Anyone here into firearms?

Inspector71 · 11-19-2009, 10:55 AM

Good one. I believe what is illustrative of the mindset of gun prohibitionists is the fact that they so often say "gun violence" and so rarely, if ever say, violence committed by criminals.

vash_241987 · 11-19-2009, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dad

Gun Control

Barack Obama, at a recent rural elementary school assembly in East Texas, asked the audience for total quiet. Then, in the silence, he started to slowly clap his hands once every few seconds, holding the audience in total silence.

Then he said into the microphone, 'Children, every time I clap my hands together, a child in America dies from gun violence.'

Then, little Richard Earl, with a proud East Texas drawl, pierced the quiet and said: ''Well, dumbass, stop clapping!'

+1

love it

Pushing_Tin · 11-12-2009, 02:05 AM

Went to the outdoor range today with my buddy. I shot with the laser and did great from 15+ yards, but not so good closer in. Is there a proper way to aim with a laser? Both eyes open or same as using a sight?

semtex · 11-12-2009, 08:12 AM

Whether you use one eye vs. two is immaterial. Indeed, one of the advantages of laser sights is faster point-of-aim acquisition without having to bring your gun up to the traditional sight level (i.e., you can keep both eyes open if you wish). Having said that, what you're describing makes complete sense. Presumably, one of the first things you did is you adjusted your laser sight so that the laser dot lined up right behind your front sight, like this:

So the white dot represents your front sight, and the red dot is the laser dot behind it.

Well, when you made this adjustment, you did it at a certain range, like 15 yards, for instance. The critical thing you need to understand is that the mounting of your laser sight is offset from your front iron sight. Take my Kimber, for example. The laser aperture is integrated into the right grip, which means the beam sits off to the right of my iron sights. Furthermore, in order for the laser beam to be aligned so that the red dot lands right behind my front sight at any given range, that beam must be set to point slightly left, as shown in this illustration below:

As you can see, those lines aren't perfectly parallel. And because of this, the alignment of the red dot behind the front iron sight will shift as your distance to the target deviates from the distance you calibrated the laser at.

The closer you are to your target (relative to the distance at which you calibrated your laser sight), the more the red dot will drift to the right, relative to your front iron sight. Here's the same graphic, but I've inserted a horizontal line to represent the shorter distance to the target. You can see how the red line of the laser now lands slightly to the right of the black line which represents your iron sight's point of aim.

And as I'm sure you can imagine, if you go the opposite direction and increase your distance to the target relative to your original calibration distance, the red line will actually cross over to the left of the black line, with the red dot of the laser landing to the left of your iron sight's point of aim. Make sense? (Sorry my drawing skills aren't better, but I think this illustrates the concept.)

The moral of this story is that when you calibrate your laser sight, you need to do it at a practical distance that will approximate the distance at which you might need to use your laser in a real-life situation. Most self-defense shootings happen at distances of 10 ft. or less (or something like that). So if you calibrate your laser to line up with your iron sight at, say, 50 yds., that's probably not a good idea. At 10 ft., that red dot is going to land way to the right of where your front iron sight is actually pointing. I have mine calibrated at 30 ft., just because that's usually where I set my target when I go to the range. Close up at 10 ft., my red dot does land to the right, but the deviation is small enough that I'm not worried about it. Let me put it this way, the deviation is large enough that it'd tick me off if I were trying to land bull's eyes on a paper target, but it's too small to make any significant difference if my target is a human torso. This is where trial and error comes into play. You just need to experiment until you find a comfortable distance to calibrate your laser at that meets your range needs as well as your self-defense needs.

speedoflife · 11-12-2009, 07:34 PM

Had one of these till it got stolen out of my vehicle... The one day I decide to put it in my car... Stupid of me. Very fishy circumstances around it's theft... Anyways. I loved it while I had it.

SOFLY00 · 11-12-2009, 07:52 PM

yikess lol

Pushing_Tin · 11-12-2009, 09:26 PM

Semtex, thanks so much for posting that!

dad · 11-13-2009, 01:32 AM

Lots of different shooting information.

