24hourcampfire.com
24hourcampfire.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 8 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 6
W
New Member
Offline
New Member
W
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 6
Originally Posted by Clarkm
[Linked Image]

I don't think talk about the 5.7 is going to go away, I saw cops on TV complaining about how it was meant to go through body armor.

I would put it in the same category as "Black Talon".

It has permanently broken into the lexicon of trivial pursuit for guns.


The 5.7x28mm operates at 50xxx psi. What does the Tok operate at? Why is there a need for this comparison in case strength between two completely different rounds? 5.7x28mm has no issues shooting max pressures in regards to primers. People who do stupid things when reloading, usually get stupid results..

BP-B2

Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 6
W
New Member
Offline
New Member
W
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 6
Originally Posted by jwp475



Martin Fackler has stated that 12" penetration is minimum, not more than enough


Quote

Fackler-IWBA recommends a minimum of 12 inches of penetration. This 12 inch minimum penetration performance guideline is meant to ensure that the bullet has adequate penetration potential to reach and disrupt vital organs. The 12 inch standard is the prevailing barometer used by the F.B.I., Dr. Fackler, and other reputable sources


Also note that FBI protocols also state that just because it reaches under that 12" minimum (high 11.x") doesn't mean the round is in adequate.

Quote
While some people question the 12" penetration limit, it is not subject to discussion in this article. The FBI is deemed to be more knowledgeable than most, and it is backed up my Dr. Martin Fackler and others who have spent their life discussing the subject. Duncan McPherson, in his book "Bullet Penetration: Modeling the Dynamics and the Incapacitation Resulting from Wound Trauma" actually argues that 15" is not an unrealistic requirement a bullet should obtain. He does point out, however, that 11.5" of penetration shouldn't completely disqualify a bullet from being acceptable either. While 12" should be a minimum requirement, 18" is the approximate maximum desired penetration depth. Beyond that, and the bullet is likely to exit the intended target and retain enough energy to cause others harm if a person should be in the line of fire. Obviously you should never take the shot if you're not sure of what's beyond your target and rely on your ammunition to do your job of being prudent.

Last edited by whitepaper; 12/18/11.
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,812
J
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
J
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,812
Also note that I have read Fackler and he stated that 12" is by no means a maximum and is in fact a minimum. There are certainly times when more penetration is advisable especially shooting through barriers in order to take out hostiles

It is clear that you have an agenda to promote the .7 but IMHO a 22 ain't where it's at when my life is on the line.


I have MacPherson's book

[Linked Image]


I also have this one

[Linked Image]

Penetration is by far the most important atribute of a sefensive cartridge IMHO and in my experience in the game fields

The 5.7 is an interesting concept, but certainly not my cup of tea for a defensive handgun

Last edited by jwp475; 12/18/11.


I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 18,881
E
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
E
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 18,881
I'm a .45 ACP w/ 230 gr. HP ammo sort of guy myself. However, the 5.7 I have is very light, easy to hide and, above all is something I can shoot well. If I decide I want to carry something light, I'd far rather have a 5.7 FN than any 2 inch class gun.
I see the 5.7 FN as one of the choices for those that choose to carry something minimally effective ballistically, but alot easier to carry comfortably than a full size 9mm - .45 ACP. E

Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 6
W
New Member
Offline
New Member
W
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 6
Originally Posted by jwp475
Also note that I have read Fackler and he stated that 12" is by no means a maximum and is in fact a minimum. There are certainly times when more penetration is advisable especially shooting through barriers in order to take out hostiles

It is clear that you have an agenda to promote the .7 but IMHO a 22 ain't where it's at when my life is on the line.


I have MacPherson's book

[Linked Image]


I also have this one

[Linked Image]

Penetration is by far the most important atribute of a sefensive cartridge IMHO and in my experience in the game fields

The 5.7 is an interesting concept, but certainly not my cup of tea for a defensive handgun


Did I state 12" was maximum anywhere? If so that was by mistake, as we both are clearly referecing the fact that 12" is min and of adequate penetration depths. As you reference, penetration comes above expansion. Not the other way around.

