Comments by "LRRPFco52" (@LRRPFco52) on "Garand Thumb"
channel.
-
48
-
31
-
Norwegians are probably the best-trained and acclimated soldiers to Arctic Conditions, especially their SOF/Recce troops.
UK SBS, Canadian SOF and Infantry, Finns, US Army Alaska, Swedes, 10th SFG Mountain Teams, Danes, German KSK, Austrians, Italian SOF are others.
The Cadre at ITC (formerly ILRRPS) have a phenomenal collection of senior SOF/Recce guys, most of whom have Arctic experience including Norwegians.
31
-
28
-
25
-
22
-
20
-
20
-
16
-
14
-
12
-
@hellfrogwarrior7470 From introduction of the SAW until the 2000s, we had the green plastic 200rd drums that came 4 per ammo can.
Ranger Regiment had these 100rd Cordura/plastic zippered "nut sacks", which then percolated into the 82nd, 101st, 10th MTN, 25th, 2 ID, etc.
82nd had nut sacks when I got there in 2000, but we didn't have them in any of the 6 units I had been in prior to that from 1994-forward. I think 2/75 had them already in 1997 when we went with them to Panama for JOTC, but I'm not certain on that. They had already mounted ACOGs, Aimpoints, and Surefires to their SAWs at that stage, well before the PIP SAW rail handguards existed.
12
-
11
-
@SumTinWong01 I’ve been shooting and working with AKs since the 1980s. Have fired and broken down multiple variants since that time, to include Norincos, Russian Type 2s, Romanian PM 63s, East German MPI-AKS-74s, AKMs, North Korean AKs, Egyptian Maadis, Arsenals of all types, Yugoslavian M76s, Valmet Rk62s and Rk76s, SAKO Rk92S and Rk95s, Galil ARMs, Galil SARs, Galil 7.62s, Saigas, and a bunch I’m forgetting.
The Russian variants can be hit-and-miss like most of the others. FSBs are typically never TDC and are difficult to zero. The pins that retain the piston to the bolt carrier have walked loose and started to score the gas tubes on the Romanian PM63s we had when shooting high volume.
East German guns ran really well, don’t recall any issues. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a malfunction with a 5.45x39 rifle.
None of them compare well with the quality of the Finnish guns. The Finns simply out-class all the others, but they are boat anchors to carry, even the stamped steel Rk76 has twice the sheet steel thickness you would need.
I’m only discussing actual military rifles mostly here, with the Saiga and civilian Norincos being the exceptions. I’ve shot plenty of civilian import WASRs and Arsenals in the US. Romanian guns have gone up and down depending on the time period. I generally avoid them like the plague.
As far as assembly methods and materials “quality” among any of the Warsaw Pact guns, the only ones that show attention to detail and upper European hints of quality are the Polish and East German guns. The Czech Vz.58 is a well-made rifle with much better machine work and finish.
Basically all AKM variants are trash in Warsaw Pact outside of the Poles and Eastern Krauts. You get the sense that really depressed people who didn’t give a rip cranked the things out, and it shows.
10
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@gunguru7020 WWII was won with artillery, armor, mortars, and air power, with 75-85% of the casualties inflicted by those weapons. Small arms played an important, marginal role to the extent that it didn't really matter what types were used.
The Sturmgewehr would have been a much more effective Infantry weapon in most of the engagements, but not enough to change the outcome of any campaign, major battle, and overall war.
The common statements and memes we see about skinny soldiers winning the war with Garands and 1911s fails to satisfy the logic, relevancy, completeness, breadth, and depth aspects of the intellectual standards.
6
-
@Asghaad SAWs draw linked 5.56 NATO, which is loaded, packaged, and stored in different containers than stripper clip 5.56 loaded ammo cans.
In the 1984-present Infantry Platoon, we drew the following types of ammo:
1. Stripper clip-loaded 5.56x45 in 7 OD cloth bandoliers, with 30rds per bandolier pocket, 4 pockets per bandolier, clip guide included. 840rd can for M855.
Prior to that, M193 was packaged differently with 20rd per pocket bandoliers.
