It may be a pig but it's a deer killin' pig.
Hornady ELD Bullets For Reloading
- Thread starter Striper69
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
It may be a pig but it's a deer killin' pig.
- Feb 4, 2013
- 28,175
I guess you don't know who you are answering. Yes, Ed handloads. Ed also teaches long range shooting. He has done more long range precision shooting per year, than you have done in your live Many of us on MDS have visited Ed for one of his classes. And we have all benefited from his presence here on the forum, as well as in person in one of his classes.
And what Ed it telling you is, not to shoot FGMM, but to buy ONE BOX to test your rifle. If your rifle will not shoot 1/2 groups at 100 yards with FGMM, then you will gain little by chasing accuracy with reloads.
If your rifle shoots FGMM well, then you might be able to tweak it a bit tighter with handloads.
It is all about a consistent baseline. If you don't have a baseline, you have no idea where you are going and how to get there.
E.Shell
Ultimate Member
Thank you Pinecone.
I have been handloading my own ammo since 1971. I was a slow starter though, I have been shooting since 1965 and made it into my first rifle team in 1969. None of that past stuff matters though, today's facts matter much more to both of us.
In handloading for over 45 years, I would be less than honest to say that I never wasted my time and money chasing ghosts and false concepts. In fact, it has been a LOT of time and LOT of money over the years, doing things the hard way, backing into stuff, trying to polish a turd...
Of course, most of the problem then was a lack of outside input and the benefit of other handloader's successes, and failures...a nearly complete lack of user-level info exchange. All we had were rather sketchy loading manuals and spotty second hand information. Can you even imagine getting ALL of your supplemental shooting and handloading questions answered by a gun shop clerk or a guy at the next bench on the range?
Today is different.
We realize that a well built rifle will shoot almost anything well, while a turd MIGHT find one marginally acceptable load in 20 tries. Ugh, the money I have poured down the barrel of defective rifles and stories my loading journals could tell, searching for that magic load that would make a crooked chamber or uneven bolt lugs shoot well...
Maybe I could help you avoid some of this wasted work, time and money, if you wanted to.
We have the venue and freedom to exchange ideas and information and we are not forced to work in relative isolation, re-inventing the wheel time after time. I learn something new every day and we all enjoy the benefit of a huge brain trust.
Most handloaders would do well to even *equal* the performance of FGMM, let alone exceed it, and it has literally become the gold standard for factory ammo. I built myself a .308 match/training rifle about 5-6 years ago that I use with students and take to matches myself. It will drive FGMM 168s into 1/4 MOA 100 yard groups time after time. It will shoot their 175s into 1/2 MOA. I have an unmodified LTR that will shoot the 168s almost as well.
In all this fooling around, I have come to very strongly believe that if a .308 rifle will not shoot FGMM 168s well, nothing else will shoot well through it either. it is an excellent "control group" of known performance with which to evaluate an unknown rifle.
The reason I suggest you shoot one box of FGMM 168s is simply to evaluate your own rifle's potential before wasting time and money trying to get match grade performance from handloads from an unknown potential.
I am NOT trying to get you to shoot factory match ammo as a habit. I am suggesting that you check actual battery voltage with a known good voltmeter, instead of just seeing if the headlights might come on and how bright they look.
It should be clear to you from the range of comments above that match grade performance is probably not to be expected from the Remington 770. This is fine and not a defect, it is simply an economy hunting rifle with built-in limitations. It may or may not shoot well enough to show you the difference in bullet design/quality, particularly between good match bullets. My own SWAG is that it will not, but without a valid and known-good control sample, what do we actually know? Nothing at all...just speculation and anecdotal (it'll kill a deer!!) "evidence".
Sure, it kills deer, but so what? After having killed a bunch myself, I am quite clear on the size and location of the vitals and if you can consistently hit a 1 gallon milk jug with your rifle (about 8 MOA at 100 yards), you can consistently kill deer, which has exactly nothing to do with evaluating match grade bullets.
Having shot with hundreds of students and having participated in matches of many disciplines, I would bet that most rifles out there cannot tell the difference in ANY of the popular match bullets today. They are ALL great bullets. When I was shooting F-Class comps twice a month (10" 10 rings at 800, 900 and 1,000 yards), I didn't care whether we used Lapua, Norma, Sierras or Bergers. Technique and wind were MUCH more important that miniscule bullet differences.