I never said this was the latest and greatest, but people seem to discount its a viable self defense rounds, merely based on information we never get to see. We all know rifles are prefered over handguns, and handguns time and time again (in all major calibers) have shown failures.

Last edited by whitepaper; 12/18/11.
IC B2

Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,812
J
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
J
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,812


Agreed. IMHO and experience ammo choice is paramount for any caliber to be at its top level effectiveness



I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,005
D
Campfire Ranger
OP Offline
Campfire Ranger
D
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,005
Well, whitepaper, as I stated to begin with, it looked to me like you came to this forum spoiling for a fight, and against my better judgment (having chosen to NOT carry on any further indictments of the 5.7x28mm round already)I replied to your post as clearly and non-judgmentally as I could.

You appear to be set on having a fight, though, and I'm afraid I will not oblige you. I will respond to a couple of your points as they do make some sense.

Originally Posted by whitepaper

You can deduce that the temperature of those blocks were too high, just from looking at them? protocol calls that they be stored at 39.x *F, and shot within 20 minutes of removing. BB calibration was to spec.


<sigh>

You're right, I cannot say one way or another what the temperature of the blocks might have been.

But the video producer posts the ambient temperature as being 94 degrees, and he's shooting at an outdoor range, and you can clearly see he's shooting in the sun. He doesn't provide video evidence of the blocks' temperatures. He doesn't explain how he safeguarded the blocks' temperatures during the tests. All that that tells me is that we have no idea whether the blocks were stored and shot at 4C or not, due to the video producer's failure to provide that information.

BB calibration was "to spec", you say, and I might concur. But when was the gelatin calibrated? How long before shooting the first bullet into the gelatin? Was he monitoring the temperature? No? Yes? We can't tell. He doesn't provide that information.

As I said, this video "proof" is only a demonstration, and while entertaining, it really doesn't prove anything one way or another.



Originally Posted by whitepaper

Sorry, I left the video as a tool in aiding further education. If you're too lazy to watch all of the videos to further your education/knowledge (as you were the one who originally claim this round is a complete failure), that's your own boat to float. Last I checked, when handed a text book, you don't get a summarized paper with it.


Don't be petty. I was not "too lazy" to watch all the videos, inane as they were. I watched all 25+ minutes of them. But I have to say that watching 40 seconds of slow-motion low-resolution footage of a gelatin block being shot (half a dozen times over) did not provide any "education", for me. Nor did watching a guy shooting his pistol over a chronograph and reading the numbers out loud provide me with any "education".

You didn't hand me a text book, and you didn't provide a summary, which would have been a courtesy to the people who frequent this forum.

All I'm saying is that if you come here to pick a fight, at least have the courtesy to summarize your "proof". I did it for you. How does that offend you?

Originally Posted by whitepaper

So you have rounds tested that all meet recommended penetration depths, but you think they lack merit for acceptable LE use? I'm sure the maker of that video would gladly test all rounds again with all protocols (Steel, Glass, the "proper" denim cover), but individuals taking the time to perform this tests, pay for this out of pocket..


I have no idea what the producer of those videos would "gladly test", nor, do I expect, do you.

I have shot more ammunition into blocks of gelatin than you can even imagine. And yes, a large part of that testing was paid for out of my own funds. I have watched hours and hours of film and video of gelatin blocks being shot. I have reviewed reams of data of gelatin blocks being shot.

The person who produced this video may have paid for it out of his own pocket, I have no idea. Nor do you (unless you're the guy who did it? Is THAT why you're so upset that I would point out the methodological flaws of these "tests"?). Regardless, I don't care who paid for it, or why. The video was clearly done by amateurs and include amateur mistakes.