FirearmsTactical.com - Web Site Index and Navigation Center

Pushing_Tin · 11-13-2009, 03:57 AM

Semtex, the literature that came with the CTC sights said they are sighted at the factory, and "should" not need adjustment. I meant to bring the little tool just in case but forgot and it was raining at the range so it wasn't a great time to do it anway. The next time I go to the indoor range I'll play with it.

SGTseanzie · 11-13-2009, 05:00 AM

here is what I carry around daily over here

grahfz · 11-14-2009, 12:31 AM

Finished putting together my M1 today. It's all WW2 Springfield parts,excepting the stock, receiver was built Feb 41. Barrel's just shy of perfect at the muzzle.

Bought 800 rounds of surplus greek.

Did really well at the range, even though my vision is terrible past 50yards.
Going to add the m1 scope mount and a nikon bdc.

Inspector71 · 11-16-2009, 12:27 PM

That is a really nice M1. I was thinking about getting an M1 Carbine but lately all I have found in the "affordable" class are shot out specimens (even through CMP). I would love to have an M1 someday.

PapoZalsa · 12-31-2009, 09:48 PM

"This is my weapon, this is my gun!!!

This is to kill and this is for fun!!!"

Full Metal Jacket

dad · 01-03-2010, 05:48 PM

Tracing device triggers backlash from gun industry
Published: Wednesday, Dec. 30, 2009 - 12:00 am

New state laws that take effect in 2010.

California regulators have approved far fewer semi-automatic pistols for sale in the wake of a state law that required new safety devices in 2006 and 2007.
Now, with a new bullet-stamping law scheduled to take effect in 2010, the gun industry predicts it will introduce even fewer new models in California rather than install a device necessary to trace individual casings to a statewide database.
"California will become like Cuba with cars," said Lawrence Keane, senior counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which represents the gun industry. "You will only be able to get very old models of guns."
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill 1471 in 2007 to much fanfare from gun-control advocates and Democratic lawmakers.
Beginning Jan. 1, the law requires that new semi-automatic handguns in California include an innovative firing pin that stamps microscopic characters onto cartridge cases. It was intended to ensure that every bullet casing at a crime scene has a license number on it, traceable to a statewide gun database.
Whether that ever happens, though, depends on a few hurdles, not the least of which is how gun manufacturers respond.
The law is on hold as state officials work out regulations governing how new guns will be approved. In addition, the inventor of the microstamping technology must free up patent restrictions for the law to take effect. That's expected early in 2010.
The law then applies only to new models of semi-automatic pistols approved for sale in California, and those numbers already are falling because of the state's last effort to boost gun safety.
The Department Of Justice's Bureau of Firearms is charged with approving weapons for sale in California each year. From 2002 to 2006, the bureau approved 72 new semi-automatic pistols on average each year.
In 2007, a law took full effect mandating that new center-fire semi-automatic pistols include both a mechanism that prevents firing when the magazine is removed, as well as an indicator showing when a live round is in the gun chamber. Rim-fire semi-automatics must have the magazine disconnect device.
In three years, the Bureau of Firearms has approved only nine new semi-automatic weapons, including only one in 2008.
That hasn't slowed gun purchases in the state; Californians bought 208,312 handguns in 2008, more than in any of the previous seven years, according to the Department of Justice.
But gun enthusiasts in California are frustrated that they have less access to new models sold elsewhere, said Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California.
"What's being sold are guns that really were designed four or five years ago," he said. "Gun Owners are reading all the publications, watching the TV programs with the latest designs and equipment features, and they're fairy tales to Californians."
Joshua Horwitz, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, said manufacturers should comply with new requirements rather than avoid them. He compared the new requirements with safety measures put on other products such as ladders or cars.
"This is a question of whether the industry wants to help with the tracking and safety of guns in California," Horwitz said. "We've known for a long time that these technologies are available. If they choose not to do it, it shows they are just not good corporate actors."
Even if gun makers introduce new pistols that include all of the requisite new features, those models will make up a small fraction of guns used in California.
Still, backers see AB 1471 as a first step toward making the technology an integral part of future guns sold in California and the United States. They hope California's lead will encourage other states and Congress to approve a similar requirement, forcing manufacturers to adopt microstamping in the future.
"It's going to make a major dent over time," said Assemblyman Mike Feuer,D-Los angeles, author of AB 1471. "When the bill was introduced, opponents said it wasn't going to solve all gun crimes because existing guns won't have microstamping. That's true. But it's an important beginning in addressing how we can change gun crime and make law enforcement more effective."
The technology involves placing a unique alphanumeric code on a firing pin or other internal device that leaves an imprint on a bullet casing once fired. AB 1471 requires that guns stamp a mark in two locations.
Dozens of police chiefs, the American Academy of Pediatrics and large cities backed AB 1471. Gun owners, manufacturers and 14 sheriffs opposed it.
Manufacturers say the microstamping technology is unproven and would add hundreds of dollars in new production costs to guns, charges that Feuer and other advocates dispute.
Co-inventor Todd Lizotte, a New Hampshire engineer, said he plans to free his patents from all restrictions in early 2010. He suggested that lawyers for the gun industry are using patent restrictions as a way to block the law.
"Let me put it to you this way. Lawyers are paid to find all possible methods in which this could be encumbered," Lizotte said.
Lizotte, a self-described conservative gun owner, said he created the technology partly to give the military a way of tracking firearms. He also wanted to give law enforcement a tool to defeat criminals whose behavior maligns law-abiding gun owners.
"Ninety-nine percent of us who own firearms don't commit felonies," he said. "It's that small percentage that compromises our Second Amendment rights."
A 2007 University of California, Davis, study tested microstamping techniques and determined the technology was promising but inconsistent. The study found that firing pins wore down at different rates, with alphanumeric codes faring better than bar codes or dot codes. The study estimated that adding alphanumeric codes would cost $7 to $8 per firing pin in the first year.
Manufacturers saw the research as supportive of their position that the technology is not ready for use. Keane said a thorough federal study should occur before implementation.
Lizotte said the UCD study relied on old firing pins that were "nonoptimized" for the weapons in which they were used. He said the results were valid but that he arrived at a different conclusion. He believes that detectives can use multiple casings to get a reasonable lead even if some of the codes are not complete.

---------------------------------------------------
“When all you liberals figure it out that this kind of stuff won't stop crime and you become a victim, don't ask a gun owner to protect you. You are on your own. A 38 in the hand is better security than a 911 operator on the phone. Do you really think this will deter the criminal? Just more restrictions on the law abiding citizen at a higher cost. This is the kind of stuff that has pushed California to the brink of complete melt down.

semtex · 01-04-2010, 06:56 AM

That is such a dumb law. So the criminals switch over to using revolvers so that they don't leave empty shells at the scene, and law-abiding Californians continue to miss out on the latest models. Wow, good job! Well done, CA politicians! Idiots. It also looks like this new law doesn't apply to shotguns(?) One could do a lot of damage with a semi-auto shotgun.

11-19-2009, 10:55 AM	#1 (permalink)
Inspector71 Enthusiast Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Lee's Summit Missouri Posts: 337 Drives: 2015 Pearl White Z Rep Power: 16	For Dad Good one. I believe what is illustrative of the mindset of gun prohibitionists is the fact that they so often say "gun violence" and so rarely, if ever say, violence committed by criminals.

11-12-2009, 08:12 AM	#4 (permalink)
semtex A True Z Fanatic Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Behind enemy lines Age: 54 Posts: 5,995 Drives: People to drink Rep Power: 33	Whether you use one eye vs. two is immaterial. Indeed, one of the advantages of laser sights is faster point-of-aim acquisition without having to bring your gun up to the traditional sight level (i.e., you can keep both eyes open if you wish). Having said that, what you're describing makes complete sense. Presumably, one of the first things you did is you adjusted your laser sight so that the laser dot lined up right behind your front sight, like this: So the white dot represents your front sight, and the red dot is the laser dot behind it. Well, when you made this adjustment, you did it at a certain range, like 15 yards, for instance. The critical thing you need to understand is that the mounting of your laser sight is offset from your front iron sight. Take my Kimber, for example. The laser aperture is integrated into the right grip, which means the beam sits off to the right of my iron sights. Furthermore, in order for the laser beam to be aligned so that the red dot lands right behind my front sight at any given range, that beam must be set to point slightly left, as shown in this illustration below: As you can see, those lines aren't perfectly parallel. And because of this, the alignment of the red dot behind the front iron sight will shift as your distance to the target deviates from the distance you calibrated the laser at. The closer you are to your target (relative to the distance at which you calibrated your laser sight), the more the red dot will drift to the right, relative to your front iron sight. Here's the same graphic, but I've inserted a horizontal line to represent the shorter distance to the target. You can see how the red line of the laser now lands slightly to the right of the black line which represents your iron sight's point of aim. And as I'm sure you can imagine, if you go the opposite direction and increase your distance to the target relative to your original calibration distance, the red line will actually cross over to the left of the black line, with the red dot of the laser landing to the left of your iron sight's point of aim. Make sense? (Sorry my drawing skills aren't better, but I think this illustrates the concept.) The moral of this story is that when you calibrate your laser sight, you need to do it at a practical distance that will approximate the distance at which you might need to use your laser in a real-life situation. Most self-defense shootings happen at distances of 10 ft. or less (or something like that). So if you calibrate your laser to line up with your iron sight at, say, 50 yds., that's probably not a good idea. At 10 ft., that red dot is going to land way to the right of where your front iron sight is actually pointing. I have mine calibrated at 30 ft., just because that's usually where I set my target when I go to the range. Close up at 10 ft., my red dot does land to the right, but the deviation is small enough that I'm not worried about it. Let me put it this way, the deviation is large enough that it'd tick me off if I were trying to land bull's eyes on a paper target, but it's too small to make any significant difference if my target is a human torso. This is where trial and error comes into play. You just need to experiment until you find a comfortable distance to calibrate your laser at that meets your range needs as well as your self-defense needs. __________________ "There are no small accidents on this circuit." -- Ayrton Senna 316.8whp & 248 ft/lbs (Dyno Dynamics) \| 319whp & 256 ft/lbs (DynoJet) (04/23/10) Stillen G3 CAI, CBE, Pulley / F.I. LTH / GTSpec Ladder Brace / Setrab Oil Cooler / UpRev-tuned by Forged Perf. Last edited by semtex; 11-12-2009 at 08:18 AM.

11-13-2009, 01:32 AM	#8 (permalink)
dad Grand Prix of Endurance Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Tennessee Posts: 3,476 Drives: Mulsanne Straight Rep Power: 26	Lots of different shooting information. FirearmsTactical.com - Web Site Index and Navigation Center __________________ We can do without any article of luxury we have never had; but once obtained, it is not in human nature to surrender it voluntary.

11-13-2009, 05:00 AM	#10 (permalink)
SGTseanzie Base Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Baton Rouge Posts: 176 Drives: Nada Rep Power: 17	here is what I carry around daily over here __________________ --"If you want peace, prepare for war." -Flavius Vegetius Renatus

11-16-2009, 12:27 PM	#12 (permalink)
Inspector71 Enthusiast Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Lee's Summit Missouri Posts: 337 Drives: 2015 Pearl White Z Rep Power: 16	Very Nice That is a really nice M1. I was thinking about getting an M1 Carbine but lately all I have found in the "affordable" class are shot out specimens (even through CMP). I would love to have an M1 someday.

11-12-2009, 02:05 AM	#3 (permalink)
Pushing_Tin A True Z Fanatic Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Eugene, OR Posts: 2,875 Drives: E63 AMG Rep Power: 228	Went to the outdoor range today with my buddy. I shot with the laser and did great from 15+ yards, but not so good closer in. Is there a proper way to aim with a laser? Both eyes open or same as using a sight?

11-12-2009, 07:34 PM	#5 (permalink)
speedoflife Enthusiast Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: MS/TX Posts: 268 Drives: '06 Pontiac G.P. Rep Power: 16	Had one of these till it got stolen out of my vehicle... The one day I decide to put it in my car... Stupid of me. Very fishy circumstances around it's theft... Anyways. I loved it while I had it.

11-12-2009, 07:52 PM	#6 (permalink)
SOFLY00 Banned Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: NY Posts: 148 Drives: g35 6mt Rep Power: 0	yikess lol

11-12-2009, 09:26 PM	#7 (permalink)
Pushing_Tin A True Z Fanatic Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Eugene, OR Posts: 2,875 Drives: E63 AMG Rep Power: 228	Semtex, thanks so much for posting that!

11-13-2009, 03:57 AM	#9 (permalink)
Pushing_Tin A True Z Fanatic Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Eugene, OR Posts: 2,875 Drives: E63 AMG Rep Power: 228	Semtex, the literature that came with the CTC sights said they are sighted at the factory, and "should" not need adjustment. I meant to bring the little tool just in case but forgot and it was raining at the range so it wasn't a great time to do it anway. The next time I go to the indoor range I'll play with it.

11-14-2009, 12:31 AM	#11 (permalink)
grahfz Base Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: atlanta Posts: 93 Drives: Touring/6/nav/sport Rep Power: 17	Finished putting together my M1 today. It's all WW2 Springfield parts,excepting the stock, receiver was built Feb 41. Barrel's just shy of perfect at the muzzle. Bought 800 rounds of surplus greek. Did really well at the range, even though my vision is terrible past 50yards. Going to add the m1 scope mount and a nikon bdc.

12-31-2009, 09:48 PM	#13 (permalink)
PapoZalsa A True Z Fanatic Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Not in Sunny Florida Posts: 6,358 Drives: 16 Nismo w/Tech Pack Rep Power: 4500	"This is my weapon, this is my gun!!! This is to kill and this is for fun!!!" Full Metal Jacket __________________ 2009 370Z MB Base w/Sport Package 6MT Modshack's Custom Air Intakes /3M Clear Bra/ Illuminated Kick Plates / F. I CBE w/12" resonators / EVO-R Front Lip / Rear Hatch Wing / Tein S-Tech Springs /Ilegal Tint in the Rep. of VA/4x20mm Z1 Spacers/ Vinyl Roof/Liquid Carbon Designs

01-03-2010, 05:48 PM	#14 (permalink)
dad Grand Prix of Endurance Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Tennessee Posts: 3,476 Drives: Mulsanne Straight Rep Power: 26	Tracing device triggers backlash from gun industry Tracing device triggers backlash from gun industry Published: Wednesday, Dec. 30, 2009 - 12:00 am New state laws that take effect in 2010. California regulators have approved far fewer semi-automatic pistols for sale in the wake of a state law that required new safety devices in 2006 and 2007. Now, with a new bullet-stamping law scheduled to take effect in 2010, the gun industry predicts it will introduce even fewer new models in California rather than install a device necessary to trace individual casings to a statewide database. "California will become like Cuba with cars," said Lawrence Keane, senior counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which represents the gun industry. "You will only be able to get very old models of guns." Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill 1471 in 2007 to much fanfare from gun-control advocates and Democratic lawmakers. Beginning Jan. 1, the law requires that new semi-automatic handguns in California include an innovative firing pin that stamps microscopic characters onto cartridge cases. It was intended to ensure that every bullet casing at a crime scene has a license number on it, traceable to a statewide gun database. Whether that ever happens, though, depends on a few hurdles, not the least of which is how gun manufacturers respond. The law is on hold as state officials work out regulations governing how new guns will be approved. In addition, the inventor of the microstamping technology must free up patent restrictions for the law to take effect. That's expected early in 2010. The law then applies only to new models of semi-automatic pistols approved for sale in California, and those numbers already are falling because of the state's last effort to boost gun safety. The Department Of Justice's Bureau of Firearms is charged with approving weapons for sale in California each year. From 2002 to 2006, the bureau approved 72 new semi-automatic pistols on average each year. In 2007, a law took full effect mandating that new center-fire semi-automatic pistols include both a mechanism that prevents firing when the magazine is removed, as well as an indicator showing when a live round is in the gun chamber. Rim-fire semi-automatics must have the magazine disconnect device. In three years, the Bureau of Firearms has approved only nine new semi-automatic weapons, including only one in 2008. That hasn't slowed gun purchases in the state; Californians bought 208,312 handguns in 2008, more than in any of the previous seven years, according to the Department of Justice. But gun enthusiasts in California are frustrated that they have less access to new models sold elsewhere, said Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California. "What's being sold are guns that really were designed four or five years ago," he said. "Gun Owners are reading all the publications, watching the TV programs with the latest designs and equipment features, and they're fairy tales to Californians." Joshua Horwitz, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, said manufacturers should comply with new requirements rather than avoid them. He compared the new requirements with safety measures put on other products such as ladders or cars. "This is a question of whether the industry wants to help with the tracking and safety of guns in California," Horwitz said. "We've known for a long time that these technologies are available. If they choose not to do it, it shows they are just not good corporate actors." Even if gun makers introduce new pistols that include all of the requisite new features, those models will make up a small fraction of guns used in California. Still, backers see AB 1471 as a first step toward making the technology an integral part of future guns sold in California and the United States. They hope California's lead will encourage other states and Congress to approve a similar requirement, forcing manufacturers to adopt microstamping in the future. "It's going to make a major dent over time," said Assemblyman Mike Feuer,D-Los angeles, author of AB 1471. "When the bill was introduced, opponents said it wasn't going to solve all gun crimes because existing guns won't have microstamping. That's true. But it's an important beginning in addressing how we can change gun crime and make law enforcement more effective." The technology involves placing a unique alphanumeric code on a firing pin or other internal device that leaves an imprint on a bullet casing once fired. AB 1471 requires that guns stamp a mark in two locations. Dozens of police chiefs, the American Academy of Pediatrics and large cities backed AB 1471. Gun owners, manufacturers and 14 sheriffs opposed it. Manufacturers say the microstamping technology is unproven and would add hundreds of dollars in new production costs to guns, charges that Feuer and other advocates dispute. Co-inventor Todd Lizotte, a New Hampshire engineer, said he plans to free his patents from all restrictions in early 2010. He suggested that lawyers for the gun industry are using patent restrictions as a way to block the law. "Let me put it to you this way. Lawyers are paid to find all possible methods in which this could be encumbered," Lizotte said. Lizotte, a self-described conservative gun owner, said he created the technology partly to give the military a way of tracking firearms. He also wanted to give law enforcement a tool to defeat criminals whose behavior maligns law-abiding gun owners. "Ninety-nine percent of us who own firearms don't commit felonies," he said. "It's that small percentage that compromises our Second Amendment rights." A 2007 University of California, Davis, study tested microstamping techniques and determined the technology was promising but inconsistent. The study found that firing pins wore down at different rates, with alphanumeric codes faring better than bar codes or dot codes. The study estimated that adding alphanumeric codes would cost $7 to $8 per firing pin in the first year. Manufacturers saw the research as supportive of their position that the technology is not ready for use. Keane said a thorough federal study should occur before implementation. Lizotte said the UCD study relied on old firing pins that were "nonoptimized" for the weapons in which they were used. He said the results were valid but that he arrived at a different conclusion. He believes that detectives can use multiple casings to get a reasonable lead even if some of the codes are not complete. --------------------------------------------------- “When all you liberals figure it out that this kind of stuff won't stop crime and you become a victim, don't ask a gun owner to protect you. You are on your own. A 38 in the hand is better security than a 911 operator on the phone. Do you really think this will deter the criminal? Just more restrictions on the law abiding citizen at a higher cost. This is the kind of stuff that has pushed California to the brink of complete melt down. Last edited by dad; 01-03-2010 at 05:54 PM.

01-04-2010, 06:56 AM	#15 (permalink)
semtex A True Z Fanatic Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Behind enemy lines Age: 54 Posts: 5,995 Drives: People to drink Rep Power: 33	That is such a dumb law. So the criminals switch over to using revolvers so that they don't leave empty shells at the scene, and law-abiding Californians continue to miss out on the latest models. Wow, good job! Well done, CA politicians! Idiots. It also looks like this new law doesn't apply to shotguns(?) One could do a lot of damage with a semi-auto shotgun. __________________ "There are no small accidents on this circuit." -- Ayrton Senna 316.8whp & 248 ft/lbs (Dyno Dynamics) \| 319whp & 256 ft/lbs (DynoJet) (04/23/10) Stillen G3 CAI, CBE, Pulley / F.I. LTH / GTSpec Ladder Brace / Setrab Oil Cooler / UpRev-tuned by Forged Perf.