options I’m not considering. I have a fondness for 7mm rem mag so I’m eyeing the 1-8 twist version (bring on the 180s!)but there’s also the new 7mm prc, or go full wild on a 300wm launching 215s.
I’ve got a 3-12 lrhs sitting and ready for its new home.
So if you were in a position of looking for a new long range build what would it be chambered in? I’m leaning fast twist 7mm rem mag just because I’m set up for it and 180gr is still over 2k fps at bonkers yardages plus the lower recoil vs the wm should help me do my job. I do not have a specific chambering for you, but rather, I would look at specific performance level (MV), depending on the barrel length and bullet you are considering.For myself, I have no need to go above a 7mm for elk, and a 6.5 will work too. Once you figure out what your real-world max hunting distance is when shooting from field positions (have you done that?), then I would look at what barrel length you want and then go from there. There is a lot of ways to skin this cat... What do you think is your real world hunting MAX distance?
What is the furthest you have killed a big game animal before?
What kind of practice opportunities do you have at distances beyond 500 yards?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,510
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 14,510 |
Don't build or buy a short mag.
They offer nothing over a standard 7 rem. Having spent considerable time with both 7WSM and 7RM, I’ll disagree with you there.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,050 Likes: 3
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,050 Likes: 3 |
Behold ... What a REAL Long Range Hunting cartridge looks like and what it can do .... do the math .... if'vn you can count Anything with a case capacity below 100 grs and the inability to drive 190-200+ gr bullets above 3100 fps is NOT a LRH cartridge ! No matter how some squeal ... The numbers prove that to be true Some of you may shoot "mid range" cartridges but they certainly are not long range effective killing machines sorry to burst your "headstamps don't matter" stupidity based on Hornadyism fanboy induced nonsense ... They sure do ... in REAL long range that is ...,, Some have automatically attempted to make exclusions to LRH by attributing distance to some perceived cartridge that makes a "tink" sound on steel & barely punches paper at 1xxx yards ... But will it kill an elk, moose or brown bear at 1500 -1760 yards ? Y'know... at long range ..... All this bullschlitz talk about recoil is both revolting and concerning for the future of American men... If I accidentally misgendered any of you .... I don't give a floating, flying or crawling fk ... but will address you in a politically correct manner as Ma'am, you at least deserve that much for your weakness Long Range Hunting requires heavy bullet mass/weight, high velocity with a seriously high bc bullet and must be supremely accurate to effectively reach the target an terminate it with absolute precision you can't get that in dinky 6mm to 7mm cartridges ![[Linked Image from imagizer.imageshack.com]](https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/2316/629Wmj.jpg) ![[Linked Image from imagizer.imageshack.com]](https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/472/2un3mA.jpg)
"The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants".
|
|
|
|
|
492 members (204guy, 1moredeer, 160user, 06hunter59, 1Longbow, 1936M71, 57 invisible),
2,684
guests, and
1,276
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,238
Posts18,485,807
Members73,966
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
![[Linked Image]](http://www.hunt101.com/data/549/medium/IMG_1373_3_.JPG)