Originally Posted by whitepaper

Wait you just said fragmentation from above was bad, but now it's okay. Remember the 5.7x28mm is not a typical pistol round that relies on large expansion. Typically mimics rifle rounds, in terms of yawing, fragmentation and expansion. 5.56x45mm, 75gr BTHP/WC T2 which is a highly regarded SD round in the AR platform exhbits extreme amounts of fragmentation. Must be a varmit bullet..


This is a complicated question, and the answer is even more complicated. But I'll give you a short version.

Bullets that fragment explosively, like varmint rounds such as the V-Max, do not penetrate very deeply. Tissue damage in human-size thoraces is typically shallow and non-lethal, or at least not quickly lethal. Bullets that penetrate more deeply into tissue before fragmenting, and particularly bullets that break up into a small number of larger fragments (as opposed to bullets that break up into a large number of small fragments) have proven over the years to be more effective in terms of terminal effectiveness. In order to assess the effectiveness of fragmenting bullets, you need to demonstrate the depth at which the bullet begins to break up, the number of fragments typically produced, and the depth to which these fragments penetrate.

As an example: the old 5.56 55 gr FMJ round carried by our troops in Viet Nam and for a long time afterwards was a proven "man-stopper" that typically yawed in flesh/gelatin and broke into 2 major fragments, which as it turns out did a lot of damage. This is a totally different type of fragmentation than that demonstrated by varmint bullets. Apparently the guys who make ammo for the 5.7 FN tried to do the same thing with their S5 or S4M ammunition, i.e., to make it break up into 3 pieces.

BTW, your boy's video shows the bullets that were supposed to break into 3 pieces didn't.

The video footage provided does not give us clear enough photographic evidence of the fragmentation pattern. The testers do not provide weights of the fragments.

Again, I reiterate: the "tests" in these videos don't prove much of anything, one way or another. Let's just leave it at that, shall we?

Originally Posted by whitepaper

... I'm not LE, so apparently we're not allowed to see just these results from just this caliber, but every other caliber is free for us to see the analysis..


Well, the fact is that there is a LOT of stuff you're not allowed to see, and all I can say to that is "too bad". Learn to deal with it.

I don't do ballistics testing for a living, nor do I have control over what gets tested, or by whom. My line of the terminal effects business is the messier side. What you think of that makes no difference to me.

But I've done enough gelatin testing, and I've done enough critiques of research in fields a LOT more complicated than the Jello-o shooting area to know that junk science is junk science, and the videos you put up barely qualify as junk science. It's entertainment, it's food for thought, but it's not science, and it's decidedly not "proof" of anything.

I am putting that as kindly as I can.

Now, I am DONE with this discussion. As stated previously, I have some serious research on this 5.7mm thing in the works and I will not waste any more time on this discussion.


"I'm gonna have to science the schit out of this." Mark Watney, Sol 59, Mars
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,324
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,324
Originally Posted by DocRocket
Well, whitepaper, as I stated to begin with, it looked to me like you came to this forum spoiling for a fight,...


Lots of information though, and some emotion thrown in.


There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self. -Ernest Hemingway
The man who makes no mistakes does not usually make anything.-- Edward John Phelps
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 22,264
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 22,264
And I think it's interesting how new 24Hr Campfire members sweep in to passionately defend their pet cartridge. I guess they just happened to be lurking. Or else they Google 5.7 discussions every day and swoop in when they see something contrary to the storyline.

I will be most interested to see Doc's project. Based on his experience and body of posts on the fire, I have no doubt it will be through and well reasoned.


"...the designer of the .270 Ingwe cartridge!..."

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,005
D
Campfire Ranger
OP Offline
Campfire Ranger
D
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,005
tex n cal... thanks, amigo. I appreciate the vote of confidence.

As I previously stated and reiterate here: I wish I had not started this thread. I did so in a fit of pique over a stupid comment by a Neanderthal whose opposable thumbs apparently gave him access to an Apple computer, and in doing so I precipitated this whole unravelling mess.

I promise a complete and thorough investigation, without prejudice. I have no interest in or against this cartridge or the arms it is chambered for.