2. SAW ammo came in entirely different ammo cans, with 4x200rd SAW drums filled with linked 5.56x45 NATO, 800rds total per can.
3. 7.62x51 NATO for the pigs in Weapons Squad in ammo cans that contained 2x100rd boxes of linked 7.62 NATO.
4. Machinegunners and Snipers drew 9x19mm for their sidearms.
5. In the Scout Sniper or Recon Platoons, we drew M118 Special Ball and/or M118LR for the M21s, M24s, and M110s, depending on timeframe.
6. Depending on deployment timeframe and unit, Mk.262 77gr OTM became available and synonymous with issue of the SPR or SDMR.
Not including any HE, HEDP, Pyro/Flares/Smoke, we had many different types of ammunition that needed to be sourced by DODIC codes and properly distributed to the units.
The one-size universal Infantry cartridge concept looks great on paper, but has no validation in the real world. 6.8x51 will fail to accomplish that since it's too large for most duty positions in the line.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
@robertcummingsjr3771 Even for a stud in his prime, the prospects of humping a basic load of 7.62 NATO or anything like it meet the harsh reality of magazine depth, load bearing kit space, and combat endurance even before we started wearing IBAs/plates.
There just isn't enough room on your body to carry enough mags, and we're increasing weight substantially with 6.8x51 vs 5.56x45.
For endurance, I'm talking about react-to-contact, setting a base of fire, and then maneuvering.
Battle rifle cartridges don't allow you to do much of that, because initial base-of-fire fraction is too high.
Compare:
5.56 basic load 7 mags/210rds
1 mag expended for RTC/BoF = 30rds, 1/7th expended, still have 180rds to bound with and execute actions-on, repel attack, sustain fire while immobilized, or continue mission and still execute.
6.8x51 basic load even if we go to 8 mags is 160rds. You can burn through a 20rd mag fast during react-to-contact/ establish base of fire, often having to mag-change and eat into the next mag.
Now you're down to 130rds and you haven't even bounded yet.
Keep in mind a minimalist 4 mag micro chest rig with 80rds of 7.62 NATO sucks to carry, not even talking plates, PC, MBITR, NODs, grenades, smoke, IFAK, and water.
If I bound to another position and lay down more fire, I'm already through at least 2 mags now, or 25% of my total load, leaving me with 120rds before even any actions-on an OBJ.
That's an example of a fire-disciplined soldier too. Others will have burned through 2-4 mags, so when we consolidate and reorganize, I might be one of the guys who has more ammo than most and will have to redistribute ammo.
This type of thing has happened with units that took SR-25s or SCAR-Hs into fights that lasted longer than they expected.
The M5 is absolutely inappropriate for mass issue.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@wbhawkes I started with a 16" and wasn't impressed initially because I was fixated on muzzle velocity, not really looking at what it did downrange or appreciating the easy to manage sight picture during the shot.
I noticed my nephews kept hitting my 12" steel poppers at distance with no misses, even though they have no shooting background.
I built a Lilja barreled 17.6" and topped it with better glass and realized I could rapid-fire head shots at 600yds, and rapid-fire sub-MOA 6rd groups at 1000yds.
That 17.6" Lilja is really light, like an old school M4A1 pre SOCOM barrel.
I then did several 18", 20", 22" Lilja barrel builds with top-end components, then started looking at 12".
I've spent the last 6 years shooting the 12" Grendel a lot in all my courses. I'm making 1st-round hits at 780yds, and even made 1st-round at 900yds on a 12" plate with that cheap 110gr PPU ammo.
I normally shoot 123gr ELD-M through the 12", though it also does great with 90gr TNT, 120gr Federal OTM, and that 110gr PPU. 107gr and 110gr are really flat out of it.
4
-
4
-
When I was running a 3-day CQM course in Finland in the middle of winter, my Magpul MIAD Gen 1 grip fragmented from the cold. The Gen 1 had a conical grip screw, which split the grip core in 2. I was shooting suppressed with an Ase Utra QD can, which added a lot of weight to the muzzle.
