Login    Register
User Information
Username:
Password:
We are a free and open
community, all are welcome.
Click here to Register
Sponsored
Who is online

In total there are 62 users online :: 4 registered, 0 hidden and 58 guests


Most users ever online was 155 on Mon Aug 15, 2016 1:40 am

Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] based on users active over the past 5 minutes

The Team
Administrators
Global Moderators
global_moderators.png CS

"Offtopic-posts-topic" NSFW

All non-spudgun related discussion goes here such as projects, theories, serious questions, etc. All "off-topic" posts (aka useless posting, determined by moderators) will be removed.
Sponsored 
  • Author
    Message

Unread postAuthor: Fnord » Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:54 pm

You should really get your own thread to post pictures of your workshop and knife making, you do some pretty interesting stuff.


Seconded.
  • 0

Image
User avatar
Fnord
Major General
Major General
 
Posts: 2244
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:20 pm
Location: Pripyat
Reputation: 7

Unread postAuthor: Gun Freak » Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:10 pm

Thirded! :P
  • 0

OG Anti-Hybrid
One man's trash is a true Spudder's treasure!
Golf Ball Cannon "Superna"M16 BBMGPengunHammer Valve Airsoft SniperHigh Pressure .22 Coax
Holy Shat!
User avatar
Gun Freak
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 4969
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 4:38 pm
Location: Florida
Country: United States (us)
Reputation: 11

Unread postAuthor: qwert123 » Thu Feb 02, 2012 10:23 pm

POLAND_SPUD wrote:

kamikaze drones on the other hand offer something new... amateurs can build FPV RC setups for less than 1000$. I wonder if something developed for the military could cost less than 20 000$ per unit.



$1000 is a ton of money to build a FPV system with, I've built a mini FPV plane for under $200, that does not include the transmitter and receiver for controlling the plane. you can get a sufficient one for $40, or an overkill one for ~$900. the one i use is only $210, its kind of scary how easy it is to make a "spy plane" and if it was on a set path by a gps, and micro controller survalence would be easy...
  • 0


qwert123
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2010 9:41 pm
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: Daltonultra » Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:39 am

jackssmirkingrevenge wrote:
Daltonultra wrote:JSR, I responded to your idea as you laid it out, with the design idea you pointed out, which would require a HUGE launcher to achieve range. You've come halfway back to the concept these gentlemen are testing.


I disagree on the HUGE launcher point.

Let's take the M79 grenade launcher, it can fire a roughly 230 gram grenade at a paltry 250 feet per second out to 400 metres. The grenade is dumpy and of relatively terrible aerodynamic shape, and of poor sectional density because of the explosive filling.

Using the same launcher and cartridge, I guesstimate you could throw a subcalibre saboted dart (say 0.50", of the same weight and therefore at the same muzzle velocity) out to at least 1,000 metres, if I had GGDT available here I would give you some hard numbers.

Now, the M79 can be fired easily by one man and has nowhere near the recoil of a 50 BMG rifle. There are also higher velocity grenade cartridges out there that extend the range with grenades out to 700-800 metres, and one man is capable of firing these rounds standing and unsupported.

I'll punch some numbers into GGDT when I get home but off the top of my head I would say that a 200 gram projectile fired at 500 fps at a high angle could easily match a 50 BMG rifle in terms of effective range, while still capable of being fired by an individual.


Where the heck did this even come from? I'm talking about your idea of a winged/finned UAV/mortar round thingy, and you come back with something about a saboted dart? Well, since we're on the subject, have you ever fired an M79 or a .50BMG rifle? The M79 actually has a pretty punchy recoil. More so than the .50BMG rifles that I've fired (3 types now...), owing to the muzzle-brake used on the .50s. The Armalite AR50 actually has very little kick at all, less than an M1 Garand, and that's without any of the shock-absorbing tech used by Barrett.

You're also talking about an absolutely HUGE round in the M79. You can easily carry five rounds of .50 for every 40mm round. Plus, you can have a semi-auto rifle that doesn't weigh 80lbs like the Mk.19 grenade launcher. And the bullet they show in the article isn't that much bigger than a .50BMG. I'd bet the whole round is no more than an inch longer than a .50.

jackssmirkingrevenge wrote:
BTW, there are countless scenarios in which using an explosive round is completely unfeasible. Hostage situations alone REQUIRE a kinetic-kill round.


Still possible in the scenario I proposed:

Say it loses 40% of its velocity by the time it gets to the target, a 200 gram 0.50 cal dart travelling at 300fps carries over 600 ft/lbs of energy, more than enough to take out a bad guy without the need for explosives.


Actually, 600ft/lbs is absolutely pathetic. The .45ACP can match that, and it's nowhere close to a guaranteed kill. .50BMG puts out over 13,000ft/lbs. Your proposed weapon wouldn't be usable for anti-materiel, and something as flimsy as a car window could reduce it to a completely non-lethal level. Forget the actual door itself...



jackssmirkingrevenge wrote:
5) A rifle that fires a large kinetic-kill round like the .50BMG can easily accept a small explosive round, though the range will suffer a little. Adding a small explosive charge to a high-velocity round isn't hard. But using a launcher designed primarily for low-velocity explosive rounds to fire a high-velocity kinetic round isn't nearly as easy. The flexibility of high-caliber rifles is their big selling point. There is even a .50 AMR round designed to penetrate light armor or cover, and THEN detonate a small explosive. It can penetrate up to 4 inches of concrete and still be effective on exit.


A laser guided projectile gives you the option of circumventing cover. You can't engage a man in a trench with a direct fire AMR. You can with a high angle round. Naturally you still need something to point the laser designator at him, but this has been done for years.


Circumventing cover? How? It might go over a hill, or around a wall, but if the target is directly behind a leaning wall, you're going to have a very hard time getting them. Where as an AMR can simply penetrate most cover. Also, like you said, how do you designate a targat behind cover? You'd need to have a spotter circle around, which means you could just have your SHOOTER circle, too... or you could use a drone... in which case you could just hit them with the drone, instead... So the scenario just doesn't work.



jackssmirkingrevenge wrote:
Simply put, conventional sniper and anti-materiel rifles aren't going anywhere, and neither is the conventional sniper team or rifle squad. This is another tool for them, and a very flexible tool, at that. Going low-velocity and relying on explosives would mean hauling around a piece of equipment that wouldn't be useful in a lot of situations.


I'm not saying they should go away. "Iron" bombs are still with us, for all the advances in smart technology. Rather, what I'm saying is that adding laser guidance offers a whole world of possibilities and I think it's short sighted to try and apply it straight away to an AMR style round.


Yup, world of possibilities. Like laser-guided bombs, laser-guided cruise missiles, laser-guided mortar rounds... Laser guidance has been applied to almost everything EXCEPT high-velocity AMRs. Though it does open the way for larger artillery to go laser-guided, as well. They've tried before without good results. If this works in an AMR, it'll work in artillery. You'd still have to be pretty close on the aim, though, as the laser-designator would only work for terminal guidance.


I get the mental exercise of trying to find other ways to accomplish the goal, but arguing against using this for an AMR is kind of silly. Especially when their effectiveness is so thoroughly proven. This round will not only make them more accurate, it will also extend their effective range much closer to their maximum range.
  • 0

The Official High-Tech Redneck

"There is no such thing as overkill." ~Solomon Short
User avatar
Daltonultra
1st Lieutenant
1st Lieutenant
 
Posts: 282
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 8:17 pm
Location: Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A.
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: jackssmirkingrevenge » Fri Feb 03, 2012 4:33 am

Daltonultra wrote:Where the heck did this even come from? I'm talking about your idea of a winged/finned UAV/mortar round thingy, and you come back with something about a saboted dart?


Too many concepts :) I went back to my original contention that it would not be worth the extra effort to have a projectile fired at several times the speed of sound, and described how I would go about it, ie low velocity high angle as opposed to something that fires more or less the same as an AMR but with added guidance.

Well, since we're on the subject, have you ever fired an M79 or a .50BMG rifle? The M79 actually has a pretty punchy recoil.


I've never fired either, but I do know that 40mm grenade launchers are ubiquitous in Western equipped armies and many soldiers don't seem to mind firing them without the aid of muzzle brakes etc.

You're also talking about an absolutely HUGE round in the M79. You can easily carry five rounds of .50 for every 40mm round.


According to the data I've seen, three 50 BMG ball rounds weigh more than a typical grenade. Also, we don't know how much this guided round weighs, or what cartridge size or weight was used to fire it. In the high speed videos it's clearly saboted so the cartridge mount must be bigger than 0.50".

Plus, you can have a semi-auto rifle that doesn't weigh 80lbs like the Mk.19 grenade launcher. And the bullet they show in the article isn't that much bigger than a .50BMG. I'd bet the whole round is no more than an inch longer than a .50.


Again, we haven't seen the cartridge. Also, an M82 weighs more than four M79s. Granted, the latter is single shot, but these are specialised and doubtless costly rounds - do you think the army would want soldiers rattling them off on semi-auto?

Actually, 600ft/lbs is absolutely pathetic. The .45ACP can match that, and it's nowhere close to a guaranteed kill. .50BMG puts out over 13,000ft/lbs.


I estimated muzzle energy on target, you're comparing it to what the 50 puts out at the muzzle. Still much more than my proposed round, but my contention is that once you have laser guidance, you don't need bucketloads of power to achieve your goal. Note how much smaller air dropped bombs are getting as they get more accurate.

Also, I gave a muzzle velocity of 500 feet per second, which is rather conservative, you could up that to 750-1000 increasing muzzle energy by over 300% and still have a light man-portable system.

Your proposed weapon wouldn't be usable for anti-materiel, and something as flimsy as a car window could reduce it to a completely non-lethal level. Forget the actual door itself...


If a 200 gram dart was hurtling towards my head at 300 fps and all that stood between us was a car window, I would be a dead man.

A heavy steel dart travelling at relatively low velocity cannot be compared to a light lead bullet travelling a high subsonic velocity when it comes to penetrating media.

With laser guidance, why go through the door when you can accurately hit the window? I think you're missing the point of what an advantage precision gives you. In the UK there have been several cases of people killed by 12 ft/lb air rifles, if you can hit the right spot you don't need a sledgehammer to kill a fly.

Circumventing cover? How? It might go over a hill, or around a wall, but if the target is directly behind a leaning wall, you're going to have a very hard time getting them. Where as an AMR can simply penetrate most cover. Also, like you said, how do you designate a targat behind cover? You'd need to have a spotter circle around, which means you could just have your SHOOTER circle, too... or you could use a drone... in which case you could just hit them with the drone, instead... So the scenario just doesn't work.


There's no way an AMR can hit a man in a trench unless he pops his head up, and that's a very small target.

You can have all the spotter/shooter scenarios you want, as everything is connected these days - you have everything from individuals to robots to UAVs to manned aircraft to land vehicles providing laser designation, I think the problem would be whose target to hit first!

What you're proposing is a slight tweak of an already established weapon.

What I'm saying is that laser guidance offers a world of opportunities which new systems can be built to exploit.

Yup, world of possibilities. Like laser-guided bombs, laser-guided cruise missiles, laser-guided mortar rounds... Laser guidance has been applied to almost everything EXCEPT high-velocity AMRs. Though it does open the way for larger artillery to go laser-guided, as well. They've tried before without good results. If this works in an AMR, it'll work in artillery. You'd still have to be pretty close on the aim, though, as the laser-designator would only work for terminal guidance.


I think its's premature to go for the AMR. Make a laser guided kinetic tank round, then think about a 50 cal.

I get the mental exercise of trying to find other ways to accomplish the goal, but arguing against using this for an AMR is kind of silly. Especially when their effectiveness is so thoroughly proven. This round will not only make them more accurate, it will also extend their effective range much closer to their maximum range.


Again, I'm not saying a guided 50 cal wouldn't be an amazing thing, but I think it's overkill at this point and a lower velocity system would be more likely to develop as a successful product, would be cheaper to manufacture and would be more widely adopted.

POLAND_SPUD wrote:kamikaze drones on the other hand offer something new... amateurs can build FPV RC setups for less than 1000$. I wonder if something developed for the military could cost less than 20 000$ per unit. I can see it used as an ATGM missile and a cheapo cruise missile for soft targets...


I think I posted a link to this before, scary: http://www.defensereview.com/mbda-tiger ... -a-temper/
  • 0

User avatar
jackssmirkingrevenge
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 24225
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
Country: Holy See (Vatican City State) (va)
Reputation: 66

Unread postAuthor: jakethebeast » Fri Feb 03, 2012 4:52 am

again, über offtopic, but JSR, heres the 125 i was talking about :wink:

Image
  • 0

Est Sularus Oth Mithas
User avatar
jakethebeast
Brigadier General
Brigadier General
 
Posts: 934
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2010 4:20 pm
Location: Jakes cave
Country: Finland (fi)
Reputation: 11

Unread postAuthor: Labtecpower » Fri Feb 03, 2012 4:53 am

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=yxpdd9s-wAw[/youtube]

I hope this link works, i'm on my phone :roll:
(it's a link to my vid spudgun shooting btw)

This is a heavy bullet at 300 fps. If there was a car window between you and this thing, I think your head would still splat like a grape :roll:
  • 0

"ñøw mÿ šįg šüçkś!"
User avatar
Labtecpower
Major General
Major General
 
Posts: 1267
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:38 am
Location: Herb Island
Reputation: 7

Sponsored

Sponsor
 


Unread postAuthor: POLAND_SPUD » Fri Feb 03, 2012 5:43 am

I think I posted a link to this before, scary
Discovery Channel's new series -> 'Damn technology, You scary!'
narrated by JSR

lol I would like really like to see such a show

:D
  • 0

Children are the future

unless we stop them now
User avatar
POLAND_SPUD
Chief of Staff
Chief of Staff
 
Posts: 5405
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:43 pm
Country: Israel (il)
Reputation: 10

Unread postAuthor: jackssmirkingrevenge » Fri Feb 03, 2012 5:49 am

jakethebeast wrote:again, über offtopic, but JSR, heres the 125 i was talking about :wink:


Looks can be deceiving ;)

This is a heavy bullet at 300 fps. If there was a car window between you and this thing, I think your head would still splat like a grape


Thanks for the illustration :) I don't know if I said this when you originally posted but I love the "yeah I got this" look on the face of guy holding the barrel, and the cigarette (at least I assume it's a cigarette :D) just adds to the effect :)

lol I would like really like to see such a show


I would really like if someone paid me to do it :D
  • 0

User avatar
jackssmirkingrevenge
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 24225
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
Country: Holy See (Vatican City State) (va)
Reputation: 66

Unread postAuthor: MrCrowley » Fri Feb 03, 2012 5:52 am

jackssmirkingrevenge wrote:I would really like if someone paid me to do it :D
How 'bout you just start a blog of the same name and take what little profits you make from ad revenue :wink:
  • 0

User avatar
MrCrowley
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 10207
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:42 pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Country: New Zealand (nz)
Reputation: 4

Unread postAuthor: jackssmirkingrevenge » Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:37 am

MrCrowley wrote:How 'bout you just start a blog of the same name and take what little profits you make from ad revenue :wink:


Interesting thought, since I trawl the interwebs for these things anyway...
  • 0

User avatar
jackssmirkingrevenge
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 24225
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
Country: Holy See (Vatican City State) (va)
Reputation: 66

Unread postAuthor: Daltonultra » Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:08 pm

I feel like I'm beating my head against the wall, here... disgust

jackssmirkingrevenge wrote:What you're proposing is a slight tweak of an already established weapon.


Correct. But it's a slight tweak that would extend the effective range of current AMRs by as much as 50%, possibly more, and eliminate the uncertainties of long-range shooting caused by wind and atmospheric pressure. At 2000+yards, you're having to compensate not just for wind speed and direction, but for high or low pressure, and even humidity. This round eliminates those factors from consideration. That's not a slight advantage, it's a game changer.

jackssmirkingrevenge wrote:What I'm saying is that laser guidance offers a world of opportunities which new systems can be built to exploit.

I think its's premature to go for the AMR. Make a laser guided kinetic tank round, then think about a 50 cal.


If the guidance system is able to to stand up to firing stresses when it's this miniaturized, then up-sizing it for use in artillery is child's play. Tank rounds... it's a toss-up as to whether it would be worth it. The M1A1 already uses kinetic rounds that are accurate to a few inches at any reasonable engagement distance. With the incredible targeting systems used by an M1A1, you wouldn't gain that much in terms of accuracy or effective range, so the extra cost of guided rounds probably wouldn't be justified.

Artillery, on the other hand, is most often called in by coordinates by soldiers in combat. The weak link there is the accuracy of the soldier's info. Adding terminal guidance by laser to that would increase effectiveness by removing a large part of the possibility for error. The forward observer could be off by quite a distance, and still bring the round in to the right target with the designator.


jackssmirkingrevenge wrote:Again, I'm not saying a guided 50 cal wouldn't be an amazing thing, but I think it's overkill at this point and a lower velocity system would be more likely to develop as a successful product, would be cheaper to manufacture and would be more widely adopted.


The thing is, a lower-velocity system would simply be less effective in the roll of an AMR. That high velocity is exactly what allows a round as small as the .50BMG to be effective against light armor vehicles. A .50 AP round will go through an inch of steel easily, and still have enough energy to cause damage to engine parts. A larger, slower kinetic device might give you the same impact energy, but it won't penetrate as well as a smaller round at higher velocities.


The round these guys are working on might be as large as a 20mm cartridge, but I highly doubt it. judging by the size of hte bullet itself, I would estimate they'd need about half again the charge of a .50BMG round to get the same velocity. You could get that by either increasing the diameter of the .50 brass by about 3/16", or by extending it about an inch. Recoil from the larger round wouldn't be an issue with the proper muzzle break, or even a back-blast system like the Croatian RT-20 20mm Hispano rifle. The 20mm Hispano round fires at 2800-2900ft/s, right around hte same velocity as .50BMG M2 ball, but the bullet is several times larger. The rifle is a bit primitive, but still easily man-portable and shoulder-fired without stressing the shooter unduly. So something the size of this guided bullet wouldn't be a problem. disgust
  • 0

The Official High-Tech Redneck

"There is no such thing as overkill." ~Solomon Short
User avatar
Daltonultra
1st Lieutenant
1st Lieutenant
 
Posts: 282
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 8:17 pm
Location: Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A.
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: POLAND_SPUD » Fri Feb 03, 2012 2:53 pm

If the guidance system is able to to stand up to firing stresses when it's this miniaturized, then up-sizing it for use in artillery is child's play. Tank rounds...
there already exist laser guided artillery rounds (both mortar and howitzer), even in smaller calibres


Wow, this part is great:
you wouldn't gain that much in terms of accuracy or effective range, so the extra cost of guided rounds probably wouldn't be justified.
You already know what we're saying, but you don't realise that what applies to tanks applies to sniper rifles too

lol I've noticed that you really like sniper rifles and stuff ;-) but life is about practical solutions not coolness... it's not a coincidence that the longest ever kill was 'scored' in afganistan - there are hardly ever such large open spaces anywhere else in the world... in most places it's more like 300-500 meters max

That high velocity is exactly what allows a round as small as the .50BMG to be effective against light armor vehicles.
light armor/unarmored vehicles are large, so large that they are at least several times easier to hit than a standing man, let alone one crouching or prone...

ohh and don't forget that by the time .50BMG loses a lot of its penetrating power with range
.50bmg is old and it wasn't designed as a sniper round


so in conclusion...
I don't think a laser guided round will be adopted soon... I expect that typical cartridges like 408 cheytac will gain more and more popularity and sniper rounds in general will eventually be more like kinetic penetrators for tank cannons ->> very high velocity and low drag
  • 0

Children are the future

unless we stop them now
User avatar
POLAND_SPUD
Chief of Staff
Chief of Staff
 
Posts: 5405
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:43 pm
Country: Israel (il)
Reputation: 10

Unread postAuthor: Daltonultra » Fri Feb 03, 2012 7:36 pm

POLAND_SPUD wrote:Wow, this part is great:
you wouldn't gain that much in terms of accuracy or effective range, so the extra cost of guided rounds probably wouldn't be justified.
You already know what we're saying, but you don't realise that what applies to tanks applies to sniper rifles too


Except that it doesn't. Scale is a major consideration, as is the simple fact that tank rounds aren't shoulder-fired. They're fired by a sophisticated and extremely reliable targeting computer and therefore have an effective range that is already very close to their maximum range. There simply isn't a need to add yet another targeting system into that mix.

On the other hand, snipers are still using the same basic system as they did in WWII: a scope with crosshairs mounted on a big rifle, steadied by human hands that shake in time with the heartbeat and breathing. And they rely on their spotter partner to perform their calculation for drop and windage, either on paper, or with a handheld ballistic calculator (there's even an Android app for it now...). There's a TON of room for improvement in effective range as a ratio of maximum range.

On top of which, tank rounds simply aren't as affected by wind and atmospheric conditions as a rifle round. Fluid dynamics dictates that varying atmospheric conditions affect a smaller object more than a larger object.

POLAND_SPUD wrote:lol I've noticed that you really like sniper rifles and stuff ;-) but life is about practical solutions not coolness... it's not a coincidence that the longest ever kill was 'scored' in afganistan - there are hardly ever such large open spaces anywhere else in the world... in most places it's more like 300-500 meters max


Our next war is very likely to take place in the Middle East again, where soldiers will be facing very similar combat conditions. And my liking for rifles has no bearing on hte validity of my conclusions.

POLAND_SPUD wrote:
That high velocity is exactly what allows a round as small as the .50BMG to be effective against light armor vehicles.

light armor/unarmored vehicles are large, so large that they are at least several times easier to hit than a standing man, let alone one crouching or prone...

ohh and don't forget that by the time .50BMG loses a lot of its penetrating power with range
.50bmg is old and it wasn't designed as a sniper round

M2 ball wasn't. But other .50BMG bullets HAVE been specifically designed and optimized for anti-materiel rifle use. And the cartridge itself was designed for high velocities and accuracy. You do know about Gunny Hathcock and his scoped Ma Deuce, right? Extremely effective, if not quite as accurate as an actually AMR.

And I didn't say anything about being able to HIT light armor, I said large, low-velocity rounds won't PENETRATE light armor, assuming the same impact energy. Smaller/denser/faster penetrates better than larger/slower. It's a simple fact proven by almost a century of anti-armor combat.


POLAND_SPUD wrote:so in conclusion...
I don't think a laser guided round will be adopted soon... I expect that typical cartridges like 408 cheytac will gain more and more popularity and sniper rounds in general will eventually be more like kinetic penetrators for tank cannons ->> very high velocity and low drag


I agree with you here, mostly. Smaller rounds see less of an advantage from a dart shape, but AMR rounds aren't exactly tiny...

You should see some of the wildcat rounds out there. Necking .50BMG cratridges down to fire a .30 caliber bullet is fairly common, and the velocities are ungodly.
  • 0

The Official High-Tech Redneck

"There is no such thing as overkill." ~Solomon Short
User avatar
Daltonultra
1st Lieutenant
1st Lieutenant
 
Posts: 282
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 8:17 pm
Location: Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A.
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: jsefcik » Fri Feb 03, 2012 9:51 pm

do any spudders that live in pennsylvania know anything homade trailers????


what to do to get a title???

do i need an enhanced safety inspection???

i know i need to call my title and tag shop , but was just lookin for basic knowledge
  • 0


jsefcik
Brigadier General
Brigadier General
 
Posts: 1132
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 10:11 am
Reputation: 0

PreviousNext

Return to Non-Spudgun Related Discussion

Who is online

Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], Yahoo [Bot]

Reputation System ©'