The only real difference is how compatible your bullet at hand will be with the particular bore/throat geometry of your rifle. This means that no matter how successful someone else was with any given bullet, it may or may not duplicate in your rifle. Some rifles simply will not shoot Berger VLD style bullets, while Sierra MKs are quite forgiving and shoot well in most rifles, but how about yours?
The only way to tell is to test. Testing is necessary, but test all you want and if you are trying to achieve 1/2 MOA precision in a rifle that will only deliver 1 MOA, you will be wasting your time. Much as I have wasted my own time in the past trying to find a good load for a rifle that wouldn't have recognized a good load if you shoved it up it's feed ramp...
You could get a sample of every match bullet out there, a few pounds of powder and burn your bore out testing, trying to find a sub-MOA load for a 2 MOA rifle, and NEVER find a suitable solution. Assimilate this key concept and the rest of this makes sense.
Or, you could step into the light and simply see what you're actually working with (shoot some FGMM 168s) and know what to strive for before the investment.
So this puts us back to trying to find out how well YOUR rifle actually shoots before trying to discern the very best load, which is what I has suggested in my previous post - shoot some control groups with known good ammo to see if it is ever worth buying match bullets.
Yes, I do. I had been teaching precision handloading classes for the last few years as well.
I have been handloading my own ammo since 1971. I was a slow starter though, I have been shooting since 1965 and made it into my first rifle team in 1969. None of that past stuff matters though, today's facts matter much more to both of us.
As would I, but you can't make chicken salad out of chicken sh!t.
In handloading for over 45 years, I would be less than honest to say that I never wasted my time and money chasing ghosts and false concepts. In fact, it has been a LOT of time and LOT of money over the years, doing things the hard way, backing into stuff, trying to polish a turd...
Of course, most of the problem then was a lack of outside input and the benefit of other handloader's successes, and failures...a nearly complete lack of user-level info exchange. All we had were rather sketchy loading manuals and spotty second hand information. Can you even imagine getting ALL of your supplemental shooting and handloading questions answered by a gun shop clerk or a guy at the next bench on the range?
Today is different.
We realize that a well built rifle will shoot almost anything well, while a turd MIGHT find one marginally acceptable load in 20 tries. Ugh, the money I have poured down the barrel of defective rifles and stories my loading journals could tell, searching for that magic load that would make a crooked chamber or uneven bolt lugs shoot well...
Maybe I could help you avoid some of this wasted work, time and money, if you wanted to.
We have the venue and freedom to exchange ideas and information and we are not forced to work in relative isolation, re-inventing the wheel time after time. I learn something new every day and we all enjoy the benefit of a huge brain trust.
In shooting over 15,000 rounds of Federal Gold Medal Match MYSELF, and then watching students shoot it for years (I have been teaching since the early 90s), I will tell you unequivocally that it is NOT just "their test rifles", it is almost EVERY rifle out there. Federal utilized the OCW node for this ammo and this makes it extremely tolerant of rifle variation. If a rifle doesn't shoot this ammo well, there is something wrong with the rifle or its handling.
Most handloaders would do well to even *equal* the performance of FGMM, let alone exceed it, and it has literally become the gold standard for factory ammo. I built myself a .308 match/training rifle about 5-6 years ago that I use with students and take to matches myself. It will drive FGMM 168s into 1/4 MOA 100 yard groups time after time. It will shoot their 175s into 1/2 MOA. I have an unmodified LTR that will shoot the 168s almost as well.
In all this fooling around, I have come to very strongly believe that if a .308 rifle will not shoot FGMM 168s well, nothing else will shoot well through it either. it is an excellent "control group" of known performance with which to evaluate an unknown rifle.
The reason I suggest you shoot one box of FGMM 168s is simply to evaluate your own rifle's potential before wasting time and money trying to get match grade performance from handloads from an unknown potential.
I am NOT trying to get you to shoot factory match ammo as a habit. I am suggesting that you check actual battery voltage with a known good voltmeter, instead of just seeing if the headlights might come on and how bright they look.
It should be clear to you from the range of comments above that match grade performance is probably not to be expected from the Remington 770. This is fine and not a defect, it is simply an economy hunting rifle with built-in limitations. It may or may not shoot well enough to show you the difference in bullet design/quality, particularly between good match bullets. My own SWAG is that it will not, but without a valid and known-good control sample, what do we actually know? Nothing at all...just speculation and anecdotal (it'll kill a deer!!) "evidence".
Sure, it kills deer, but so what? After having killed a bunch myself, I am quite clear on the size and location of the vitals and if you can consistently hit a 1 gallon milk jug with your rifle (about 8 MOA at 100 yards), you can consistently kill deer, which has exactly nothing to do with evaluating match grade bullets.
Having shot with hundreds of students and having participated in matches of many disciplines, I would bet that most rifles out there cannot tell the difference in ANY of the popular match bullets today. They are ALL great bullets. When I was shooting F-Class comps twice a month (10" 10 rings at 800, 900 and 1,000 yards), I didn't care whether we used Lapua, Norma, Sierras or Bergers. Technique and wind were MUCH more important that miniscule bullet differences.
The only real difference is how compatible your bullet at hand will be with the particular bore/throat geometry of your rifle. This means that no matter how successful someone else was with any given bullet, it may or may not duplicate in your rifle. Some rifles simply will not shoot Berger VLD style bullets, while Sierra MKs are quite forgiving and shoot well in most rifles, but how about yours?
The only way to tell is to test. Testing is necessary, but test all you want and if you are trying to achieve 1/2 MOA precision in a rifle that will only deliver 1 MOA, you will be wasting your time. Much as I have wasted my own time in the past trying to find a good load for a rifle that wouldn't have recognized a good load if you shoved it up it's feed ramp...
You could get a sample of every match bullet out there, a few pounds of powder and burn your bore out testing, trying to find a sub-MOA load for a 2 MOA rifle, and NEVER find a suitable solution. Assimilate this key concept and the rest of this makes sense.
Or, you could step into the light and simply see what you're actually working with (shoot some FGMM 168s) and know what to strive for before the investment.
So this puts us back to trying to find out how well YOUR rifle actually shoots before trying to discern the very best load, which is what I has suggested in my previous post - shoot some control groups with known good ammo to see if it is ever worth buying match bullets.
I am. You're talking about wasting elements of your life, as I have wasted elements of my own. I'm even willing to spend a little typing time over coffee on a Sunday morning if I could help someone avoid some of my own stupid mistakes.
PowPow
Where's the beef?
^ This should be a sticky, just like everything else that Ed writes. :-)
DaemonAssassin
Why should we Free BSD?
I third this.
I don't see it as a waste. If I wanted a precision/match rifle I'd spend all that money on one.
Do I care if I can shoot 1/2 MOA with the 770?
No.
It does what I bought it for- kills deer. Anything else is gravy or just for chits and grins.
E.Shell
Ultimate Member
- Feb 4, 2013
- 28,175
Fine.
But YOU started the thread about buying and shooting ELD bullets (which are NOT a hunting bullet) and whether they are more accurate.
If you don't care for any more accuracy, when spend more on a high performance match bullet in the first place?????????
Moorvogi
Firearm Advocate
- Dec 28, 2014
- 855
Anyone can make a precision rifle shoot well, a rifleman can make a 'budget rifle' shoot well.
E.Shell
Ultimate Member
Almost. You would be surprised.
This is like saying a "real driver" can win the Indy with a VW Bug.
Last edited:
Moorvogi
Firearm Advocate
- Dec 28, 2014
- 855
this... this is why i enjoy MDShooters forums and the people w/in it. That last block.
What i dont quite follow is, if handloading is building a load for a specific firearm and chamber to match the harmonics of the barrel etc etc... why would factory ammo (made for eveyone's rifle) be a good baseline? I'm 6'4" and getting in a car that's made to "fit everyone" is sometimes a joke. Not that 6'4" is super tall but it's enough that the "typical fit" isn't a good fit.
I have a budget 308 (Ruger American) and w/ factory ammo i got.. okay groups. A lot of the bad groups was me, for sure. I say this because i replaced it w/ hand load 110gr v-max or even 168gr a-max and i get submoa (5 shots covered by a nickle).
if i know i can get better groups by building a load to MY rifle's harmonics, why use the factory ammo as a baseline?
E.Shell
Ultimate Member
"Harmonics" is a term with limited application. Yes, yes...I know people talk about it all the time, using the word to "explain" unexplained responses in rifles that are due to small imperfections. Much as the primitive natives on an isolated island believe a helicopter is God, which many of us would probably disagree with but good luck convincing them...
If the chamber is a little crooked to the bore, we search for a good load and find one that works to a certain extent and say it has favorable "harmonics"...
I will state this again in this new context: A properly assembled rifle using decent components is insensitive to load changes. Clearly, it is not suffering from the dreaded harmonics mismatch.
How is it possible that many/most factory rifles demonstrate these mystical harmonics, while well built custom rifles are lacking this special event?
If the rifle has a concentric chamber, square lugs, square bolt face, correctly aligned barrel threads and the other dozen considerations of a properly assembled machine, we really don't have "harmonics" - that rifle will shoot any reasonable load well.
In the early 70s, I bought a Remington 788 in .22-250. This rifle shot extremely well and I used it a lot, but...the grass is always greener...and I really wanted the shiny 700 Varmint Special, with it's deep blue metal work and nice walnut stock, adjustable trigger, etc.. I finally sold the 788 and bought that 700 VS in .22-250. It was a dog. I fooled around with it for a year, shot about 300 test rounds (trying to match these fabulous harmonics), never got it to shoot inside about 1 MOA and got a flyer in every group.
I worked at Bart's in HS and was whining to Jack about how my beautiful new rifle shot like crap. About that time, the 6PPC was becoming all the rage in benchrest and everyone was retiring their hot .22 centerfires. Jack Bart had a Remington 700 benchrest rifle in .22-250, built by P.J. Hart, with a Leupold 24x BR scope on it. Jack suggested I try it (meaning "he set me up"), and loaned it to me. That rifle would shoot ANYTHING into 3/8 MOA, including handloads that failed to perform with the VS's "harmonics". It shot Remington Power Points (ugh) into 1/2" groups at 100 yards, Federal Premium 40s, 55s...whatever, it simply did not matter. Of course, I bought it. I actually stopped handloading for that rifle, because it would put Federal Premium 55 BTHPs into less than 1/2 MOA - why bother?
The reason that the loads were not critical is because when Hart built the rifle, he did it correctly and everything was straight and square. There were NO "harmonics", LOL, the rifle was an honest machine built to correct standards that performed as designed, as will ANY well built rifle.
Here is a series of test groups fired from a .260 Remington that shows just how little a good rifle cares about loads - four consecutive groups, 1/2 grain apart - no harmonics:
Again, a correctly assembled rifle does not demonstrate sensitivity to minor load changes and using the word "harmonics" is like saying that a particular outcome is the result of magic.
The reason you are seeing the rifle accept some loads and not others is likely due to a mechanical error or a twist rate incompatibility.
If the 168 shoots sub-minute groups, you can prove that harmonics (related to the frequency of internal shock waves travelling through the rifle) have nothing to do with it by varying your charge weight or powder type.
Because "harmonics" is not what's going on.
Yes, I know some very talented people do believe in harmonics, voodoo and the inherent good of mankind - but I do not.
A lot of people believe in harmonics, and it is a fact that the rifle's response can be altered by placing devices on the muzzle, but this simply moves the symptom of the actual problem elsewhere. Barrel tuners are fairly popular with rimfire shooters, but even this application seems to be falling aside in favor of good gunsmithing.
The use of a known-good test device will provide insight not possible with randomly trying handloads. Federal has exploited the OCW charge weight principle, and have used a bullet that is well known to be very precise and extremely forgiving of rifle variations. If your rifle will not shoot Federal Gold Medal Match 168s into sub-MOA groups, there is something, however slight, wrong with the rifle.
- Jul 29, 2014
- 49,999
Very enlightening Ed. I've always been a "harmoics" believer, mostly out of ignorance. Now that you've successfully chased that specter from my brain, I'd love to hear(and understand) the actual reasoning behind the fully floated barrel and what makes one superior to the non-full floated barrel sometime.
Mr Shell,
I won't argue if you are right or wrong cause I'm just a newbie compared to your experience. This might be a tangent to the thread but are you disputing or implying the use of the word Harmonics on this page is incorrect?
http://optimalchargeweight.embarqspace.com/
I had considered this the place to go to review before I worked up any OCW load for any of my rifles which many are Milsurps that I found was mostly a waste of time (which reading your posts explains some of why that is so). My future is only working up OCW loads for rifles of known barrel quality.
I ask because My next reloading venture will be for a new Criterion Barrel AR I just put together cause all the other barrels I had shot crappy even with good bullets which I had believed at the time was 90% of the start to a good load (good bullet is needed for a good accurate/repeatable load). Although I had already shot the Criterion Barrel AR with a pet 69 SMK load and showed it was 1MOA, I'll get a box of Federal Gold Medal Match 223 and give it a try.
My interest in the Hornady ELD was in a future barrel replacement of a 300BLK AR I have. It has a cheap barrel in it and learning how well the Criterion 223 barrel shot, plan to invest in a new barrel this winter.
Glad I opened up this thread.
I won't argue if you are right or wrong cause I'm just a newbie compared to your experience. This might be a tangent to the thread but are you disputing or implying the use of the word Harmonics on this page is incorrect?
http://optimalchargeweight.embarqspace.com/
I had considered this the place to go to review before I worked up any OCW load for any of my rifles which many are Milsurps that I found was mostly a waste of time (which reading your posts explains some of why that is so). My future is only working up OCW loads for rifles of known barrel quality.
I ask because My next reloading venture will be for a new Criterion Barrel AR I just put together cause all the other barrels I had shot crappy even with good bullets which I had believed at the time was 90% of the start to a good load (good bullet is needed for a good accurate/repeatable load). Although I had already shot the Criterion Barrel AR with a pet 69 SMK load and showed it was 1MOA, I'll get a box of Federal Gold Medal Match 223 and give it a try.
My interest in the Hornady ELD was in a future barrel replacement of a 300BLK AR I have. It has a cheap barrel in it and learning how well the Criterion 223 barrel shot, plan to invest in a new barrel this winter.
Glad I opened up this thread.
DaemonAssassin
Why should we Free BSD?
With a floated barrel, your hand does not "flex" the barrel, while holding the rifle. A non-floated barrel has minute "flexing" based on the amount of force you use to hold the fore end. As such by floating a barrel, you are removing any outside forces from resting the fore end on your hand, sandbags, etc... from affecting the attitude of the barrel. The fewer forces exerted on the barrel equates to better consistency, when shooting.
- Feb 4, 2013
- 28,175
Actually, yes. I and I have met, talked to, and taken classes from both Ed and Dan.
Dan did empirical testing. He shot and observed and came up with the OCW process. That works. He used the term harmonics, as Ed says, because that was the common explanation. Dan did not do any math to show how it worked.
He started with the idea of, if there is one perfect load for every rifle, then why does FGMM shoot so well in every rifle? Better than many "perfect" handloads for that same rifle. So his testing showed him the cyclical nature of charge weight and accuracy. And that he too could develop loads that shot well in all rifles.
If you search for Optimum Barrel Time, you will find where a physicist, who is a shooter, did the math to try to describe what OCW shows. And what he found was, barrel harmonics have a minor part in the equation, but are all wrong for the major node effect shown with OCW. The main thing was the pressure pulse of barrel expansion running up and down the barrel. So the timing needed to be right, for the bullet to exit the barrel when that pressure pulse is at the breech end.
And the numbers work out, so that if you take a rifle, work up an OCW load, then start cutting the barrel shorter and shorted, the same load is accurate.
And the QuickLoad software works using this info, to tell you what will be an accurate load.
So we have a case of perfect scientific method. Dan noticed something, so did some experiments to come up with a method of duplicating what he saw. Then someone else figured out that math behind WHY it worked. And everything agrees to what should and does work.
But basically, as Ed stated, certain rifles might find a sweet spot load that is perfect for it due to some quirk of that rifle, but no other rifle. But in general, an accurate load in one rifle is an accurate load in almost all rifles.
So that is why, a box of FGMM is the gold standard to make that your rifle and YOU are shooting well. From everyone's experience, it would a very rare rifle that would not shoot FGMM well.
And then that also gives you a standard for your reloading and your rifle. If the load you develop is not as accurate as FGMM, you still have some work to do.
Working up my .308 load, I want through the OCW process (with comments by Dan). And when I got done, I had developed a load of a Sierra Match King 175 grain, in front of 43.5 grains of Varget, in a Lapua case, with a Federal 210M primer. Funny thing was, every one else on Sniper's Hide, using those components, came with the same load for their rifle.
E.Shell
Ultimate Member
Hi Melnic, please call me 'Ed'...my dad was Mr. Shell.
As a rule, I would NEVER contradict Dan Newberry and would likely re-examine my own take on it if I found us to be at odds over something. Dan has spent huge amount of time immersed in this too. Dan and I have been talking ballistics since before either of us understood exactly why a one number BC is bogus in the context of G1 (couldn't figure out why the Ballistic Tips tracked perfectly for a time then tanked), and you might also notice by his forum handle, he has 788s himself. I often sent students to Dan if I couldn't accommodate their scheduling and have been referring almost everyone to Dan since I have suspended teaching myself.
Dan developed the OCW method as a reliable way to plot impacts and gauge load performance by expanding upon Creighton Audette's "Ladder Method". The shortcoming of the Ladder Method was that one single shot was fired for each load increment, but without the precision placement of a true benchrest rifle, that one single shot cannot be relied upon due to standard group dispersion exceeding the changes brought about by the powder charge.
I use Dan's OCW method exclusively to find good loads, but the main departure is that I am typically using custom guns and carefully selected components, and rather than looking at group position on target and overall precision, I use velocity deviation. Because custom rifles are correctly built without the constraints of mass production or time limits, precision is, or should be, exactly as you see in my .260 groups above - groups sizes are so similar, there has to be an additional filter. That filter is velocity deviation, both in terms of lowest possible SD, but also with minimum change from the last, and the next, increment.
When testing my then-new .300 Win Mag, I got to 3,010 average velocity for 5 shots, while adding one more increment rendered an average of 3,005 - yes, the average velocity dropped off slightly. When comparing overall deviation, those last two or three increments were so close and had so much overlap, they could be mixed in the ammo box and still shoot into the same long range group. THIS is the true goal of the OCW - tolerance of rifle variation, which is, in essence, the same as tolerance for load variation.
Regarding the substance of your question, I don't think I could explain it any better than Pinecone has.
This approach will save you much pain and suffering.
If your rifle doesn't shoot the FGMM 69s, there is likely a technique issue or a rifle fault. Although my field experience only includes a fraction of .223 rifles compared to .308s and the 6.5s, meaning I don't quite have the confidence level and remain at "pretty sure".
The ELD-Ms and ELD-X bullets have been great bullets. The ballistic coefficients of the 6.5 ELDs are so high, relative to similar bullets, the first time I heard it, I thought it was a typo.
I'd be more concerned about precision and consistency than with the BC. It's so easy to become enamoured with high BC bullets, when in truth, running the numbers often shows you ballistic advantages that are less than your group sizes... Back when I was shooting a lot of Berger 140 VLDs in a 6.5-284, their BC was stated to be substantially higher than the Sierra 142 Lapua and 139 Scenar, but on paper at 1km the difference s only a couple clicks.
While reducing wind deflection is normally the most worthy goal, and if you shoot unknown distance comps, the reduction in drop helps smooth minor ranging errors. When one bullet drifts an inch or two less than another at 1,000 yards, it *can* mean the difference between an X and a 10, but usually doesn't. There really is no way to buy proficiency under the label "BC".
You might find this supplemental info helpful, and note that I reference Dan Newberry's methods:
http://www.shell-central.com/Powder1.html
E.Shell
Ultimate Member
DaemonAssassin
Why should we Free BSD?
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
-
Awareness/Mindset/Q&A get together with Bob "Ninja" Porras. Delta/CIA guy. Thursday April 18,2024 (14 Viewers)- Latest: CaptainAwesome
-
-
-
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
Just want to thank the extremely awesome folks at Tyler Firearms (8 Viewers)- Started by GenoBluzGtr
- Replies: 4
-
-
Clearance Liqui Moly Motorbike 4T SAE 15W-50 Street | Full Synthetic Motor Oil | 4 Liter (1 Viewer)- Started by mpollan1
- Replies: 3
-
-
-
-