The little tabs that held the grip core in place broke off just from shooting. Polymers can have 3% water in the composition, so when it's -30°C, they're frozen and brittle.
When I went to replace the pistol grip with a spare, the selector detent was fizzling before my eyes with corrosion.
Zinc-plated detents are after-market short-cuts to avoid the Mil-Std TDP call-outs for cadmium plating.
I also tried using an after-market OD Green waffle M4 stock on another carbine to pound in something on a post, and the toe cracked if I recall.
Much of the materials science, coatings, and specs in the TDP are there because of Arctic Testing at Fort Greeley, AK.
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
@thebadlander3608 AR-10 came first in 1955, built around the new 7.62x51 (.308 Win) cartridge. Heavier, more recoil, bulkier, less reliable.
AR-15 was scaled down by Rob Freemont and Jim Sullivan at ArmaLite in 1957, with Stoner overseeing the design and engineering to meet what was seen as a silly request from Fort Benning for a .224 Small Caliber High Velocity Rifle.
AR-15 was smaller, lighter, handier, easier to shoot, more reliable. Army Ordnance hated it and tried to kill it. USAF loved it, ordered it into military type classification and standardization under General LeMay.
Special Forces, British SAS, and Airborne units loved it as well. The rest is history.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
@gunguru7020 It sounded like you were suggesting that the M1 Garand somehow gave US Infantry a decisive edge over the Japanese, Italians, and Germans. I've studied WWII small arms since the 1970s, and nobody has ever supported that argument with any research that I've seen.
There was an argument for the semi auto, 8rd en bloc clip-fed action, but the Germans and Japanese had plenty of belt-fed and repeating weapons, while US had a weapons mix of Garands, M-1 Carbines, Thompsons, BARs, and 1919 belt-feds.
For most of the duty positions in the line, we actually need something smaller than the M4 like a KAC PDW, with equal or superior exterior and terminal ballistics. This is where the higher pressure NGSW technology interests me in a .221 Fireball sized case with shorter COL than 5.56x45, so we can carry more mags without a weight penalty.
That would be ideal for COs, XOs, 1SGs, RTOs, AGs, ABs, PLs, PSGs, JTACs, Grenadiers, etc.
Use a 6mm or 6.35mm bore with AP option that deals with 200m and in, while DMRs and LMGs shoot a high performance intermediate rifle cartridge from a smaller action than the AR-10/NGSW.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@scoots60 We had M21s in my first 2 Scout Platoons, and we had M14s in my first line unit, along with M16A1s, even though I went through Infantry OSUT with M16A2s.
I have worked with and lived with all of those rifles pretty extensively across multiple continents, as well as the M4/M4A1.
I like the M14/M21, but would never choose one to go outside the wire if I had other options for a DM or light sniper system.
Nobody in Ranger Regiment wanted anything to do with an M14 once the SR25s came into the inventory, and even prior to that, they used M4A1s with ACOGs suppressed in the Sniper sections, along with free-floated Recce carbines, barreled with accurate pipes and float handguards.
JSOC dropped M14s and went to SR25s in the early-mid 1990s as well in their Sniper sections.
Old inventory M14s were issued to line units for DMRs with varying degrees of success in GWOT, but SOF units who actually had a choice used SR25s, SR25Ks, and SCAR-Hs.
Some Teams tried going with all-7.62 NATO load-out, and ditched that idea after 1 or 2 missions due to weight and limited mag capacity. They tried configuring their kit with as many mags as possible, to include mag pouches on the backs of their plate carriers so dudes would act as combat squires for each other, which was just unnecessarily cumbersome and clumsy in a tactical sense.
This is one reason why 6mm ARC in a standard AR-15 receiver set was chosen to supplant or replace 7.62 NATO semi auto sniper systems in certain units.