Now I ask that the internet ninjas give me some time to work on this. I have a real job, and a real life. I do this research in my "spare" time.


"I'm gonna have to science the schit out of this." Mark Watney, Sol 59, Mars
IC B3

Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 23
New Member
Offline
New Member
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 23
What i see is an established member of this site who put some unverified internet rumors to paper as if they were fact, and who was later made to look VERY uniformed.

The fact is, that in the Fort Hood incident, the Five SeveN armed terrorist stopped 4 attackers at close range- instantly.

2 soldiers who attacked him with chairs/table, an orderly that tried to rush him, and officer Munley, whose femur was utterly shattered from a single hit to the knee- which knocked her out of the fight immediately. So when put to the test, the FsN went 4 for 4 on "instant stops" in a real world terrorist incident.

I have personally shot "anemic" SS192 FN ammo (the fort hood attackers round of choice) through 48 layers of Kevlar. Elite S4M takes the same round, and cranks the velocity up another 400+ fps.

The Elite S4M has been independently chronoe'd at over 2500fps from the FsN PISTOL, and has been independently tested by Brassfetcher labs.

In their summary, Brassfetcher stated OUTRIGHT that Elite S4M is slightly more capable than .45 ACP Hydroshok JHP ammunition.

Brassfetcher are true industry experts...and they have spoken.

Get with the times people.

Last edited by Valorius; 12/19/11.

I am Infantry- Follow me!
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 23
New Member
Offline
New Member
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 23
Perhaps one of the Five SeveN's critics can post an actual verified story of any incident where the 5.7mm round actually failed.

You know, not a campside story...an actual verifiable incident.

I don't know about you lads...but i for one do not wish to take a 2500fps tumbling and fragmenting S4M to my center mas...not even if i'm wearing level IIIA armor, which S4M will EASILY defeat (front and back).


I am Infantry- Follow me!
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,324
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,324
Originally Posted by DocRocket
Well, whitepaper, as I stated to begin with, it looked to me like you came to this forum spoiling for a fight,...
Originally Posted by Valorius
What i see is an established member of this site who put some unverified internet rumors to paper as if they were fact, and who was later made to look VERY uniformed.
I was at the range and there was a grouchy bald guy, about 70, that had expensive rifles, but said he did not hunt anymore, he went to the range and posted on the internet. He said he was having to get new IP addresses to get back in. I asked what gun forums he was getting banned from and getting back in with the new IP addresses. The only name I recognized was 24 hour camp fire.

What does it all mean?
He could be a very well established poster.


There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self. -Ernest Hemingway
The man who makes no mistakes does not usually make anything.-- Edward John Phelps
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,510
Campfire Outfitter
Online Content
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,510
Seems like there is some kind of 5.7 anti-defamation league monitoring the internet and then ganging up on anyone that posts anything bad about it. Three separate posters on this one thread all with between 2 and <20 posts pimping for the 5.7. If they also have a death squad ol' DocRocket better sleep with one eye open.

Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 23
New Member
Offline
New Member
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 23
This thread has been noticed, and a link has been posted on several FN and Five SeveN forums. Little goes un-noticed in today's day and age.

It's not one old, banned poster coming here to make sure the 5.7 gets an even review, it's actual Five SeveN owners and users...like me.

People have successfully downed big pigs, deer, coyotes, and all kinds of other man sized game animals cleanly with a single well placed 5.7mm round. And in actual gunfights it has proven to be fully capable of stopping a determined attacker. Not always, perhaps...but what round does always work?

Answer: None- take note that in the Fort Hood attack, Officer Todd had to shoot the terrorist FIVE TIMES with a 9mm to put him down, whereas the terrorist put down Officer Munley with just a single "low powered" FN factory 40gr V-Max SS197SR hit to the knee, taking her completely out of the fight.

