98Z5V

Can we get a Mod to move this out of the "308AR Contests" Section?...

That depends - measure the thickness of the tang on the upper, above the charging handle. Some of these were made in true Armalite pattern (barrel nut threading and upper height). Some of these were made in the DPMS pattern (barrel nut and upper height). Quickest way to find out here - what SWS rail did you put on it - what was that SWS rail made for? If you get into measurements, here's where you do it - this is strictly a DPMS-based thing. Armalite never did this shiit... just one height for them...

wash, are you returning the PA 1~8?... I do specifically remember pushing you to try out a PA scope, and telling you that if you didn't like it, I'd buy it from you for your full price - I'll still do that. If it'snot getting returned, and you're stuck with it, I'll do what I said.

It's good to see someone posting their Armalite, when they tell us about their AR-10. It gets old seeing people telling us about their AR-10, and it's something else... Welcome, from half the planet away.

Aliens got his a$s... That post above from "him" is probably a cyborg.

Damn good job, Clay - on the reloading AND the shooting!

16 of these giant things are going on the grill pretty soon... ...and I don't have small hands...

Just so you know, PA doesn't care where you buy their glass from, and it doesn't matter if you're not the original purchaser.

Well, what's the answer to the question, for the AR-10? What's the caliber it was built on? It only started with one... You obviously guessed it right, or you wouldn't be posting now...

Speaking of Ghost Guns... You guys remember my total shiit-show fiasco with my last Ghost Gun, and the psycho-bitch that was attached to that gun. Well, AP re-released the Ghost Gun lowers, and I've got a new one. This is gonna be a bad bastard, once built up. Plans are already going, and parts are on the way.

This assclown is the ".30 caliber clip in a half second" guy, as well - in case anyone forgot about him...

Now, this is the SAME California-elected shitbag that publicly states that HALF HIS FAMILY is in this country illegally. Yes, that's right...

Sheriff Joe called it - even though he is STILL being sued for it. Fuk immigration status. You're here, in this country, you're stopped, and you fit the description of an illegal immigrant. So, I can ASK you about your immigration status. That's the common sense philosophy behind it all... And the shiit works. Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc. Oh, check this shiit out - none other than Californian Kevin "Ghost Gun" DeLeon and federal shitbag Eric Holder have comments in this one... http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/30/crime-drops-in-phoenix-after-city-drops-sanctuary-city-status-former-cops-say.html Crime drops in Phoenix after city drops sanctuary city status, former cops say Published June 30, 2017 At the center of national debate, a question remains unanswered: Are sanctuary cities that protect illegal immigrants safer than non-sanctuary cities? Sanctuary supporters claim they are. "Police chiefs across the nation believe that enlisting local police to enforce immigration law is a bad idea," California Senate President Pro Tem Kevin De Leon, a Democrat, claimed at a news conference last week. "Having [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] pluck criminals out of jail and send them across the border or wherever they came only to come right back endangers our communities.” But is that true? A six-year study published last year by the University of California, Riverside found "violent crime is slightly higher in sanctuary cities." It concluded there was "no statistically discernible difference in violent crime rates, rape, or property crime across" 55 cities studied. And at least one city, Phoenix, saw a drop in crime after it eliminated its sanctuary city status, according to former law enforcement officials. Yet, some 200 cities nationwide adopted sanctuary policies and lawmakers propose to make California a sanctuary state. While the statute is opposed by the statewide county sheriff's association, Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck supports the bill that would prohibit local police from cooperating with ICE requests for information on illegal immigrants in custody. "We do not want to dilute trust because trust is the most important thing in policing," said Chief Beck. "We depend on our communities, particularly our immigrant communities to cooperate with us, not only to keep them safe but to keep all of you safe." Beck and De Leon were joined by former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder. They oppose two bills passed Thursday by the House. One measure – named Kate's law after a young woman who was killed by an illegal immigrant who had been deported five times – stiffens punishment for people who re-enter the US illegally. The other strips some federal dollars from "sanctuary" cities that refuse to cooperate with ICE. In the eyes of Levi Bolton, executive director to the Arizona Police Association, that would be a mistake. In May 2008, Phoenix reversed itself, becoming a non-sanctuary state. Under the policy, police had full discretion to ask suspects about their immigration status and had the freedom to call ICE. "We saw a decrease in crime," said Bolton. "It had a deterrent effect on folks because the risk of discovery went up exponentially when we actually enforced the law." Bolton served with Mark Spencer, who spent 25 years patrolling in Phoenix. "When we eliminated our sanctuary policy back in 2008, we saw crime, violent and stolen vehicles fall by 25 percent," he recalled. "We saw a 20-year low crime rate. When we were allowed and had the discretion to contact our federal immigration partners, crime fell drastically." According to City-Data.com, which collects data from various government agencies, from 2008 to 2009 Phoenix's murder rate fell 27 percent, robberies by 23 percent, assault by 13 percent, burglaries by 14 percent and theft by 19 percent. The numbers for each category fell the following year as well – albeit by smaller margins. The bills in Congress still face stiff opposition in the senate, where Sanctuary supporters claim the "reckless" Trump Administration led to a decrease in sexual assault and domestic violence because those who may report such crimes fear deportation. Under his statewide sanctuary bill, "local police officers will maintain the trust of immigrant communities that has been carefully nurtured,” he claimed, “the trust that is so important to our safety."