We keep re-learning the lessons we already knew after the 1914-1918 Great War about appropriate rifle cartridges. 5.56 was the only cartridge adopted that benefitted soldier's load and combat persistence. 7.62x51 was warmed over .30 Cal in a slightly shorter case, pushed to higher chamber pressure to meet the same mv as the Garand. Didn't really change anything for Joe tentpeg other than having a detachable magazine and overall excessive weight.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@terranempire2 Do you think it makes sense for the following soldiers in an Infantry Platoon and Company to carry an M5:
CO
1SG
HHC RTOs/Drivers
XO
Supply Sergeant
Supply Clerk
FOs
USAF TACP/JTACs
PLs
Squad Leaders
Grenadiers
WPNs Squad Leaders
Assistant Gunners
Ammo Bearers
Javelin/ATGM Gunners
That leaves only a very few duty positions in an Infantry Company carrying the M5 if all of the above don’t.
Riflemen
Team Leaders
Squad Leaders
SDMs
Only one of the duty positions makes sense for this weapon system, provided it can demonstrate the necessary accuracy potential, and that is the SDM.
For literally ever other single duty position, it doesn’t sell itself well, just from a weight and soldier’s load standpoint, reduced basic load constraint.
The M250 makes sense for SAW Gunners, as long as they can carry enough ammo, but 6.8 NGSW weighs a lot more than 5.56, so we would have a heavier SAW gunner who will have even more difficulty maneuvering with his Fire Team, unless he cross-loads more of his ammo among his teammates and slows them down a bit more than the CLS bags, AT4s, Claymores, and extra crap that gets thrown on Riflemen’s backs as SOP.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@justinpeck3667 As part of my DM Course curriculum, I show the actual performance differences between 18” SPR, 14.5”, and 12.5” with 77gr Mk.262. Optic and trigger are more important in practice than the barrel length. The longer barrel can be detrimental in most alternate positions because it doesn’t keep the weapon mass close to the body’s C of G. I don’t see myself ever buying anything longer than 12.5” for 5.56 NATO chamberings in the future.
If we really wanted better performance, they should have cut the neck down, moved the shoulder forward with a 30˚ angle on the .222 Remington case, and spit out a longer, higher BC bullet with a nice boat tail. Something like an 80gr VLD shape. That would have made a sick assault rifle, DM, and LMG load with superior supersonic reach to the 7.62x51. They were all about muzzle velocity brute force then, even though the knowledge was present in NATO and DoD to do better with projectile shaping from artillery and aerospace engineering circles.
2
-
@gordonjohnson405 I was there from Feb ’96 to Feb ’97, and our BC was LTC Fuller when I got there, then LTC Milley. Fuller was a Grenada Ranger with old school scroll from 2/75, mustard stain, country boy, awesome BC. The best BC I ever had in all my time in the Army across 7 different units. We’d be out doing morning PT as a Recon Team and see this guy out running with his full ruck in OD Green Jungles by himself. It was LTC Fuller. He thrashed the new Lieutenants in the Currahee Club too. Made them low-crawl with their faces to the floor until they all had road rash from the carpets. It was beautiful.
I remember his Change of Command ceremony where he said, “Alright men. I believe speeches should be like miniskirts, the shorter the better! Pass and review! Currahee!” Then from one of the line companies, someone called out, “Dogpile on the Colonel!” So imagine the better part of all the EMs dog piling the BC in his change of command ceremony. Great Battalion.
All we did was train and I loved it. Milley was more reserved, sketchy-eyed, always sniffing the wind to see if what he was doing would be kosher for his career. He wasn’t particularly bad or good, just there. He signed off on our proposal to institute a Battalion DM program for the line companies that we ran out of the Scout Sniper Platoon, since our PL was prior service E-6/B4 and SOTIC Qual’d, Panama Vet and we had an ODA split team from Okinawa run a Sniper short course for us the summer of 1996.
We rarely got to go downrange south of the Imjin River. You had to have a liberty pass for either a day or overnight, and only a certain % of the Battalion could get them, so I could count the number of times I took that on maybe 2 hands. Some of my SPC4 mafia mates and I went down to see the Seoul War Museum, which was cool. The DMZ was really our home for the full year, with rare exceptions. We did MPRC and EIB south of the Imjin. Lots of incidents happened when I was there with Norks.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It started in Army JSOC after Panama. Sniper/Recce Troop guys started having the armorers build free-floated 723s with FSP, using different rifle-length free float tubes.
