Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-16-2012, 19:38   #681
SDGlock23
Glockoholic
 
SDGlock23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Land of Forgetfulness
Posts: 7,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottyd2506 View Post
maybe so but that 135 in a 40 cal is has a sectional density of like 1.21. it is going to slow down like a parachute, once it hits the fat layers and muscle the bullet will likely be sub sonic through the vital organs. esp a larger built BG.

going super sonic through the vital organs like the 357 does seems to be key in the police saying of "lightning bolt effect" I'm sure it would kill as good or better ,but we want the extra shock to STOP the attacker

The 357 sig can launch a bullet with a sectional density of 1.41 at 1500 fps from a 4 inch bbl. with that kind of sectional density the bullet does not slow down much as it penetrates probably going 1200 fps through vital organs.

The 9mm 45 and 40 can NOT do this. I'm sure a skinny bad guy it might, but some of those 260-350 lb attackers have extra layers to go through and the Sig seems to be able to break the sound barrier inside of the BG vitals.
I wouldn't get too hyped up on thinking that a sectional density of roughly .140 and 1400 fps (now you bump it up to 1500 fps) is necessary shock and stop someone nor a bullet having to remain above the sound barrier while inside the person. By nature, such stats would always benefit the smaller calibers because the bullets can be lighter while retaining a certain sectional density.

A .40 cal 135gr @ 1500 fps vs. a .355 125gr @ 1500...who really cares, both will be more than lethal. The Sig is going to be a little better breaking through hard objects and will penetrate a little deeper, but of those two, the 135gr is likely to open more violently, doing more damage. Sectional density is a factor, but it's not the only factor in performance.
__________________
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance."
SDGlock23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2012, 06:38   #682
English
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 5,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottyd2506 View Post
maybe so but that 135 in a 40 cal is has a sectional density of like 1.21. it is going to slow down like a parachute, once it hits the fat layers and muscle the bullet will likely be sub sonic through the vital organs. esp a larger built BG.

going super sonic through the vital organs like the 357 does seems to be key in the police saying of "lightning bolt effect" I'm sure it would kill as good or better ,but we want the extra shock to STOP the attacker

The 357 sig can launch a bullet with a sectional density of 1.41 at 1500 fps from a 4 inch bbl. with that kind of sectional density the bullet does not slow down much as it penetrates probably going 1200 fps through vital organs.

The 9mm 45 and 40 can NOT do this. I'm sure a skinny bad guy it might, but some of those 260-350 lb attackers have extra layers to go through and the Sig seems to be able to break the sound barrier inside of the BG vitals.
I don't deny the existence of what you call a lghtning bolt effect, but, whatever causes it, it is not a supersnic phenomenon. The speed of sound varies with the density of the medium and, although the density of the body varies, its speed of sound is generally well above the speed of the fastest conventional rife bullets.

What is most probably causing the effect is a blood pumping phenomenon to which the so called vital organs are not significant, but which depends on the speed with which the bullet releases its kinetic energy. Thus the 135gn .40 cal is an excellent candidate, but, as you say, it might not work on someone with a thick enough layer of fat.

English
English is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2012, 15:53   #683
scottyd2506
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by English View Post
I don't deny the existence of what you call a lghtning bolt effect, but, whatever causes it, it is not a supersnic phenomenon. The speed of sound varies with the density of the medium and, although the density of the body varies, its speed of sound is generally well above the speed of the fastest conventional rife bullets.

What is most probably causing the effect is a blood pumping phenomenon to which the so called vital organs are not significant, but which depends on the speed with which the bullet releases its kinetic energy. Thus the 135gn .40 cal is an excellent candidate, but, as you say, it might not work on someone with a thick enough layer of fat.

English

I tend to agree with you. the 135 40 does seem like a good round at 1500 fps. the 40 is no slouch for sure.

I think the factor is people are getting bigger, a lot of criminals who do not work for a living burn little fat, or they just sit around and deal drugs and burn lass calories.

the 40 SW and 135 at 1500 would be great. it is already 40 caliber going into the BG and same speed at the 357 load. and also expanding.

but that bullet would slow down faster than the 125 grain 357 bullet at the same speed in the body. on a larger guy it might shred most of it's energy in the fat layers.


What the 357 sig and magnum 125 at 1400-1500 does could be a mystery. But it has been proven to work. so much so that after all these years they are trying to copy it.

it is a mystery why the 9mm +p+with a 115 at 1400 has failed and police look to find something better, yet those same police was amazed at the performance of the 357 magnum 125 at 1450 fps from 4 inch and 1550 from 6 inch bbl service revolvers.