The "before and after pics" are both beautiful...

Shiiitttt!!!!!

This is awesome,right here - I'd adjust those sights 1 inch left and 2 inches up, and T-Zone that target head all day long. That's excellent.

Damn bro - you had to drink that much just to get the fukkin' trigger in?...

Shiit, I couldn't see it either...

^^^ This will be a good one. In 5.56, I don't own anything anymore that's not 1:7" or 1:8". In the .308 gas guns, they're all 1:10". In one .308 bolt gun (Kimber), I have 1:12".

Is that a 2016 headstamp? Or is it '15?

Yep, they stepped in it pretty good, too. Twice in a row, one after the other...

ESPECIALLY for those poor Californians! Seriously! Cali gun owners have been getting fucked over for decades...

'Bout time someone stands up to these Kevin DeLeon-lookalike fukwads. Federal judge blocks new California high-capacity magazine ban, but fight looms Published June 30, 2017 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/30/federal-judge-blocks-new-california-high-capacity-magazine-ban-but-fight-looms.html A federal judge in California on Thursday blocked a state law that would have barred gun owners from possessing high-capacity ammunition magazines. San Diego-based U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez ruled that the ban approved by the Legislature and voters last year takes away gun owners' Second Amendment rights and amounts to the government taking people's private property without compensation. "Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of otherwise law-abiding citizens will have an untenable choice: become an outlaw or dispossess one's self of lawfully acquired property," Benitez wrote. California law has prohibited buying or selling the magazines since 2000, but until now allowed those who had them to keep them. He issued a preliminary injunction blocking the law from taking effect while he considers the underlying lawsuit filed by the National Rifle Association-affiliated California Rifle & Pistol Association. “The State of California’s desire to criminalize simple possession of a firearm magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds is precisely the type of policy choice that the Constitution takes off the table,” the injunction read. Meanwhile, a Sacramento-based judge on Thursday rejected a similar challenge by several other gun owners' rights organizations, creating what Ari Freilich, staff attorney at the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, called "dueling opinions" that may be sorted out on appeal. "Unfortunately this law will be delayed but we are confident it will go into effect, and soon," he said. He called the San Diego lawsuit and ruling part of an effort by the NRA "to delay and dismantle California's law brick by brick." Had the ban taken effect, owners would have been required to get rid of their magazines by sending them out of state, altering them to hold no more than 10 bullets, destroying them or turning them into law enforcement agencies. Possession could have been punished by $100 fines or up to a year in jail. Owners can now keep the magazines until a final ruling by Benitez or if an appeals court overturns his injunction, said Chuck Michel, attorney for the NRA and the California Rifle & Pistol Association. "This court recognized that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right and that law-abiding gun owners have the right to own these magazines to defend themselves and their families," Michel said. State lawmakers approved the ban last year as part of a package of bills adding to what already were some of the nation's strictest gun laws. Voters agreed in November when they approved Proposition 63, a measure that toughened the penalties by allowing violators to be fined or jailed. Benitez said he was mindful of voters' approval and government's legitimate interest in protecting the public but added that the "Constitution is a shield from the tyranny of the majority." Gun owner's constitutional rights "are not eliminated simply because they possess `unpopular' magazines holding more than 10 rounds," he wrote in a 66-page decision. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra criticized the decision but did not say what he will do next. "Proposition 63 was overwhelmingly approved by voters to increase public safety and enhance security in a sensible and constitutional way," Becerra said in a statement. "I will defend the will of California voters because we cannot continue to lose innocent lives due to gun violence." Supporters say that magazines often holding 30 or 100 bullets are typically used in mass shootings and aren't needed by hunters or civilian owners. "Clearly it escalates the lethality in any mass shooting when high-capacity magazines are involved," said Amanda Wilcox, a spokeswoman for the California chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence whose daughter was fatally shot. Forcing assailants to change magazines more frequently gives victims time to flee or subdue the shooter, Becerra argued in court filings. Moreover, the government wouldn't own the magazines in the way it would property seized for a new highway or public building, he argued, since the magazines would be destroyed by law enforcement agencies. Becerra said opponents' Second Amendment challenge has repeatedly been rejected by other courts, allowing at least seven other states and 11 local governments to already restrict the possession or sale of large-capacity ammunition magazines.

It appears that they never asked enough of us here to help them with that wild board issue - or they would have been BOOMING!