Some of those early guns look really sick with the suppressor sleeved by the float tube.
LSO pistol grips, Japanese 1.5-4.5x MicroDot LPVOs or AimPoints, PAQ-4Cs, Harris bipods, Redi-Mags, and Bowflage.
After Mogadishu, they transferred most of that over to the flat top M4 uppers, but many still used the detachable carry handle while adding CAR-15 cheek pieces to the Colt Fiberlite stock, with sharktooth butt pads zip-tied on the back.
Dam Neck guys saw those and had their armorers build similar versions off their 727 Carbines right before or as the M4 went into production.
Within SOCOM, a lot of ODAs and SEAL Platoons were asking for SR-25s, but there weren't enough to go around, so they all worked with Crane to build an upper receiver drop-in solution to bring more precision fire capability in the DM role.
This all happened in the 1990s way before 9/11. SEALs are given credit for the SPR, namely because the OGs and other units kept quiet about it.
CAG had already moved on to the M4A1 with KAC MRE, custom chromoly steel barrel, and S&B Short Dot by the time Tier 2 units were getting Mk.12s.
As usual, they were at least 10 years ahead.
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sullathehutt7720 The Army has a massive list of funded programs that are of far more consequence to the leadership and Pentagon, especially when you look at aviation, mobility, long range artillery/rocket fires, drones, medical, EW, NBC, comms/net centric systems, and so forth. Some new Infantry Rifles and ammo are a rounding error in the overall budget and force structure emphasis to them. They don't look at infantry specifics from the bottom-up, and couldn't really care less.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mrkeogh They solved the egged rivet hole problem with receivers by using high lead content in the rivets, so the rivets would deform first.
The working pressures on AKMs and AK-74s are substantially lower than Western small arms, because they didn't have the metallurgy and capability to mass-produce higher strength steels consistently for small arms.
7.62x39 working pressure is in the 43,000-45,000psi range, but it still generates more bolt thrust comparable to much higher chamber pressure due to the extreme case taper.
The conical shaped chamber focuses axial force more onto the bolt face than a less tapered cartridge would, all other factors being equal.
At the end of the day, you're looking at a very primitive civilization that barely gained traction relative to the rest of the industrialized nations, who were limited to much older production methods, materials, and constraints that resulted in a primitive weapon design. They leveraged thst with the higher capacity magazine like a submachinegun to make it relevant as the last weapon in the echelons of fire from a motorized infantry regiment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@richarddick2937 I'm likely ahead of you on this by 40 years. I've seen and read most of what there is on Kazars, USS Liberty, Israeli terrorist acts against the British when they were a protectorate, history of the Balfour Declaration, post- Great War borders, Arab-Israeli Wars, dangling the MiG-21 carrot to get the F-4E FMS, influence of US Policy via blackmail, subterfuge, espionage, etc.
It pales in comparison to what the Brits have done, but very few people are informed on that.
Either way, this isn't the place for it as I'm more focused on systems integration relative to the actual video.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I spent many years from 2005-2016 doing a lot of multi-day high volume courses in Finland, often with mixed attendance of AKs, Rks, and ARs, the occasional FNC, a Bushmaster ACR, shorty AKs from Arsenal, and a franken-74.
During winter conditions in either Arctic or sub-arctic locations, it was usually -25° to -30°C (-13°F to -22° F).
Not once did I ever see any of the hundreds of weapons experience surface moisture freezing like that. We just never let the rifles get into that state.
Not once did any of the controls freeze-up that I can recall on any of the designs.
What did fail? Interestingly, there were more malfunctions with AK variants than ARs during firing. Mostly FTExtract followed by double feed. That was always with Russian garbage steel case ammo.
The Finnish military brass-cased ammo is of a quality similar to German and Swiss ammo. I've never seen an Rk92 or Rk95 malfunction, but they were typically fed brass-cased Finnish ammo.
The AKs that malf'd were usually Arsenal out of Bulgaria.
Polymers broke, especially my early gen MIAD grip and the toe of an aftermarket M4 waffle stock.
One of the most reliable configurations was 11.5" AR set up as close to a TDP build as possible.
The Finns kept very detailed records over the years of what types of malfunctions they experienced. They said AKs were about as reliable as low quality imitation AR-15s, namely Bushampsters.
Rk62, Rk92, and Rk95 had the highest reliability, followed by TDP-compliant AR-15s. Then AKs and Bushampster AR-15s.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gordonjohnson405 I was in I Corps LRS at Lewis, F Co 52nd Infantry, after I DROS’d from 1-506th Inf Scouts in Korea on the DMZ. The only malfunctions I have seen with M14s were mainly from sand getting in them. Sand will shut an M14 down quick, and it’s very east to get in the action and magazine. We had a lot of M14s in my first unit in VA, and M21s with broken ART II scopes in the H Co Arms room (not HHC, but H Co) for our Recon Platoon.
In Korea, we had brand new-in-plastic National Match M14s. We cut them open to start using as Sniper Support rifles alongside the M24s.
I spent a lot of time with an M14 in some flavor, not including all the Match rifles I’ve shot on the civvy side. It’s funny because I always liked the M14, but have never invested in one, even though I always thought I would own one. Have owned 6 AR-10s and unknown number of AR-15s.
I like the Dutch AR-10s (if limiting to that time frame) much better than the M14. If you haven’t shot one, you would be astonished at how accurate and well-balanced they are.
M14 was Ordnance Board’s last hoorah, where they proved that they were no longer relevant in the firearms design business.
1
-
1
-
@HanSolo__ .30 caliber nazis in Army ordnance board in the 1950s, MacArthur back in the 1930s, etc. .276 Pedersen (was actually a .284/7mm) had been officially adopted as the US Army’s new service rifle cartridge for the Garand in the 1930s, with a 10rd en block clip and a lighter, handier rifle.
It was more of a Goldilocks of its era, allowing the soldier to carry a lighter load or more ammo, lighter recoiling rifle, easier to train on, easier to hit with, more rounds per clip.
A mid-sized AR-15/AR-10 chambered in an intermediate cartridge with a 6.35-7mm bore would have been more ideal in the 1950s, as we rehashed the same lessons-learned from The Great War when going over the mass AARs from WWII. They wanted lighter rifles, lighter recoil, more ammo capacity in the magazine, but still with plenty of downrange energy.
Instead, they crammed .30 Cal M2 Rifle (.30-06) into a shorter case run at higher pressure in hopes to replace .45 ACP M1 Thompson, .45 ACP grease Gun, M1 Carbine, M1 Garand, BAR, and M1919 with 2 new weapons, the M14 rifle and M60 machine-gun. They seem to have totally ignored the advantages of the Stg44, PPSh-41, and cartridge developments in Europe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@justinbiggs7729 The biggest challenge for thin polymer components are in extreme cold conditions. I’ve had early MIAD grips crumble and crack on me shooting high-volume suppressed in -30˚C conditions in the Arctic, back when they were using a conical screw for the grip. They later worked on the polymer formula and went with a flat faced grip screw to correct that design flaw.
In an extreme cold, dry climate in the mountains, dropping the SCAR on the stock would be a prime mechanism of failure to consider, since polymer relies on a small % of water for its durability.
For a competent military contract, a rifle should be subjected to the arctic testing lab, along with ice, sand, and dust immersion. There are NATO standards for all of this.
If all the SCAR is for a consumer is a cool weapon to own and shoot in temperate conditions on clean ranges, with some minimal field exposure, then they should have no problems with them.
I personally have questions about the durability in extreme cold.
1
-
1
-
You don't want to issue out 7.62 NATO to First Sergeants, Company Commanders, Platoon Leaders, Combat Medics, RTOs, Commo, NBC, Grenadiers, SAW gunners, FOs, AGs, ABs, Weapons Squad Leaders, Javelin Gunners, K-9 Handlers, Drone Operators, Combat Engineers, Mortarmen, etc.
I would argue it's a bad cartridge for anyone in an assault element as well, which is often your lead Squads.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1