Emmo, You can do a search for "MIM" on the Colt BB and find some good information. To answer your question, yes, I believe Colt is using MIM sears, hammers, and other parts on the XSE. I recently bought an XSE Govt. Model and absolutely love it. I plan to keep it as stock as possible. That being said, I plan to replace the Colt sear with an EGW sear, and the trigger with a short Videcki, then have a trigger "clean up" done. My gunsmith likes the Colt hammer, which I believe is also MIM. I believe other MIM parts on the gun are the grip safety, slide safety, slide release, and perhaps the hammer strut. The mainspring housing is, of course, polymer. Hope this helps. Best, ACP
XSE
Greetings, I am new to this BB and must admit I am very impressed with it. I am a young pup (22), and have not had the opportunity to own many 1911s, only two so far. My last one was a MKIV 80 enhanced combat commander in .38 super. After a detailed strip, I found the sear, the disconnector, and the hammer to be MIM. I was very disappointed considering it was a brand new Colt (in 7/00) The sear engagement surface was crooked and irregular but I didn't stone it because I wanted to keep the thing in 100% original condition. Anyway, I subsequently sold it and now am in the market for a new Colt. I have been seriously looking at XSE commanders, but I haven't had the chance to strip one and see what its internals are made of. Does anybody know if they have MIMs in them? I know that the old XSs were full of McCormick parts, but the Colt rep told me that XSE parts are all made by Colt. I've had some people tell me that when I bought my MKIV commander in 7/00 that Colt's regular production had been put on hold and that they were assembling guns from any leftover parts that were lying around (Did I get 1991 internals instead of MKIV parts instead?) I would be a little hesitant to buy a new XSE if I knew Colt was putting MIM parts in them. So could somebody tell me what the story is? I have one more question: On the new Gold Cups, are the barrel/bushing fit the only two parts that are hand fit, or are the sear/hammer hand fit too?
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Thanks, ACP. I guess I could live with MIM parts since they can be switched with aftermarket drop-ins anytime. I have read nothing but good things on these XSE guns, but I must admit I am a little nervous since I haven't bought a new Colt since they have been on their new plan of manufacture. Where is Colt's BB anyway? I would really like to get some more info.
Thanks
Thanks
Hi Emmo, By the Colt BB I mean the one that we're in now. When you do a search for MIM, choose the "Colt" forum. Best, ACP.
Oh, duh. I withdrawl that last question!
![]()
Hey, thoughts of a Gold Cup have also entered my mind, however I never knew too much about them except that they have a wider trigger. I've also heard that the barrel and bushing are hand-fit. Is this true? Are there any other parts that are hand fit on Gold Cups?
Thanks
Hey, thoughts of a Gold Cup have also entered my mind, however I never knew too much about them except that they have a wider trigger. I've also heard that the barrel and bushing are hand-fit. Is this true? Are there any other parts that are hand fit on Gold Cups?
Thanks
Emmo,
I'm not up on Gold Cups too much. I know Colt is making a new series of them now. Many people like a 70 Series Gold Cup, as long as the split collet bushing can be replaced (supposedly prone to breakage). But then you have to have a bushing fitted by hand, so if you're going to do that, why not buy a 70 or 80 Series Govt. Model, have the barrel re-crowned and a national match bushing hand-fit, check the length of the barrel link pin, do a trigger job, and add some nice sights? Depends on what you're looking for. I don't shoot bullseye, so I have no use for the Gold Cup's adjustable sights and target trigger. Best Wishes, ACP
I'm not up on Gold Cups too much. I know Colt is making a new series of them now. Many people like a 70 Series Gold Cup, as long as the split collet bushing can be replaced (supposedly prone to breakage). But then you have to have a bushing fitted by hand, so if you're going to do that, why not buy a 70 or 80 Series Govt. Model, have the barrel re-crowned and a national match bushing hand-fit, check the length of the barrel link pin, do a trigger job, and add some nice sights? Depends on what you're looking for. I don't shoot bullseye, so I have no use for the Gold Cup's adjustable sights and target trigger. Best Wishes, ACP
I too have a new XSE, and love it!
Regarding the MIM question, I had recently heard that Colt was using less MIM than in the past, and doing more parts in house.
Regardless of how much MIM Colt uses, there is a more important point. Colt seems to have far fewer parts failures with their parts, regardless of manufacturing methods, than the clone guns do. This may be due to different specs, or different suppliers - but is is an observable fact. Kimbers are well known for slide stop, safety, firing pin stop and extractor failures. Colts - very few parts failures, period. If they both use the same manufacturing method for the same part - why the difference?
As I have said before, it would indeed be ironic if Colt ended up being the company that proved MIM could be a reliable, viable technique when MIM has been the whole key to Kimber's success. For now, I would say you should not be unduely concerned with any new production Colt. Over the last two years we have had nothing but happy customers, and lately we are selling a lot of Colts - particularly Defenders and new 1991A1s.
Warmly, Col. Colt
"Beware of Counterfeits and Patent Infringements"
Regarding the MIM question, I had recently heard that Colt was using less MIM than in the past, and doing more parts in house.
Regardless of how much MIM Colt uses, there is a more important point. Colt seems to have far fewer parts failures with their parts, regardless of manufacturing methods, than the clone guns do. This may be due to different specs, or different suppliers - but is is an observable fact. Kimbers are well known for slide stop, safety, firing pin stop and extractor failures. Colts - very few parts failures, period. If they both use the same manufacturing method for the same part - why the difference?
As I have said before, it would indeed be ironic if Colt ended up being the company that proved MIM could be a reliable, viable technique when MIM has been the whole key to Kimber's success. For now, I would say you should not be unduely concerned with any new production Colt. Over the last two years we have had nothing but happy customers, and lately we are selling a lot of Colts - particularly Defenders and new 1991A1s.
Warmly, Col. Colt
"Beware of Counterfeits and Patent Infringements"
Thank you, ACP and Col. Colt for your helpful input. I think I'm going to order an XSE Commander today. But by God, if I'm not satisfied I'm comming after you, Col. Colt!!
![]()
You know I'm joking with ya'
![]()
I'm sure I'll be happy with it. Will be my fourth Colt and my last three have been superior.
Take Care
Take Care
2
Col. Colt,
I know this is a few days late, but thank you for your reply. Informative and gentlemanly as always. I believe this XSE is destined to become my only belt carry gun, though I have others to choose from, including a customized 70 Series Commander, a wonderful BHP, and a customized S&W Model 19. There is something about the stainless XSE, I like all of it -- the beavertail, the slide safety, the frontstrap. I prefer a short solid trigger, and I'll probably throw some Trijicons on it. But this is the very least I've done to any of my carry arms (except the S&W 642, which is entirely stock). And it is accurate to boot. I put 107 rounds through it a few weeks ago to break it in -- not a bobble in the bunch. I love Colts. Best Wishes, ACP.
I know this is a few days late, but thank you for your reply. Informative and gentlemanly as always. I believe this XSE is destined to become my only belt carry gun, though I have others to choose from, including a customized 70 Series Commander, a wonderful BHP, and a customized S&W Model 19. There is something about the stainless XSE, I like all of it -- the beavertail, the slide safety, the frontstrap. I prefer a short solid trigger, and I'll probably throw some Trijicons on it. But this is the very least I've done to any of my carry arms (except the S&W 642, which is entirely stock). And it is accurate to boot. I put 107 rounds through it a few weeks ago to break it in -- not a bobble in the bunch. I love Colts. Best Wishes, ACP.
Col. Colt, you're a regular laugh riot.
Let me remind you of some of YOUR OWN WORDS:
Chip McCormick is the villain (or hero - depends on your point of view) of the piece, as he found a cheap way to make parts that LOOKED just like the hard steel custom parts used by the custom gunsmiths and has sold almost the whole industry on MIM and the resulting much higher profits. Kimber, who had failed as a riflemaker, looked at the economies of scale and potential profits to be had from this "new technology" (sintered metal isn't very new - but people wouldn't buy "sintered metal" parts. They can be schnookered into believing in a "new manufacturing method", so let's call it MIM instead.)
No final machining and pennies on the dollar, cost wise. Most MIM parts do work for the limited amount of use many customers give them - but their lifespan is completely unpredictable. Will it break this year or next? The next time you go to the range or when your son needs it to work 20 years from now? Even machined conventional castings are a better, known quantity, and can be completely appropriate when properly applied. When MIM parts fail, Kimber can certainly afford to give you new parts - they average $3.00 apiece or less.
I have yet to hear the argument - from anyone - that MIM is superior to machined steel or even conventional castings. The most generous figure is 98% as strong - if properly done. Even 1% adulteration of a steel completely changes it's properties.
The end result - tremendous profits for Kimber (and McCormick), major competitive problems for companies that still high quality machine their critical parts - like Colt.
That was THEN...now that the omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent god Colt has started using MIM, all of a sudden you sing a DIFFERENT tune...
Regardless of how much MIM Colt uses, there is a more important point. Colt seems to have far fewer parts failures with their parts, regardless of manufacturing methods, than the clone guns do. This may be due to different specs, or different suppliers - but is is an observable fact. Kimbers are well known for slide stop, safety, firing pin stop and extractor failures. Colts - very few parts failures, period. If they both use the same manufacturing method for the same part - why the difference?
As I have said before, it would indeed be ironic if Colt ended up being the company that proved MIM could be a reliable, viable technique when MIM has been the whole key to Kimber's success. For now, I would say you should not be unduely concerned with any new production Colt. Over the last two years we have had nothing but happy customers, and lately we are selling a lot of Colts - particularly Defenders and new 1991A1s.
Here's a hint, Col. Colt...the reason you haven't seen as many reports of failures in Colts is THERE AREN'T THAT MANY NEW COLTS OUT THERE YET!
MIM does NOT have a significant rate of failure compared to regular parts, no matter who makes the MIM parts. Every once in a very great while, someone will make a mistake and a bad part will slip through. The same thing will happen to Colt IF they ever get up again to the level of production that Kimber and Springfield are at now.
You're just a tremendously funny guy. Everyone knows I love Kimbers, but I will freely say that Springfield Armory Loaded 1911s are very good guns for the price, and I even praised the new Colts when one worked well for me.
But God (or Colt, whichever you consider more important) forbid that a good word should pass from your keyboard about any of the "patent infringements (like the Colt pocket 9 you mean?) or counterfiets."
------------------
A man with a watch knows what time it is; a man with two watches isn't so sure
Let me remind you of some of YOUR OWN WORDS:
Chip McCormick is the villain (or hero - depends on your point of view) of the piece, as he found a cheap way to make parts that LOOKED just like the hard steel custom parts used by the custom gunsmiths and has sold almost the whole industry on MIM and the resulting much higher profits. Kimber, who had failed as a riflemaker, looked at the economies of scale and potential profits to be had from this "new technology" (sintered metal isn't very new - but people wouldn't buy "sintered metal" parts. They can be schnookered into believing in a "new manufacturing method", so let's call it MIM instead.)
No final machining and pennies on the dollar, cost wise. Most MIM parts do work for the limited amount of use many customers give them - but their lifespan is completely unpredictable. Will it break this year or next? The next time you go to the range or when your son needs it to work 20 years from now? Even machined conventional castings are a better, known quantity, and can be completely appropriate when properly applied. When MIM parts fail, Kimber can certainly afford to give you new parts - they average $3.00 apiece or less.
I have yet to hear the argument - from anyone - that MIM is superior to machined steel or even conventional castings. The most generous figure is 98% as strong - if properly done. Even 1% adulteration of a steel completely changes it's properties.
The end result - tremendous profits for Kimber (and McCormick), major competitive problems for companies that still high quality machine their critical parts - like Colt.
That was THEN...now that the omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent god Colt has started using MIM, all of a sudden you sing a DIFFERENT tune...
Regardless of how much MIM Colt uses, there is a more important point. Colt seems to have far fewer parts failures with their parts, regardless of manufacturing methods, than the clone guns do. This may be due to different specs, or different suppliers - but is is an observable fact. Kimbers are well known for slide stop, safety, firing pin stop and extractor failures. Colts - very few parts failures, period. If they both use the same manufacturing method for the same part - why the difference?
As I have said before, it would indeed be ironic if Colt ended up being the company that proved MIM could be a reliable, viable technique when MIM has been the whole key to Kimber's success. For now, I would say you should not be unduely concerned with any new production Colt. Over the last two years we have had nothing but happy customers, and lately we are selling a lot of Colts - particularly Defenders and new 1991A1s.
Here's a hint, Col. Colt...the reason you haven't seen as many reports of failures in Colts is THERE AREN'T THAT MANY NEW COLTS OUT THERE YET!
MIM does NOT have a significant rate of failure compared to regular parts, no matter who makes the MIM parts. Every once in a very great while, someone will make a mistake and a bad part will slip through. The same thing will happen to Colt IF they ever get up again to the level of production that Kimber and Springfield are at now.
You're just a tremendously funny guy. Everyone knows I love Kimbers, but I will freely say that Springfield Armory Loaded 1911s are very good guns for the price, and I even praised the new Colts when one worked well for me.
But God (or Colt, whichever you consider more important) forbid that a good word should pass from your keyboard about any of the "patent infringements (like the Colt pocket 9 you mean?) or counterfiets."
------------------
A man with a watch knows what time it is; a man with two watches isn't so sure
Rik - Wow! And I was told I was giving the word "partisan" a bad name.
My current understanding - and I do not have access to Colt's materials purchase records or a metallurgy lab - is that Colt uses MIM for the safety lock and the grip safety (both low stress applications) and machines the rest of the gun - from whatever raw forging, casting or "other" method they believe is most the most effective and reliable for each specific part's function.
It is possible they are using more MIM than I know of - again, I don't work for them. Recently, other posters here are telling me they believe Colt either has at some time in the past or does now use MIM more than I have been lead to believe in my discussions with Colt reps. I am, in my current posts giving them the benefit of the doubt and allowing for the fact that it is possible they know more about this than I do.
But THE CRUCIAL POINT I am asserting right now is that whichever is the current state of affairs ultimately does not matter, so long as current Colt parts continue to maintain the same or a smaller incidence of failure than an original, fully machined Colt part from say, 1930 would have. Kimber's visible, observable results are most certainly NOT close to that standard.
So the final point is - whose methods and choices are more effective and are currently producing the gun with the fewest failures and glitches? If Colt is (and I don't know that they are, with certainty) indeed using more MIM and still has notably few parts failures than Kimber due to more rigid specifications, inspection, etc, then isn't Colt still the superior product, regardless of the actual technology used? Maybe how you do MIM is the key? Time will certainly tell.
I am kicking Kimber's specific application of MIM because:
1.) I have seen the broken Kimber MIM parts myself - with
my own eyes, and read rather common, credible eyewitness and owner reports right here on 1911 Forum, (in the Kimber section, no less.) And I find it a little hard to believe you are haven't seen them, as well.
2.) MIM is the primary means by which Kimber has gained it's current market dominance - and it is not a fair bargain for the consumer if Kimbers small parts ultimately cannot be trusted, long term. Their total use of MIM can, however, be used to destroy a higher quality manufacturer by temporarily giving a cost advantage to the imitator.
3.) As for you jibe about the Pony/Pocket 9 Kahr patent fight - I'm sure Colt didn't deliberately infringe on a patent they knew about just to invite a lawsuit they couldn't win during a time when they were already up their ears in anti-gun lawsuits. They may have not known of the patent, or more likely, believed it to be invalidated due to older pistols and long guns that used the same "sidesaddle" trigger mounting arrangement long ago. Kimber appears to be using the exact same level of legal logic in copying Colt's "Schwartz Safety" firing pin lock for their new "Series II" models. Perhaps we will get to see if they are "infringing" on an earlier version of Colt's current firing pin lock. It is devoutly to be hoped.
As always,
Warmly, Col. Colt
"Beware of Counterfeits and Patent Infringements" (from both directions!) cc.
[This message has been edited by Col. Colt (edited 06-16-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Col. Colt (edited 06-16-2001).]
My current understanding - and I do not have access to Colt's materials purchase records or a metallurgy lab - is that Colt uses MIM for the safety lock and the grip safety (both low stress applications) and machines the rest of the gun - from whatever raw forging, casting or "other" method they believe is most the most effective and reliable for each specific part's function.
It is possible they are using more MIM than I know of - again, I don't work for them. Recently, other posters here are telling me they believe Colt either has at some time in the past or does now use MIM more than I have been lead to believe in my discussions with Colt reps. I am, in my current posts giving them the benefit of the doubt and allowing for the fact that it is possible they know more about this than I do.
But THE CRUCIAL POINT I am asserting right now is that whichever is the current state of affairs ultimately does not matter, so long as current Colt parts continue to maintain the same or a smaller incidence of failure than an original, fully machined Colt part from say, 1930 would have. Kimber's visible, observable results are most certainly NOT close to that standard.
So the final point is - whose methods and choices are more effective and are currently producing the gun with the fewest failures and glitches? If Colt is (and I don't know that they are, with certainty) indeed using more MIM and still has notably few parts failures than Kimber due to more rigid specifications, inspection, etc, then isn't Colt still the superior product, regardless of the actual technology used? Maybe how you do MIM is the key? Time will certainly tell.
I am kicking Kimber's specific application of MIM because:
1.) I have seen the broken Kimber MIM parts myself - with
my own eyes, and read rather common, credible eyewitness and owner reports right here on 1911 Forum, (in the Kimber section, no less.) And I find it a little hard to believe you are haven't seen them, as well.
2.) MIM is the primary means by which Kimber has gained it's current market dominance - and it is not a fair bargain for the consumer if Kimbers small parts ultimately cannot be trusted, long term. Their total use of MIM can, however, be used to destroy a higher quality manufacturer by temporarily giving a cost advantage to the imitator.
3.) As for you jibe about the Pony/Pocket 9 Kahr patent fight - I'm sure Colt didn't deliberately infringe on a patent they knew about just to invite a lawsuit they couldn't win during a time when they were already up their ears in anti-gun lawsuits. They may have not known of the patent, or more likely, believed it to be invalidated due to older pistols and long guns that used the same "sidesaddle" trigger mounting arrangement long ago. Kimber appears to be using the exact same level of legal logic in copying Colt's "Schwartz Safety" firing pin lock for their new "Series II" models. Perhaps we will get to see if they are "infringing" on an earlier version of Colt's current firing pin lock. It is devoutly to be hoped.
As always,
Warmly, Col. Colt
"Beware of Counterfeits and Patent Infringements" (from both directions!) cc.
[This message has been edited by Col. Colt (edited 06-16-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Col. Colt (edited 06-16-2001).]
I would much prefer that all gun parts be real steel than the MIM that has gotten so much attention. If Colt has gained the technical expertise to make MIM parts truly succesfull and equal to forged/machined parts then Kimber and Springfield can do the same.
It is obvious that Kimber has exceeded their ability to make a quality gun by increasing their production. Simply read the Kimber board here and see comments on other forums and I really think you will see that Kimber quality control is way off the mark. They still have a long way to go to catch up with the guns produced by Colt.
It is obvious that Kimber has exceeded their ability to make a quality gun by increasing their production. Simply read the Kimber board here and see comments on other forums and I really think you will see that Kimber quality control is way off the mark. They still have a long way to go to catch up with the guns produced by Colt.
Actually no, Ken, that's totally untrue. The fact is, Colt has a long way to go to get to the sales and production levels that both Kimber and Springfield are now at.
Col.Colt, you DO give partisans a bad name. In your eyes, Colt can do no wrong and no other manufacturer can do right. You're just getting very silly lately and while it's amusing, for your own sake you should try to step back and get some objectivity.
Springfield, Kimber and Colt all make very nice guns. I can say that and I love Kimbers...why can't you allow yourself to say it?
------------------
A man with a watch knows what time it is; a man with two watches isn't so sure
Col.Colt, you DO give partisans a bad name. In your eyes, Colt can do no wrong and no other manufacturer can do right. You're just getting very silly lately and while it's amusing, for your own sake you should try to step back and get some objectivity.
Springfield, Kimber and Colt all make very nice guns. I can say that and I love Kimbers...why can't you allow yourself to say it?
------------------
A man with a watch knows what time it is; a man with two watches isn't so sure
Hello Everyone! Had this posted on another string but no responses. It probably belongs on this one anyway.
(I've been reading the interesting posts on this forum for quite some time now and have finally a reason to join in. Just got myself a brand new XSE and took it to the range yesterday. Good/Bad news. With Fed AE, I shot a one & 1/2" 5-shot group at 25 yds. Not bad for my weak old eyes! No FTF's!(which I had several with the Kimber CDP that I traded for the Colt). But, after shooting 6-5rd mags, I decided to fill the Shooting Star, Colt and 47D mags with 8 rounds. First 2 ok, then with the last(Wilson), the slide didn,t lock back after last round. Also, it was hitting 9" high and 3" to the right. After cleaning it, none of the 3 mags that I put 8 rds in would lock back the slide. I had 2 more mags at home and both locked it. This morning the 47D did also but not the Colt or SS. Colt says send the gun in and they would adjust the sights and check the slide lock, but 3 weeks turnaround. I normally use Hoppe's oil, but used RemOil before and after shooting yesterday. What do yall think?)
Does it need more break-in, did the springs weaken in the mags or is the oil too thin? It took me a long time to get around to a 1911 and I love the look and feel of this Colt.
(I've been reading the interesting posts on this forum for quite some time now and have finally a reason to join in. Just got myself a brand new XSE and took it to the range yesterday. Good/Bad news. With Fed AE, I shot a one & 1/2" 5-shot group at 25 yds. Not bad for my weak old eyes! No FTF's!(which I had several with the Kimber CDP that I traded for the Colt). But, after shooting 6-5rd mags, I decided to fill the Shooting Star, Colt and 47D mags with 8 rounds. First 2 ok, then with the last(Wilson), the slide didn,t lock back after last round. Also, it was hitting 9" high and 3" to the right. After cleaning it, none of the 3 mags that I put 8 rds in would lock back the slide. I had 2 more mags at home and both locked it. This morning the 47D did also but not the Colt or SS. Colt says send the gun in and they would adjust the sights and check the slide lock, but 3 weeks turnaround. I normally use Hoppe's oil, but used RemOil before and after shooting yesterday. What do yall think?)
Does it need more break-in, did the springs weaken in the mags or is the oil too thin? It took me a long time to get around to a 1911 and I love the look and feel of this Colt.
Have you actually looked at the recoil lug of the pocket 9/ pony pocketlite?Originally posted by RikWriter:
But God (or Colt, whichever you consider more important) forbid that a good word should pass from your keyboard about any of the "patent infringements (like the Colt pocket 9 you mean?) or counterfiets."
[/B]
It's got a shaved area to allow the trigger spring, true. It is not an off-set lug, otherwise it'd have the offset/ half ramp that Kahr's have.
It simply cut into Kahr's profits enough for them to convince someone of it being similar enough. The similarity is a coincidence.
Other examples of true infringement was ParaOrdnance's copying of the series 80 parts, or S&W's copy of the glock.
Interesting enough, I guess Kahr's rip off of the Glock action is different enough for the lawyer's to be happy with it.
Kimber copied the Schwartz, but who knows who even HAS the patent's on them anymore.
Oh, and I think Kimber's ARE Great guns. I haven't heard of an MiM parts failure that wasn't directly attributable to monkeying with the parts from the ones we've sold.
I Like Colt's better for a couple reasons, which amounts to features.
RikWriter we are going to have to agree that we disagree. I think you are totally wrong and you think that about what I said. I just think its good that we can do that.
Well Ken, we can agree to disagree about the quality of the firearms put out by the respective companies, but facts about the production numbers are self-evident. Kimber made more 1911s than Colt last year and that trend seems likely to continue.
------------------
A man with a watch knows what time it is; a man with two watches isn't so sure
------------------
A man with a watch knows what time it is; a man with two watches isn't so sure
Hey, got my new XSE commander in the other day. It is by far the most solid built, good looking 1911 I have ever owned. I have not yet had the pleasure to shoot it yet, but I am confident of what it'll do. I can't believe how tight, but SMOOTH the slide/frame fit is. Only one problem; there is a hairline scratch about 1/4" long on the frame comming from the slide stop pivot hole on the right side of the gun. It's not deep since it almost disappears with a change in the viewing angle or light source. It came that way from the factory since I unpacked the gun and was first to examine it. Could I polish this out? Should I leave it alone? I'd like to say that it adds character to the gun but that usually only works when YOU are the one to marr it up!
![]()
Emmo, I know this is probably late, but... take it down to a gunsmith you trust, and chances are for free (and to build up some good will) he'll just put it on the buffing wheel for 15 seconds. Problem solved. ACP.
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
1911Forum
A forum community dedicated to all 1911 firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Recommended Communities