On top of that, the 5.7mm has 30% less recoil than standard pressure 9mm, the ammo is extremely light and compact (1200rds will fit in a single .30 cal ammo can), and the FsN pistol itself is extremely lightweight, accurate, and easy to shoot. Oh yeah...and it renders Level IIIA soft body armor completely useless and obsolete. (which i have verified in my own tests when i shot factory SS192 ammo at 2100fps from an FsN Pistol through 48 layers of kevlar)

Really, the Five SeveNs ability to be precisely rapid fired is far in excess of what i can do with either my Sig P228, my HK P7, or pretty much any other duty caliber sidearm i've ever shot. (I have been shooting for over 35 years, and am a former US Army infantryman, so i have a pretty big base of experience to compare the FsN against).

Is the 5.7mm and FsN pistol a miracle package?

No.

But it is a clear next step in handgun evolution. My prediction- in 20 years most major military forces will be using a PDW chambered side arm. (The Chinese Army already does)


I am Infantry- Follow me!
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,510
Campfire Outfitter
Online Content
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,510
So can you confirm or deny the death squad thing? Doc wanted me to ask.

Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 23
New Member
Offline
New Member
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 23
BTW, i had arranged to have some 5.7mm Elite ammo tested by Doctor Gary Roberts, at my own expense, however the owner of Elite ammo told me personally he did not think Roberts was capable of a fair review based on his own previous correspondence with the man. In my own dealings with him on other forums, i have found Doc Roberts, DDS, to be very dismissive and close-minded.

This is afterall a man that told me point blank that the legendary 125gr SJHP .357 magnum loading was a bad choice for self defense. (There are literally thousands of dead criminals that would no doubt strongly disagree with that contention).

I respect roberts opinions, but he has freely admitted to never having tested SS192, SS195, SS197SR, or any Elite load offered in 5.7mm, ever, not a single time. Even to this day.

Elite paid out of it's own pocket to have an independent and highly respected ballistics laboratory test two of their rounds (they've also tested SS192 and SS195LF), and those results have been posted online for anyone who is interested to see.

In those tests, Elite S4M ammunition exhibited 12-14" of penetration, ALL S4, SS192 and SS195 rounds tested exhibited destructive tumbling effects (which is clearly seen in the videos posted in this thread) and FBI required 12+" of penetration.

In it's summary, Brassfetcher stated, and i quote:

"As tested, both Elite cartridges (S4M and Protector II) offer lethality that is on par with, or slightly greater than, a 230gr .45 ACP JHP."


http://www.eliteammunition.net/f/Eli...Performance_Su mmary.pdf

Last edited by Valorius; 12/19/11.

I am Infantry- Follow me!
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 23
New Member
Offline
New Member
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 23
I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of any 5.7mm-centric hit squads. wink


I am Infantry- Follow me!
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 22,264
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 22,264
Originally Posted by RufusG
Seems like there is some kind of 5.7 anti-defamation league monitoring the internet and then ganging up on anyone that posts anything bad about it. Three separate posters on this one thread all with between 2 and <20 posts pimping for the 5.7. If they also have a death squad ol' DocRocket better sleep with one eye open.


Or one guy posing as several different people, but with similar writing styles smile


"...the designer of the .270 Ingwe cartridge!..."

Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 6
W
New Member
Offline
New Member
W
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 6
Originally Posted by DocRocket
Well, whitepaper, as I stated to begin with, it looked to me like you came to this forum spoiling for a fight, and against my better judgment (having chosen to NOT carry on any further indictments of the 5.7x28mm round already)I replied to your post as clearly and non-judgmentally as I could.

You appear to be set on having a fight, though, and I'm afraid I will not oblige you. I will respond to a couple of your points as they do make some sense.


Nope merely trying to get some solid answers as you are.



Originally Posted by DocRocket

You're right, I cannot say one way or another what the temperature of the blocks might have been.

But the video producer posts the ambient temperature as being 94 degrees, and he's shooting at an outdoor range, and you can clearly see he's shooting in the sun. He doesn't provide video evidence of the blocks' temperatures. He doesn't explain how he safeguarded the blocks' temperatures during the tests. All that that tells me is that we have no idea whether the blocks were stored and shot at 4C or not, due to the video producer's failure to provide that information.