The shorter 4 in bbl 357 mag with a 125 at 1450 is only 10 grains more than a 9mm +p+ 115 at 1400 fps, yet agencies like the LAPD had failures with the 115 load and adopted the 147 loads in 9mm

the 9mm +p+124 at 1250 fps are not doing much better.

the is no magic in 1400-1500 fps no magic in using a 124-125 grain bullet, I think it is a combo of both.

the 35 cal 125 seem to go in fast, then expand in the vitals where the caliber needs to be big. Dumping most the the expansion in the fat layers with a light for caliber bullet my not stop a larger bad guy.

I think the 40 with a 135 at 1500 would work if they make the bullet expansion more controlled vs the 35 caliber.
with the right bullet may be a improvement over the 45 acp
and better than the 357 sig.
I plan to get a 40 bbl for my glock 32 anyways.
scottyd2506 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2012, 16:05   #684
cowboy1964
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 15,350
12" penetration. Not interested in anything less.

Last edited by cowboy1964; 12-17-2012 at 16:05..
cowboy1964 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2012, 10:09   #685
SCmasterblaster
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Hartford, Vermont
Posts: 16,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by cowboy1964 View Post
12" penetration. Not interested in anything less.
You got that right. I want my 9mm bullet to penetrate all the way to the spinal cord,
__________________
Gun Ownership Offers Freedom in Many Dimensions
SCmasterblaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2012, 10:51   #686
icelandicstud
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 146
icelandicstud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2012, 22:43   #687
pisc1024
Senior Member
 
pisc1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 635
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottyd2506 View Post
What do you call it then? Why is it the the Texas and many other state police have like a 99_100% success rate with the 357 sig, the gun has been used since 1994, almost 20 years.. I'm sure it has racked up more than 50-100 shootings. yet agencies one after the other have issues with the 9mm to stop the BG.. WHOLE magazine of 9mm dumped into the bad guy and they keep coming yet almost 20 years of service with the 357 sig and hardly any failures at all.

Please post any links or data to back up your assertion of a 99-100% success rate. What do you classify success as? If you fail to do so I will consider this nothing more than personal opinion/ BS, as anyone reading this should.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottyd2506 View Post
That is the same ol excuse Every 9mm fan boy has. There is nothing wrong with the 9mm but face the facts it does not have equal stopping power as the stop handgun rounds.
it is much better than 38 special and holds a lot of rounds
Once again, show me some links, or proof that this is the case. There are TONS of LE Agencies that carry or are going to the 9mm none with any gripes or complains.

Last edited by pisc1024; 12-21-2012 at 22:44..
pisc1024 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2012, 08:24   #688
clarkz71
Senior Member
 
clarkz71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,608
That Underwood is unbelivable, I'd like to see ballistic geletin testing for penetration & wound channel.
__________________
Quote:
Real Men of Genius....Here's to you, Mister self proclaimed-genius-surrounded by idiots!
.
G23 gen3 .40/.357 Sig
Florida Glocker #1923
clarkz71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2012, 12:47   #689
raven28690
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Valdese, NC
Posts: 11

Underwood is what I use in my 10mm and I have nothing but good things to say about it.
__________________
Glock 20SF
Glock 29SF
10mm
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
raven28690 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2012, 14:31   #690
Frank V
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: S.W. Montana
Posts: 611
The .357 Sig is looking interesting. The videos shown are interesting too! Wish there was a gellatin block out there a fellow could afford that was reusable at the range. It'd be fun to run some tests yourself. For now I'm restricted to water jugs. Maybe not realistic, but it's repeatable & comparable with different ammo.

One of the really nice things about a Glock is you can get say a .40 & through aftermarked bbls, have a .40, .357 Sig., & a 9mm!
Frank
__________________
U.S.A. "RIDE FOR THE BRAND OR LEAVE!"

Last edited by Frank V; 12-23-2012 at 14:33..
Frank V is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2012, 19:24   #691
SCmasterblaster
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Hartford, Vermont
Posts: 16,034
UW ammo

Quote:
Originally Posted by clarkz71 View Post
That Underwood is unbelivable, I'd like to see ballistic geletin testing for penetration & wound channel.
Has a hard-hitting velocity. +p+ in 115gr 9mm.
__________________
Gun Ownership Offers Freedom in Many Dimensions
SCmasterblaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2012, 22:44   #692
rustytxrx
Senior Member
 
rustytxrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,068
Read the thread from top to bottom. I am undecided.

Is the number of peopled killed by a caliber the gold standard of a cartridge? It seems the details the shootings would have to be analyzed by experts to tell. For example Nidal Hasan shot 42 people and killed 13 of those. Does that tell you anything of the effectiveness of the cartridge. He shot 214 rounds. That does not seem to add any information we can use. The engament lasted 10 minutes. He was shooting a pistol (5.7 x28) that has 20 round magazines. Now that might tell us a bit to analyze situation.

I am of the opinion that the pistol and the shooter mean more than the caliber.

Rusty
__________________
Rusty
Texas, I luv u
rustytxrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2012, 22:51   #693
rustytxrx
Senior Member
 
rustytxrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,068
BTW, I don't know the actual criteria or use of a LEO duty weapon. I am not sure the actual goal is to kill the bad guy. If that were the goal they would be carring a SAW.

Rusty
__________________
Rusty
Texas, I luv u
rustytxrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2012, 23:22   #694
pisc1024
Senior Member
 
pisc1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 635
Quote:
Originally Posted by rustytxrx View Post
BTW, I don't know the actual criteria or use of a LEO duty weapon. I am not sure the actual goal is to kill the bad guy. If that were the goal they would be carring a SAW.

Rusty
SAWs are heavy
pisc1024 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 00:35   #695
Nanuk
Senior Member
 
Nanuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardB View Post
Does the Underwood ammo meet the "FBI" test criteria without raising problems in real world shootability in difficult circumstances or affecting the reliability of the current handguns?

Who cares? The "FBI" criteria was basically made up to fit the test. Don't believe me, I know how the gov works. Besides, the 125 grain 357 magnums fails the FBI protocol.

Last edited by Nanuk; 12-24-2012 at 00:39..
Nanuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 00:42   #696
pisc1024
Senior Member
 
pisc1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nanuk View Post
Who cares? The "FBI" criteria was basically made up to fit the test. Don't believe me, I know how the gov works.
Say what you will about the FBI criteria, but it has and is used by many law enforcement agencies to choose their ammo. This testing has shown to be a reliable predictor of how ammo will work in real world scenarios. I think this is one of the few times the .gov has gotten it right. It took a fairly epic fail from the FBI to wake them up sadly. If I'm not mistaken your new duty ammo dose quite well in the FBI tests, not too sure if that is why your agency chose it. Could you shed any light on it?
pisc1024 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 04:52   #697
English
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 5,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by pisc1024 View Post
Say what you will about the FBI criteria, but it has and is used by many law enforcement agencies to choose their ammo. This testing has shown to be a reliable predictor of how ammo will work in real world scenarios. I think this is one of the few times the .gov has gotten it right. It took a fairly epic fail from the FBI to wake them up sadly. If I'm not mistaken your new duty ammo dose quite well in the FBI tests, not too sure if that is why your agency chose it. Could you shed any light on it?
This is a classic error. "If lots of people use it, it must be OK." It woud be true if there was a fairly simple objective measure. As it is, it s very hard to get sound comparitive evidence for the effectiveness of different handgun rounds. In that cirumstance people tend to fall back on whatever will convince them, such as superior authority, or irelevant criteria, such as, "The government changed to .45ACP when the .38 did not stop the Moros and it has been working well ever since."

The FBI did have a fairly epic fail that made them want an objective measure. Unfortunately they did not understand what objective science implied in this case and they used authority again instead. They were probably the only agency in the country with the clout to get funding for a proper objective test but they didn't do it. At the least, that would have involved shooting lots of human sized animals under controlled conditions with at least some of them behind windscreens or car bodywork and correlating those findings with the same shots made on ballistic gelatine.

Instead of doing an objective study of what incapacitated animals quickly they jumped to insufficiently founded conclusions and reached a decision on a fallacious basis. The fact that they jumped from a hot part of the fire into a less hot part of the fire was a random product. More important is that the egos involved with the decision have made it hard to re-examine the study itself and do something better.

English
English is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 10:59   #698
pisc1024
Senior Member
 
pisc1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 635
Quote:
Originally Posted by English View Post
This is a classic error. "If lots of people use it, it must be OK." It woud be true if there was a fairly simple objective measure. As it is, it s very hard to get sound comparitive evidence for the effectiveness of different handgun rounds. In that cirumstance people tend to fall back on whatever will convince them, such as superior authority, or irelevant criteria, such as, "The government changed to .45ACP when the .38 did not stop the Moros and it has been working well ever since."
Wow, well, where to begin? Of course saying "lots of people use it" is a dumb idea, no argument there. However dose "lots of people use it, and it has been PROVEN successful in real world shootings where lives were on the line" work better for you? I say that because that is what is really happening. I think that you personally don't like the FBI testing because it doesn’t take into account BPW, which I think has been proven to be a non player in handguns. So you suffer from the "testing doesn’t jive with my world view so I'm not going to take it into account, and I'm also going to rip on it every chance I get" side of things. See how that works?
Quote:
The FBI did have a fairly epic fail that made them want an objective measure. Unfortunately they did not understand what objective science implied in this case and they used authority again instead. They were probably the only agency in the country with the clout to get funding for a proper objective test but they didn't do it. At the least, that would have involved shooting lots of human sized animals under controlled conditions with at least some of them behind windscreens or car bodywork and correlating those findings with the same shots made on ballistic gelatine.
I think we have been over this before, but humans and what they do, how they react after being shot are not animals. Animal testing may have its place, but to take a live pig, sit him behind the wheel of a car and shoot at him is just dumb.
Also, larger agencies these days can and do perform their own ballistic testing. They determine what they are most concerned with, and that is what they test for. Most of them are some sort of abbreviated version of the FBI
protocols.
Quote:
Instead of doing an objective study of what incapacitated animals quickly they jumped to insufficiently founded conclusions and reached a decision on a fallacious basis. The fact that they jumped from a hot part of the fire into a less hot part of the fire was a random product. More important is that the egos involved with the decision have made it hard to re-examine the study itself and do something better.

English
I think that after you have a tragedy like the Miami shootout most people put their ego's in check for a little while. I have seen it happen several times in my life. To say that ego had any reflection on this testing protocol is just despicable personal supposition on your part. You say that they came to a fallacious conclusion? Well then why have they not had some sort of terminal ballistics related disaster ala Miami in the 20+ years since? The FBI and hundreds if not thousands of LEAs seem to be doing just fine with the protocols being proven every day out on the streets of America.

Last edited by pisc1024; 12-24-2012 at 11:00..
pisc1024 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 13:06   #699
English
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 5,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by pisc1024 View Post
Wow, well, where to begin? Of course saying "lots of people use it" is a dumb idea, no argument there. However dose "lots of people use it, and it has been PROVEN successful in real world shootings where lives were on the line" work better for you? I say that because that is what is really happening. I think that you personally don't like the FBI testing because it doesn’t take into account BPW, which I think has been proven to be a non player in handguns. So you suffer from the "testing doesn’t jive with my world view so I'm not going to take it into account, and I'm also going to rip on it every chance I get" side of things. See how that works?
Where indeed! We can start with the idea of "proven". What do you think it means? What it does not mean is that lots of people shot with 9mms have died as a result. Lots of people would die whatever they were shot with. What matters is the time it takes before you can stop shooting them and such evidence as I have seen, none of which is much more than anecdotal with the exception of the BPW work, is that it takes more shots with a 9mm than with a .40S&W or 357SIG to stop someone shooting back. That is practical street results and not some hypothesizing about how quickly and accurately a 9mm can be shot relative to other cartridges.

I disliked the FBI protocol long before BPW effects had been heard of so that little idea doesn't fly. See how that works? I have a strong tendency to attack any kind of nonsense and that is nothing to do with my "world view" beyond the general principle that nonsense should not be left around to replicate itself via lazy minds. Fackler's dogmatic ideas have clearly been nonsense from the begining. It shows a great deal for the dominance of his personality that they have become so firmly entrenched in so many minds and organisations.

If there is one thing that has been firmly established it is that BPW effects are a significant factor within hangun cartridges. They range from zero through a little to quite a lot. What they don't do is provide a guarantee of a one shot stop, but no one in support of the idea EVER suggested that they did so.

Quote:
I think we have been over this before, but humans and what they do, how they react after being shot are not animals. Animal testing may have its place, but to take a live pig, sit him behind the wheel of a car and shoot at him is just dumb.
Also, larger agencies these days can and do perform their own ballistic testing. They determine what they are most concerned with, and that is what they test for. Most of them are some sort of abbreviated version of the FBI
protocols.
You know as well as I do that we have been over this before. To some kinds of injuries under some circumstances, animals and humans will react differently. To injuries which produce measurable brain dysfunction they are much the same. How determined you are to fight on in insignificant if you are unconcious beause determination and anger are functions of consciousness. That is as true for animals as it is for men under all circumstances. You, as a fighting man, might take comfort from your fighting spirit, but if you are unconscious it is having no effect.

The primary measure of handgun cartridge effectiveness is how quickly that state incapacity to keep functioning at a lethal level, even if not actual unconsciousness, can be achieved. The secondary measure is how much each hit reduces the chance of your opponent firing back at you before you can fire again.

Testing loads on gelatine is useful only if you can correlate the damage done to the gelatine with the probability of those two measures. That work has never been done. The Courtney's BPW work did not attempt to do it and no one else has attempted to do it. Testing on animals can never be a perfect model for results on people but it is the best that we can do. What you are claiming is that because it isn't perfect we should settle for some half baked idea of what works and what doesn't.

Shooting a pig or a goat is not dumb if the animal is wired up so that the experimenter can see what hapens to its brain waves and signals passing up and down the CNS to and from the muscles. If you want to know how that changes if an identical bullet has first passed through a windscreen or car bodywork you do that as well because other wise you are just guessing. You know what a guess is don't you? It is jumping to a conclusion without sound logic or evidence!


Quote:
I think that after you have a tragedy like the Miami shootout most people put their ego's in check for a little while. I have seen it happen several times in my life. To say that ego had any reflection on this testing protocol is just despicable personal supposition on your part. You say that they came to a fallacious conclusion? Well then why have they not had some sort of terminal ballistics related disaster ala Miami in the 20+ years since? The FBI and hundreds if not thousands of LEAs seem to be doing just fine with the protocols being proven every day out on the streets of America.
You are confusing a number of things in the apparent belief that they are one. There were several obvious conclusions from the Miami shootout which had little to do with ego. The first was that agents and LEOs should anticipate being in a crash when chasing determined and competent criminals. The follow ons from that are that it is very dangerous to have your only sidearm on the seat under your thigh and that if you depend on glasses to defend yourself and to continue the mission they must be atttacked to you or you must have a spare pair immediately available after a crash. The second is that snub nosed .38Sps are rubbish if you are in a running gun fight with car bodies in the way. They don't have enough power or penetration.

The tactical and equipment lessons learned from this were obvious and if the FBI had just applied those lessons and changed to high capacity 9mms without doing anything else, that alone would have prevented a similar future catastrophe. Undoubtedly there were some who had been claiming that a .38 snubbie was all a proper agent needed, and their egos would have been hurt, but I suspect there were no where near as many of those as now claim the 9mm is all anyone needs. The thing was that there was no major figure whose reputation and carreer was tied to that idea and so minds could change.

The FBI then went further, and that was a good thing because once they had found the .38 to be wanting they should want to know how much better something else would be, if at all. Perhaps all handgun rounds did suck equally after all.

The problem then was that a proper study had to be set up with people of importance and reputation working on it. Now you had real ego problems, but this was virtually inevitable no matter who was involved. This study had to come up with definitive answers in a field which was difficult and full of clap trap. Those answers, right or wrong, would hang round the necks of the principle people for the rest of their careers. They would also hang round the necks of those people who accepted the results of the study and so a lot of important and powerful figures would be invested in maintaining that they were right regardless of future evidence.

One of the first errors of the study set up was its dismissal of anecdotal evidence and its acceptance of the principle that an assailant could only be forced to stop fighting from a direct hit to the CNS or by sufficient loss of blood pressure and flow to the CNS and skeletal muscles. They denied anecdotal evidence but failed to replace it with scientific evidence of effect rather than principle.

Unfortunately these early decisions were incompatible because there was lots of sound anecdotal evidence that many criminals shot collapsed imediately even though they had not been hit in the CNS. Rather than investigate this evidence the study members and associates rubbished it in a scurrilous manner. The LEOs concerned were jumping on a band wagon to gain attention, their time sense was distorted, they were lying, people were falling over when shot because they knew from movies that was what they were supposed to do, and so on. This was the egos of powerful people at work and it was quite shameful. People tasked with making agents safer were more concerned with safe guarding heir reputations than correcting their own mistakes.

You, Pisces, think that, "The FBI and hundreds if not thousands of LEAs seem to be doing just fine with the protocols being proven every day out on the streets of America." but you don't understand the meaning of proof. We don't know how "fine" the are doing because we are stil not doing the work to find out and because many are still sticking to the idea you share with them and denying such evidence as there is. In the mean time it is very possible that many of those FBI agents and LEOs that have died in gunfights would not have been dead if they had been better armed.

English

Last edited by English; 12-24-2012 at 13:15..
English is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2012, 14:10   #700
Coffee Dog
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 534
Caliber Corner

Last edited by Coffee Dog; 12-24-2012 at 14:51..
Coffee Dog is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 17:26.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,061
303 Members
758 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31