View Full Version : Lose the VLTOR A5?
Alright, so to begin with this thread I'll say that I saw the other thread for the VLTOR A5 receiver extension set up/kit. It looked pretty impressive at first, and VLTOR is always a solid company.
I took the plunge after reading all the great reviews and bought one.
It showed up, installation was simple and straight forward like with any other extension. The overall product itself is very nicely made, a bit expensive, but the quality is definitely indicative of it's price. I went shooting with it twice, albeit only with 200 or less rounds each time, and the gun did great. I watched for where my brass was ejecting, and how far out. Everything was at around 4 o'clock, landing consistently at about 6-8ft. away. That was during January, and being that it was winter I didn't have much time to really test it.
Fast forward to this spring now and I've gotten out with it over the last 3 weeks of shooting I put around 400-600 rounds through it.
So far I've experienced at least 3 to 4 short strokes with it myself, as well as a friend who experienced what I suspect to be two short strokes. Ejection is still consistently at 4 o'clock, 6-8ft. away. The only conclusion I can come to is that the A5 kit and the heavier buffer is just too much weight behind the BCG. I had considered the possibility of an ammo problem, but I had used around 2500 rounds of the same ammunition last year with a normal carbine receiver extension, action spring, and H buffer without any problems whatsoever.
At this point, I'm considering going back to the normal carbine receiver extension set up with an H buffer.
Thoughts or advice?
Specs on the gun:
BCM 14.5" Mid-length upper receiver
BCM BCG
BCM standard/stock bolt without any upgrades
BCM/VLTOR Gunfighter charing handle
BCM lower with standard VLTOR A5 Kit
And the ammunition being used was 62gr. penetrator imported by ATI from Turkey, brass cased.
I'm definitely not an expert, but I believe I read the 14.5 Mid-lengths were a little funky when running the A5. Something about not enough gas to work correctly with the A5. Don't quote me on that, but I swear thats what I read....but I've been wrong before.
I'm definitely not an expert, but I believe I read the 14.5 Mid-lengths were a little funky when running the A5. Something about not enough gas to work correctly with the A5. Don't quote me on that, but I swear thats what I read....but I've been wrong before.
You are correct, according to Vltor folks 14.5 middy is the only one barrel configuration where they have seen an occasional problem. Either gas port needs to be enlarged, or buffer modified for a lighter weight, or just ditch it altogether. I mated mine with 16 inch middy and it has been great.
I've seen several people post that they have swapped a tungsten weight out of their A5 buffer for a steel weight and seen an improvement in performance.
jonconsiglio
05-10-11, 15:53
Your Vltor A5 has 2 tungsten and 2 steel weights. Take an existing carbine buffer and replace one or both of the tungsten weights in the A5. This should do the trick.
ETA - From your post, I'd replace one of the tungsten weights and see how it does first before replacing both.
Thanks for the responses, guys.
I'm feeling pretty confident that the A5 set up is just a little too heavy. BCM advertises the 14.5" mid-lengths as being a little sensitive already because of the gas port location, so I think that in combination with the heavier buffer is just too much.
I've read a few things about swapping weights in the A5 buffer to make it work better, but I'm not quite sure I feel confident or assured with monkeying around with it. Or that it will work right.
I will probably end up going back to the regular carbine extension set up with an H buffer. The tried and proven carbine extension with an H buffer just seems like a simpler and more tried and proven way to go.
And more comments, suggestions, or advice on this is highly welcomed, though.
I guess I'm lucky. I used an A5 with Vltor's 6oz buffer at a carbine class with a Daniel Defense 14.5" midlength upper, with Prvi M193 ammo. No short stroking.
The A5 system requires a LIGHTER BUFFER for the 14.5 middy. I heard these words come out of the Operations Mangager's mouth first hand when Gunz and I toured VLTOR.
The 14.5 is the only platform that the Standard A5 doesn't improve significantly. And the direct Weight comparison between the A5 buffer and a Carbine buffer isn't valid since they're two completely difference springs and cycles.
Check out this video I made to illustrate the A5 buffer on a 14.5 middy. The gun runs like a BAR.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKTZ6jZhupM
Incidentally... the same problem occurs if you try the 14.5 middy and a rifle stock/buffer.
jonconsiglio
05-10-11, 16:35
Thanks for the responses, guys.
I'm feeling pretty confident that the A5 set up is just a little too heavy. BCM advertises the 14.5" mid-lengths as being a little sensitive already because of the gas port location, so I think that in combination with the heavier buffer is just too much.
I've read a few things about swapping weights in the A5 buffer to make it work better, but I'm not quite sure I feel confident or assured with monkeying around with it. Or that it will work right.
I will probably end up going back to the regular carbine extension set up with an H buffer. The tried and proven carbine extension with an H buffer just seems like a simpler and more tried and proven way to go.
And more comments, suggestions, or advice on this is highly welcomed, though.
Normally I would agree with you, but in this particular case Vltor recommends lightening the buffer and also has directions posted on their website.
I strongly suggest you give this a good try before giving up on it. Ultimately, the benefits will be noticeable and you'll be thankful you stuck to it.
Now, I may end up eating my words here, but in this particular case I think it will be fine if you drop the weight a bit.
Normally I would agree with you, but in this particular case Vltor recommends lightening the buffer and also has directions posted on their website.
I strongly suggest you give this a good try before giving up on it. Ultimately, the benefits will be noticeable and you'll be thankful you stuck to it.
Now, I may end up eating my words here, but in this particular case I think it will be fine if you drop the weight a bit.
Do you have a link for this?
The A5 system requires a LIGHTER BUFFER for the 14.5 middy. I heard these words come out of the Operations Mangager's mouth first hand when Gunz and I toured VLTOR.
The 14.5 is the only platform that the Standard A5 doesn't improve significantly. And the direct Weight comparison between the A5 buffer and a Carbine buffer isn't valid since they're two completely difference springs and cycles.
Check out this video I made to illustrate the A5 buffer on a 14.5 middy. The gun runs like a BAR.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKTZ6jZhupM
Incidentally... the same problem occurs if you try the 14.5 middy and a rifle stock/buffer.
So what would your advice be? Should I ditch the A5 and go for the carbine extension and H buffer, or do you think lightening the A5 buffer would make for an overall better and more reliable set up?
Normally I would agree with you, but in this particular case Vltor recommends lightening the buffer and also has directions posted on their website.
I strongly suggest you give this a good try before giving up on it. Ultimately, the benefits will be noticeable and you'll be thankful you stuck to it.
Now, I may end up eating my words here, but in this particular case I think it will be fine if you drop the weight a bit.
The A5 kit does really interest and appeal to me, but I'm beginning to doubt it after my experiences with it. Or more specifically, I'm beginning to doubt that it has a place on a 14.5" mid-length. I don't doubt it's function and performance on others. Maybe I will call VLTOR and see what they say, I just don't feel very confident or assured of simply monkeying with the weights because someone said so.
No offense meant, it just worries me.
I'd really like to hear more input, though.
jonconsiglio
05-10-11, 17:33
Do you have a link for this?
I don't. I just searches around too and couldn't find it. I'll check again in a few.
K.L. Davis
05-10-11, 17:36
The A5 system was designed for the a rifle... there are heavy buffers for shorter barreled guns and use with suppressors.
There is (or soon will be) a lightweight A5 buffer for use with systems that need it. Look for it on the Vltor webstore.
jonconsiglio
05-10-11, 17:39
The A5 kit does really interest and appeal to me, but I'm beginning to doubt it after my experiences with it. Or more specifically, I'm beginning to doubt that it has a place on a 14.5" mid-length. I don't doubt it's function and performance on others. Maybe I will call VLTOR and see what they say, I just don't feel very confident or assured of simply monkeying with the weights because someone said so.
No offense meant, it just worries me.
I'd really like to hear more input, though.
I don't blame you one bit. I'll look for the link. If there isn't a link, call Vltor and I'm sure they'll tell you the same. Robb Jensen lightened his and had favorable results.
Think of it like this... A rifle system uses the same spring obviously, just a longer tube and buffer. Both contain four weights. The A5 starts with 2 tungsten and 2 steel. A rifle buffer has 4 steel, so the A5 is 2 tungsten heavier on the same spring. Replacing 1 or both is still a legitament weight.
Now, if we were suggesting using your own weights to make your own buffer, that would be different. All that's being suggested here is going a little lighter, which is still a common buffer weight, if that makes sense.
Still, I wouldn't so anything wthput verifying it's ok, so call Vltor tomorrow and you should hear the same thing. I'll see if I can find the link.
jonconsiglio
05-10-11, 18:04
Maybe I'm wrong about it being on their site. I could have sworn it was, but either I can't find it or I was confused. I do know Vltor has been contacted and either recommended it or at least said it would be fine to do. I want to say they recommended it and even gave instructions along with the weight differences by replacing one or both tungsten rights with steel.
Robb Jensen
05-10-11, 18:23
My BCM 14.5" AR with a VLTOR A5 is running best with a 4.55oz A5 buffer.
The A5 has four weights, two tungsten and 2 steel. I replaced one of the tungsten weights with a steel one from an old CAR buffer, so it now has 1 tungsten at the front of the buffer followed by 3 steel. With a standard rate A2 rifle buffer spring it runs on everything.
ETA: If you replace both tungsten weights with steel ones you'll end up with a 3.8oz buffer (same weight as an H buffer). I have my 3gun rifle set up with way and using it with a JP LMOS 6.25oz bolt carrier (16" chrome lined midlength BCM bbl).
So what would your advice be?
Do what Robb suggests. I wouldn't take the RE off an all that for a minor weight adjustment.
jonconsiglio
05-10-11, 18:46
Do what Robb suggests. I wouldn't take the RE off an all that for a minor weight adjustment.
You mean what Jon suggested back in post 5.... :D
(This is one of those very few times it's ok to use an emoticon, so I can convey the message that it should be taken lightly and as a joke....)
ETA - Damn, or as SteveL suggested in post 4
You mean what Jon suggested back in post 5.... :D
Indeed. ;) Too busy running my keyboard instead of reading.
The A5 not working on the 14.5 middy is more of an indictment on the 14.5 middy. I just bought my second A5 set up for an 11.5 upper and will eventually phase all my carbean buffers out EXCEPT for the 14.5 middy.
Indeed. ;) Too busy running my keyboard instead of reading.
The A5 not working on the 14.5 middy is more of an indictment on the 14.5 middy. I just bought my second A5 set up for an 11.5 upper and will eventually phase all my carbean buffers out EXCEPT for the 14.5 middy.
You said this in another thread too, so I'll address it here as well. The 14.5" carbine was never meant to be run with a rifle buffer system, or the A5 flavor of the same. How do you run parts with a system it was never designed for, get problems, and blame the original design?
If I put a carbine buffer system on a rifle gassed 20" barreled rifle, and get problems, is that the fault of the upper or the user for putting non-compatible parts together?
vicious_cb
05-11-11, 02:53
You said this in another thread too, so I'll address it here as well. The 14.5" carbine was never meant to be run with a rifle buffer system, or the A5 flavor of the same. How do you run parts with a system it was never designed for, get problems, and blame the original design?
If I put a carbine buffer system on a rifle gassed 20" barreled rifle, and get problems, is that the fault of the upper or the user for putting non-compatible parts together?
Except a rifle buffer system actually makes a carbine run better. The carbine RE with a shortened spring and buffer was a compromise to get a short collapsible stock on the AR-15, not that the carbine gas system actually need shorter buffer systems. A 14.5" middy will still run into problems even with a carbine RE if you put a wrong buffer into it.
Except a rifle buffer system actually makes a carbine run better. The carbine RE with a shortened spring and buffer was a compromise to get a short collapsible stock on the AR-15, not that the carbine gas system actually need shorter buffer systems.
One could argue that the 14.5" mid-length addresses the same issue as the A5, just at the other end. The A5 is an attempt to make the 20" rifle work with a collapsible stock of some sort. The 14.5" mid-length could be viewed as an attempt to make the best of the OEM collapsible stock parts.
I have a question. I just bought a BCM 14.5 w/A2x carbine upper. I currently use a ST-T2 that I got a while back. I also have an H3 I plan on trying out as well. Would I be better suited trying an H2 or just going A5 completely? Most of the ammo I generally shoot would be PMC, Fed XM192/M855 and Black Hills 62+ gr.
to the OP....
On the surface this is very simple. You had a gun that worked fine, you installed new parts, and now it doesn't work as well. Easy answer A is remove the new parts and go back to the way the gun worked before.
Answer B is to keep dicking with it. Change weights, change buffers, change whatever else. Go back to the range, try out the new parts, change if it doesn't work, etc.
Which you do is entirely up to you and depends on your own situation. If you have the time to get to the range to work out the kinks, or are lucky enough to have a range in your own backyard, or otherwise have an opportunity to shoot whenever you like, then Answer B may work for you. If not, and the only shooting you get to do is in more formal settings (training classes, matches, etc.) you may find Answer A to be more to your liking.
Seems pretty straightforward to me.
I have a question. I just bought a BCM 14.5 w/A2x carbine upper. I currently use a ST-T2 that I got a while back. I also have an H3 I plan on trying out as well. Would I be better suited trying an H2 or just going A5 completely? Most of the ammo I generally shoot would be PMC, Fed XM192/M855 and Black Hills 62+ gr.
See my post above for the path you may find yourself headed down.
I'd suggest starting with an H buffer and a GI action spring and see if the gun runs with that first. If you find yourself interested in Answer B then you can always start dicking with it from there.
This entire thread is like a giant face palm.
Either way if everyone is interested in installing the heaviest buffer possible I'd say go forth and find a Colt SMG buffer. They are about 9 ounces.
Robb Jensen
05-11-11, 06:45
This entire thread is like a giant face palm.
Either way if everyone is interested in installing the heaviest buffer possible I'd say go forth and find a Colt SMG buffer. They are about 9 ounces.
The 'interest' is not in running the heaviest buffer, the 'interest' is to similuate the rifle buffer weight and buffer spring rate and length.
The Colt SMG buffer is good for....well a Colt SMG.
The 'interest' is not is running the heaviest buffer, the 'interest' is to similuate the rifle buffer weight and buffer spring rate and length. The Colt SMG buffer is good for....well a Colt SMG.
You can personally vouch for the interest of every single poster in the thread? :p Because no one actually said that.
The original posters question is diagnostically simple. If it worked with the previously installed components, use them. The problem probably is a lack of dwell time in the 14.5 midlength combo. They might try lightening the buffer but then it is still essentially the same difference as using a car re.
There is an exceptional amount of posting (posting from here on refers to the forum in general) about trying to reduce the recoil of what is essentially a .22 rifle. There is also an exceptional amount of posting about reducing the speed of the BCG, without understanding exactly why or why not to do this. Several times it has devolved into just trying to run the heaviest buffer possible or just blanket recommendations of the A5 (which is a great product).
The SMG buffer will work in a carbine length system with M885 (I've tried) and it will slow down the BCG to the greatest extent in commonly available buffers. This may be the goal of some people. I wouldn't presume to know, but I posted the info.
Except a rifle buffer system actually makes a carbine run better.
I agree. Thus the unintended benefit of the A5. Designed for the M16, but a gift to the carbine.
You can personally vouch for the interest of every single poster in the thread? :p Because no one actually said that.
That's a good point. There's probably guys searching for a COLT SMG buffer right now! :p
Except a rifle buffer system actually makes a carbine run better. (sic) A 14.5" middy will still run into problems even with a carbine RE if you put a wrong buffer into it.
Better how? Slowing the carrier speed? What data is out there to back that up? That slowing the carrier speed that much is even desireable?
As to the second half of your quote, again, if after changing the design of the original system you run into problems, the problem is the modification, not the original design.
to the OP....
On the surface this is very simple. You had a gun that worked fine, you installed new parts, and now it doesn't work as well. Easy answer A is remove the new parts and go back to the way the gun worked before.
One could argue that the 14.5" mid-length addresses the same issue as the A5, just at the other end.
Right. While I would say the A5 was designed to duplicate the internal workings of a A2 stock onto a collapsible stock, people are using them (A5s and extended gas systems) to address the same problem. Now there is a duplication of effort and people would rather bash the 14.5"/mid than the stock they just put on.
All of the A5 love seems to have spured from the super heavy buffer trend. Which I admit I was a part of, but now I go the exact opposite way. I think there are better ways to manage recoil, mostly technique based...imagine that. All that moving mass has to go forward too. Heavy systems feel very "clunky" to me. I much prefer a light quick action, as long as it feels smooth.
The buffer system seeks to add a resistance to the movement of the bolt carrier group. If this resistance comes from heavy buffer, light spring or light buffer, heavy spring it adds up the same. 3 + 7 and 6 + 4 both equal 10. The only advantage I see to the A5 system, is that it does not rely as heavily on spring rate, which in theory can chage. But this is a moot point if you preform proper maintance (prevenative) on your rifle.
Better how? Slowing the carrier speed?
Question not directed at me, but... Smoother cycling. My home D gun has been an 11.5 Colt commando upper on an A1 length rifle stock for reliability. The rifle stock has always been less picky in my experience.
Now there is a duplication of effort and people would rather bash the 14.5"/mid than the stock they just put on.
I think this is because the 14.5 middy is the only platform that doesn't run the Rifle stock optimally.
All of the A5 love seems to have spured from the super heavy buffer trend. Which I admit I was a part of, but now I go the exact opposite way. I think there are better ways to manage recoil,
Perhaps for people who don't get it. I'm a HUGE fan of the A5 because it accomplishes the superior function and reliability of the rifle stock in an adjustable stock config.
The weight of the buffer is only part of the physics. The at rest spring tension and spring cycle of the action are also different.
jonconsiglio
05-11-11, 10:25
Some of these recent comments make sense. For whatever reason, my thought was on getting it to work and not that it's not needed. I guess the difference mine have made has me thinking it's worth it as I've never had to make any changes to weight.
I ran a 14.5" Middy on mine for just a few mags of 193 and it worked great. I wasn't aware of the issue with the A5 and 14.5" Middy.
I don't care how little recoil a gun has, if there's sometjjn I can do that makes it shoot flatter or allows for faster follow ups, it's worth it as long as it doesn't negatively affect reliability. I've seen one of mine become more reliable with the system, and also add some controllability to the 10.5" I ran for a short while.
I'm interested to see how this goes when I finall finish my 14.5" Middy. Until then, my experience is with two SR15's, a Mk18 (block 2, mod 1?), and an 11.5" BCM. All have been favorable.
Robb Jensen
05-11-11, 10:30
Either way if everyone is interested in installing the heaviest buffer possible I'd say go forth and find a Colt SMG buffer. They are about 9 ounces.
You can personally vouch for the interest of every single poster in the thread? :p Because no one actually said that.
No, but apparently you tried to....
It's not just recoil reduction, smoothing the action cycle or improving reliability, but striking a balance of the three. A less violent action cycle should increase parts durability, which increases long term reliability. A smoother action should improve sight tracking, which helps speed up the effective engagement speed. Less recoil impulse transmitted to the shooter should increase accuracy and effective engagement speed, particularly from awkward shooting positions.
While searching for this magical combination, some issues are bound to crop up. Vltor has obviously figured this one out with the 14.5" middy, so why not move in that direction and reap the benefits? :confused:
If reliability is your goal for the 14.5" BCM Middy, put the standard carbine buffer tube assembly back on, install an "H" buffer and a new/quality carbine buffer spring and be done with it.
Save the Vltor A5 kit for a 16" middy or 20" rifle build.
For the 14.5" BCM Middy, put the standard carbine buffer tube assembly back on, install an "H" buffer and a new/quality carbine buffer spring and be done with it.
Save the Vltor A5 kit for a 16" middy or 20" rifle build.
That's the thing to do. Put it on a gun that will realize the benefits of the system.
Not that it's new information but it seems like the A5 system on the 14.5" middy is very hit or miss, even with the same barrel setup.
I for one have not encountered any cycling issues on my DD 14.5" midlength yet I've read one or two people encountering problems.
I can't wait to see what Vltor puts out as far as a lighter weight buffer. It's nothing you can't make yourself right now but should help out those who don't really like to tinker.
jonconsiglio
05-11-11, 14:01
That's the thing to do. Put it on a gun that will realize the benefits of the system.
Obviously we're going to find out over some time where the system shines and where it doesn't. With Vltor releasing new, lighter weight A5 buffers, I don't think it'll be considered docking around anymore but similar to the suggestion of a carbine re with an H buffer, for example.
If it doesn't benefit the 14.5", don't use it. But, what if ou only have a 14.5" upper and and 4 complete rifles, only running the 14.5" now and then? That's where I see a lighter a5 buffer coming in handy.
Now, I can only speak of my experience here. I have a lot of experience with the A5 on the SR15's and a lot of experience with those guns and carbine RE's. I have only a few rounds with it and the 14.5" upper and it was fine, though not enough to tell.
Now, I don't know others experience here, but it worked great on the 10.5" mk18 mod 1 (?) type upper. I saw just as much benefit there as I did on my SR15's. I have one mag that doesn't like to lock the bolts back on some guns. I keep it around just because. It locked the bolt back on the SR15 that it usually didn't and the 10.5" also that also failed a handful of times with an h2 buffer.
Just my experience.
Jonathan
Eventually I hope to get some of these things under the accelerometer I have to try to quantify some people's shoulder tests. But it's a ways off. One of the things I intend to do is have two otherwise identical lowers, one with the standard RE and one with the A5 and shoot the same upper on both in the rig.
vicious_cb
05-11-11, 14:16
All of the A5 love seems to have spured from the super heavy buffer trend. Which I admit I was a part of, but now I go the exact opposite way. I think there are better ways to manage recoil, mostly technique based...imagine that. All that moving mass has to go forward too. Heavy systems feel very "clunky" to me. I much prefer a light quick action, as long as it feels smooth.
No, it doesnt. If we were obsessed with using super heavy buffers we would be putting a 9mm buffer in a carbine RE which most here will agree is a stupid idea. The biggest draw of the A5 system IS THE RIFLE SPRING not the weight of buffer.
Alright, guys. I called and talked to Eric at VLTOR this morning, who was very helpful and a great guy to deal with.
He explained the same that everyone else in this thread has explained, the 14.5" mid-length is the one barrel and gas length combo that the A5 doesn't like to play with.
His suggestions were to either,
A. Buy a "commercial" A2 spring that's shorter,
B. Use stronger/higher pressure mil-spec ammunition,
C. Swap out weights from a carbine buffer,
or D. Go back to using the normal carbine receiver extension.
And to confirm a previous poster's statement, I was told that VLTOR is working on and will soon offer a lighter buffer for the A5 system specifically for 14.5" mid-lengths.
What I've decided on, since I already have all the parts lying around and it's no cost anyways, is to just go back to a standard carbine receiver extension, spring, and H buffer. It worked 100% before. In the meantime, I'll keep the A5 kit in a box, and maybe when VLTOR releases their lighter buffer and I see some good reports from it, I'll switch back over again.
Thanks for all the help and replies, I'll let you ladies go back to your squabbling. :p
jonconsiglio
05-11-11, 14:34
Eventually I hope to get some of these things under the accelerometer I have to try to quantify some people's shoulder tests. But it's a ways off. One of the things I intend to do is have two otherwise identical lowers, one with the standard RE and one with the A5 and shoot the same upper on both in the rig.
That's basically what I did with the lowers for a while and how I came to the conclusions I did, but not with any real measurements.
Since it was just stated by Eric from Vltor that their will be an A5 buffer specifically for the 14.5" Middy, that's what I'd like to see so we don't have to do it ourselves and others don't think of it as screwing around with stuff.
I'm looking forward to see how this all irons out.
I did a lot of testing with the A5 system before we offered it on our rifles. The 14.5" mid gas cyclic rate is plenty reliable for both the A5 and rifle stock with M855, M193 and near minimum but still OK with PMC (sorry, I don't test with steel case).
Our gas ports are set for H2 and rifle system as they run close to the same on most configurations.
I think there are probably some variation of gas port sizes among the 14.5" mids that are out there. If tuned for the carbine or H buffer I can see the rifle/A5 being too much with weak ammo.
Cincinnatus
05-11-11, 17:51
The A5 has four weights, two tungsten and 2 steel. I replaced one of the tungsten weights with a steel one from an old CAR buffer, so it now has 1 tungsten at the front of the buffer followed by 3 steel.
When swapping weights around in buffers to create different overall buffer weight, does it matter what order the weights are placed in, i.e. putting the tungsten weight at the front vs. at the back, etc.?
Robb Jensen
05-11-11, 18:14
When swapping weights around in buffers to create different overall buffer weight, does it matter what order the weights are placed in, i.e. putting the tungsten weight at the front vs. at the back, etc.?
I just follow VLTORs lead and put the tungsten ones toward the face of the buffer.
an A5 with all four steel weights weighs 3.8oz
an A5 with 1 tungsten and 3 steel weights weights 4.55oz
Cincinnatus
05-11-11, 18:23
Thanks, Robb.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.