BB calibration was "to spec", you say, and I might concur. But when was the gelatin calibrated? How long before shooting the first bullet into the gelatin? Was he monitoring the temperature? No? Yes? We can't tell. He doesn't provide that information.


You're right. I'll send him a youtube message and ask for verification. At that point, it would be taking his word for it. I don't have any detail tech information available, as most of the listed FBI protocols say that it has to be shot within 20 minutes of being removed from stored temperature. It doesn't state whether at XX outside temp if it's only good for XX minutes..


Originally Posted by DocRocket
As I said, this video "proof" is only a demonstration, and while entertaining, it really doesn't prove anything one way or another.


I'd have to agree. It proves nothing, but it seems some people have it stuck in there head, that they equate this round to be the most ballistically inefficient round ever created, however even these basic gel tests prove this round is capable of meeting min penetration values. This isn't some .380 ACP round that needs FMJ's to reach 12"..



Originally Posted by DocRocket

Bullets that fragment explosively, like varmint rounds such as the V-Max, do not penetrate very deeply. Tissue damage in human-size thoraces is typically shallow and non-lethal, or at least not quickly lethal. Bullets that penetrate more deeply into tissue before fragmenting, and particularly bullets that break up into a small number of larger fragments (as opposed to bullets that break up into a large number of small fragments) have proven over the years to be more effective in terms of terminal effectiveness. In order to assess the effectiveness of fragmenting bullets, you need to demonstrate the depth at which the bullet begins to break up, the number of fragments typically produced, and the depth to which these fragments penetrate.


Again that's based on higher velocities achieved in these rounds, when shot from a AR15. I've seen the 40gr Vmax style bullets in gel from a 5.56 round, and you're right, they clearly only penetrate 6-8" in bare gel. However at lower velocities this round doesn't seem to have issues penetrating to min depths as shown in the video.



Quote
The video footage provided does not give us clear enough photographic evidence of the fragmentation pattern. The testers do not provide weights of the fragments.


I would agree. I would have liked to see them melt the gel down and collect and weight fragments. Perhaps they didn't think testing needed to carried to that point of degree.

Originally Posted by DocRocket
Again, I reiterate: the "tests" in these videos don't prove much of anything, one way or another. Let's just leave it at that, shall we?


I would certainly agree to that, if you would agree the snippets of information provided on the 5.7x28mm on sites like M4, don't really proove much of anything either smile


Originally Posted by DocRocket
Well, the fact is that there is a LOT of stuff you're not allowed to see, and all I can say to that is "too bad". Learn to deal with it.


I certainly have learned to deal with it. It's one of the reasons I seek out as much data as possible. I was able to make my conclusion on what carry rounds I carry in my major calibers (9mm, .40S&W, and .45ACP) because of such data.



Originally Posted by DocRocket

Now, I am DONE with this discussion. As stated previously, I have some serious research on this 5.7mm thing in the works and I will not waste any more time on this discussion.


And again if I haven't already mentioned it, I will greatly welcome any further data and testing on this round, as long as it isnt' 20yrs old, and about a discontinued bullet smile

Page 8 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Moderated by  RickBin 

Link Copied to Clipboard
YB23

Who's Online Now
288 members (007FJ, 01Foreman400, 160user, 22250rem, 1Longbow, 12344mag, 32 invisible), 1,984 guests, and 918 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums81
Topics1,187,728
Posts18,400,821
Members73,822
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023


 







Fish & Game Departments | Solunar Tables | Mission Statement | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | DMCA
Hunting | Fishing | Camping | Backpacking | Reloading | Campfire Forums | Gear Shop
Copyright © 2000-2024 24hourcampfire.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.3.33 Page Time: 0.107s Queries: 15 (0.009s) Memory: 0.9249 MB (Peak: 1.1087 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2024-03-29 11:06:18 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS