Let's settle it once for all...MAUSER vs. MOSIN NAGANT

Discussion in 'Curio & Relics Forum' started by polishshooter, Aug 12, 2007.

?

Mauser or Mosin Nagant-YOU are serving on the Eastern Front and must CHOOSE!;)

  1. KAR 98 Mauser

    21 vote(s)
    50.0%
  2. Mosin Nagant M91/30

    21 vote(s)
    50.0%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. polishshooter

    polishshooter Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,082
    Location:
    Indiana
    OK, let's choose, all BS aside....

    You are serving on the Eastern Front in WWII, doesn't matter WHICH side, German or Russian.....

    You only have TWO choices for your personal weapon, a K98 Mauser, or a Mosin Nagant 91/30.....(If you envision yourself as a GERMAN soldier, assume many Mosins in good shape were CAPTURED so you could use it, as well as vice versa)(and YES many German soldiers DID choose to use captured Mosins:cool:) )

    CHOOSE!:p
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2007
  2. The Mauser beyond doubt, Polish. Of course, you already knew that's what I would choose. ;) :D :p
  3. polishshooter

    polishshooter Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,082
    Location:
    Indiana
    Here is my take...

    I have read MANY Russian accounts of the Germans using captured Mosin Nagants whenever they had the choice, due to the fact they were more reliable, and more accurate than their Mausers, but pretty much always assumed it was just politburo propaganda....

    ...even though I BELIEVED it...It IS a fact that unmodified Mosins are inherently accurate, and unmodified Mausers are well, so so at best, (except for the U.S.Springfields, but then they aren't REALLY Mausers....) And the simpler design of the Mosin, ESPECIALLY the bolt and feed system would be more reliable in the COLD of a Russian Winter...OR more importantly the mud of the spring/fall raputista....


    UNTIL I flipped through the pages of a book at a Borders in the "bargain book" History section...."Letters from the Eastern Front." A book of unpublished letters and diaries from common GERMAN soldiers serving on the Eastern Front...(I didn't buy it, but next time I'm there I just might....)

    I found one diary entry on it....and the soldier claimed that not only was the "Russian Rifle" better than the Mauser, but that many German soldiers carried captured "Russian Rifles" instead of Mausers!


    His main reason he cited made sense, that due to supply issues sometimes it was EASIER for them to find ammo for them than 8mm Mauser, but he ALSO said the Mosin was "more accurate than the Mauser, and was much more reliable in the poor weather conditions of Russia...."

    There it is....

    The Mauser IS a great SPORTING action, with modifications, including a heavier barrel, and I do NOT question that that more complicated rotary internal magazine makes for a sexier looking, and easier carrying SPORTER than the simpler Nagant feed system...

    But the Nagant system is EASIER to clean, EASIER to maintain, and thus more RELIABLE in the mud and snow...


    Throw in the MUCH simpler Mosin bolt, and trigger mechanism (what FOUR whole parts, INCLUDING the trigger pin and bolt stop/Sear screw?;) ) the INGENIOUS yet simple ejector/interrupter that allows FLAWLESS feed of a RIMMED cartridge that is inherently stronger and virtually impervious to ANY headspace issues, but especially those caused by "throat erosion" in normal use that any rimless cartridge is dependent upon.....


    Plus even PS will admit, his "typical" Mosin outshoots his Mausers...I have shot a BUNCH of Mausers in my life, from many different manufacturers and countries of origin....and was unimpressed. But I HAVE fired 30 or so Mosin Nagants, in sometimes RATTY conditions, and they were ALL accurate, some better than others, but an "inaccurate" Mosin shoots, in my experience, as well as an "accurate" military Mauser!


    Case closed, for me at least....;) :p
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2007
  4. polishshooter

    polishshooter Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,082
    Location:
    Indiana
    And yes, Pistol, as befitting the contemporary mouthpiece for Herr Goebel's propaganda ministry, at least in regards to "German superiority" in all things when it comes to weapons design, I would have expected no less from you, facts and truths notwithstanding....:D :D :D :D
  5. No, that is not quite true, Polish. In fact, generally speaking, the Mausers are more accurate than the Mosins, at least the ones in my own collection. It is certainly true that a good Mosin 91/30 shoots very accurately, and I have a couple of those. But that is not so true of the 38s and 44s. Assuming equal wear and tear, I would put a Mauser 98k up against a 91/30 any day in terms of accuracy. I won't argue with you about design simply because history shows that the Mosins were indeed excellent battlefield instruments, simple, easy to repair, and fairly "soldier proof." But then, so were the Mausers. The problem with the Mosins, as I see it, was largely QC. Russian manufacturing techniques were simply not as precise as the German, and this often resulted in rifles that were only "so so" in accuracy, and ones in which the parts often fit rather sloppily. For a battlefield rifle intended to arm cannon fodder, that's not terribly important.
  6. polishshooter

    polishshooter Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,082
    Location:
    Indiana

    HOGWASH!:p

    Russian wartime manufacturing was SUPERIOR to German wartime manufacturing, across the BOARD!

    EVERY German design, from aircraft (Stuka anyone?) to tanks, to engines to transmissions to firearms were TOO complicated, TOO brittle, required TOO much maintenance, TOO much resources to produce from a wartime economy, and simply didn't stand up to the RIGORS of ACTUAL combat! ANd that is NOT considering the mud and cold of the Russian, OR the Western European theaters when facing anyone better equipped or led than the 1939 era French or Polish, or the ill equipped, untrained, unprepared Soviet conscripts on the border in 1941!


    For example, just take the German Maybach transmission! At a time T-34A-B-Cs were running CIRCLES around any German tank, (it IS amazing they had the "C" model in PRODUCTION before the United States figured out how to cast a TURRET RING that could handle anything bigger than a 37mm!) the Germans never got one of THEM to work reliably with anything larger or heavier than an EARLY Panzer MK IV! Basically a light TRUCK transmission at best! And never REPLACED it with anything better the entire WAR while T-34s got HEAVIER. along WITH the KV and JS series that managed to work TOO!

    Interleaved road wheels anyone? THAT was a good way to handle ground pressure, as long as there is no MUD that FREEZES!:p

    The RUSSIANS never had to keep fires burning under THEIR tanks all night long just to insure they would be able to MOVE in the morning....


    NO that is another "myth" of WWII...Russian technology AND manufacturing was NOT deficient, in WWII...at least when compared to GERMANY.


    I can't give you that PS...especially when you consider the "last ditch" German 98 Mausers (and Arisakas, another Mauser derivative,) that were pretty much crap just to save manufacturing time and materials, but when the RUSSIANS began taking "shortcuts" to ease production and save time in mid-1942 with their Mosin Nagants, they actually made them STRONGER and MORE accurate and reliable...

    I know you German lovers get nauseated when you have to contemplate all the German shortcomings, but face it, the Mosin Nagant was superior to ANY Mauser....and you don't have to get too far from all the "Conventional Wisdom" texts that generally just quote EACH OTHER to find the TRUTH...

    WHY did the greatest sniper in History go BACK to his Mosin Nagant after trying the presentation Swedish Mauser with the Swarovski scope? Accuracy, hitting power, and reliability....


    WHY weren't the "highly trained" German snipers effective at Stalingrad? While CONSCRIPTED snayperskayas with Mosin Nagants WERE???


    EQUIPMENT. Pure and simple. Rifles, mounts AND scopes....that WORKED under BATTLEFIELD conditions, not just in Goering's hunting preserves or on a "blitzkrieg" that NOBODY knew how to counter, much less were prepared to counter, at the TIME....


    The MAUSER, like so many other German weapon designs, was a FAILURE where it counted...in BATTLE, against any opponent NOT inept....
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2007
  7. In terms of quantity, that is true, Polish. But then, Russian industry was safely east of the Urals where the Germans couldn't bomb hell out of it as the Allies were doing to Germany. In terms of quality, however, your statement is nonsense, except perhaps during the waning months of the war when Germany had virtually run out of raw materials.

    They were effective, Polish, just as the Russian snipers were. Stalingrad during the "Rattenkrieg" was a veritable sniper's paradise. Indeed, there is not inconsiderable reason to believe that the most famous of all sniper duels that occurred there--the alleged Vasili/Konig matchup--never really happened, at least not the way it was portrayed in Russian propaganda (remember, "Pravda" means "truth" ;) ) ALL the accounts of that dust up that we now have, Polish, come from RUSSIAN sources, not German. Did the Russian Propaganda Ministry tell Vasili that a super-sniper was sent to kill him? Yes, there is evidence of that. If Vasili had killed a sniper who had the rank of Major, it seems certain, however, that he would have known and mentioned it. He never did, not in his shooting diary nor after the war. Would the Germans send someone that prestigious, who was a high-ranking officer and Commandant of one of their sniper schools to Stalingrad? That I seriously doubt. Would they have sent a top enlisted sniper to hunt down and kill Vasili? Yes, more probably. In any case, Vasili believed in his own mind that he had killed the super-sniper that he was told was sent to kill him. Without documentation from Germany--which we do not have--we will never know for sure if there ever was a Major Konig, or that an expert sniper was sent specifically to kill Vasili.
  8. k98k792

    k98k792 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    42
    Location:
    Third stone from the sun
    I have several of each. The Mausers are more accurate. Are there any Mosin clones in active service? We all know there are Mauser clones deployed. In general people don't copy inferior designs. Of course my screen name was a tipoff on my vote.
  9. polishshooter

    polishshooter Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,082
    Location:
    Indiana
    No K98, you got me there, no Mosin Nagant CLONES in active service anywhere that I know of, just the REAL THINGS...:cool: :p :D

    And I know, being prejudiced for or against something is a wonderful thing, ;) but try a "real world" test...like say, leave one of each outside this fall for a couple of days in the mud, and let it get buried in the snow while you are at it....

    And THEN shoot it and tell me which one was more accurate....heck, which one of them even WORKED...;)

    Now just MAYBE a Polish Radom made Mauser would work, but not any of the others...:p

    Seriously, the ONLY true claim to fame Paul von Mauser may have had was the CARTRIDGES, of which either the 7x57 and the 8x57 are the sires or at least the anscestors that virtually ALL rimless military cartridges, especially the .30-06 and all of IT'S derivatives like the .308. .300 Win Mag, et al. are traced back to....

    And I will give you that the basic Mauser action IS the best one ever built to handle RIMLESS cartridges. But Rimless cartridges are ONLY truly advantageous (not ABSOLUTELY necessary though...) for easier design of reliable Semi and fully automatic weapons.

    As such, all SPORTING use of rimless rounds then make the Mauser the action of choice...


    But for STRENGTH of the CASE, plus maintaining headspace no matter how much use, and the argument that RIMMED cartridges are inherently more ACCURATE than rimless...(an argument I have HEARD, but not necessarily believed..., even IF the 7.62x54 is known the world over for it's inherent accuracy....)

    Finally, the 7.62x54R is STILL being loaded for military use, still an issue sniper round, in Mosin Nagants, as well as the "Designated marksman" round in Dragunovs, as well as the issue MMG round in some first rate armies (Russia, China, Poland, and MANY others....) while the 8mm Mauser round is really on the military scrap heap...


    The old adage remains:


    You want a HUNTING rifle pick a Mauser...

    You want a TARGET rifle pick a Springfield...

    You want a BATTLE rifle, pick an Enfield (OR a Mosin....;) )
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2007
  10. Hmmm, OK, let us then apply the same logic in reverse . . . Comrade Polish. Let's see, you already have a Mosin 95 revolver, so at least you won't need that to qualify for the NKVD or KGB. Say, whatever did happen to those 90,000 German POWs captured at Stalingrad? Are they still counting trees in Siberia, or building Mosins in the Urals? :D ;) :p
  11. k98k792

    k98k792 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    42
    Location:
    Third stone from the sun
    This is one of those threads that are like 9mm vs 45 ACP,or Colt vs S&W.

    Wow! When the word gets out on those Mosins though ,I guess everyone will be trading in those Mauser based weapons! I will get great prices on them! Thanks for the heads up! :rolleyes:

    I can not wait for a .338 Lapua in a MN action. Where are my shooting glasses?

    In have hunted with both weapons in snow and freezing rain and in subzero temps. Guess what,they both worked! The hard part was safeing the MN with frozen fingers. I know the best safety is between your ears of course. But I do have hands on experience with both weapon types in severe conditions. I had winterized both weapons also. I love to hunt with my milsurps!

    The MN is a evolutionary dead end. Mauser based weapons will be with us for decades after the MN is a footnote.

    When I compare one my 43 MNs to say one of my BYF44s. The MN looks like it was made with a file in a basement. The action is much smoother on ALL my war made Mausers then my war made MNs. The BYFs are also more accurate

    I do like the 7.62x 54 round,but I prefer to shoot it out of my Romy PSL. I finally found a surplus round (Hungarian light ball) to give the accuracy I get out of my Yugo M76 using 8MM ww 2 German ball. Both sub MOA.

    The Yugo rifle is still offered for export from Zastava. I am looking forward to them exporting the dedicated 8mm sniper ball for it. This AK based weapon and ammo has recorded kills at over 1600 yards on the southern Serbian border. " Dude! You got killed with a round from a scrapheap!"

    Now the Finn m39s are Very accurate rifles,but not with any issue ammo I have ever used.
    As to Sama Hayha, Tuco of MN Net interviewed him.

    Quote"There were a number of interesting facts that we passed on to the group in a short question and answer period. Mr. Häyhä stated that he used the Mosin Nagant M28 rifle as his "sniping" rifle. This was indeed a standard issue rifle with iron sights, which is somewhat amazing as many of his targets were engaged at 400 yards or more. He had been given a Swedish Mauser equipped with a scope but he preferred the M28 to the scoped rifle . (Note: It has been reported that the Swede Mauser was given to Mr. Häyhä in February of 1940. I did not have time to confirm this but will try and find out if this is true in May 2001 when I return to Finland.) Simo Häyhä told us there were many reasons he liked the M28 over the scoped Mauser. One was that the M28 was more suited to his size of 160cm. He also stated that the scoped rifle forced him to raise his head a bit more than he liked, and this added profile might have given a Red Army sharpshooter too good of a target. He also made the point that he had always used iron sights and was used to them. Lastly iron sights were not prone to breakage or fogging which was a real worry in the snow and ice of Finland during the Winter War. "

    I have shot every variety of 7.62 x 54r that has been on the surplus market for the past 20 years, including the 7n1 sniper ammo which is manufactured to 50 per cent tighter tolerances. Though this particular round is for a semi-auto drag.( Still have a case stashed)

    None of my 91/30s, M44s, or M38s have ever come close to the accuracy demonstrated by my Mausers. Especially my Steyr made 1940 660. That rifle shoots sub MOA with 1940 FN AP all day long.

    The old military round that is most known for it's accuracy is of course not the 7.62x54r,but the 6.5X55 Swede,a round fired by a Mauser. Rimless of course.

    If the old Soviet block had been as progresive as the west the 7.62 x 54 round would have been gone a long time ago. Look how long they clung to the Makarov,and how long it took them to integrate the AK- 74 into service ( they never did finish).They will probably never integrate the ANS-94 .

    The round that is the current long range accuracy holder is the .408 Chey-Tac, NOT a rimmed round

    So all I can say is I am from Missouri and you will have to show me,because my experience tells me different.

    Fun debating this with you polishshooter ! :)

    I mostly agree with the old addage you posted. ;)

    Also we have got off the premise of this thread.

    The addage I really like is "I am the weapon,the rifle is my tool"

    Also I am surprised some Enfield guy hasn't chimed in yet!
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2007
  12. polishshooter

    polishshooter Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,082
    Location:
    Indiana
    Ah K98 I love it too!

    And I am prejudiced too, not even necessarily against Mausers per se, just against the "German Superiority" myth...:p

    You DO have to admit though, that it is only RECENTLY with the fall of the Soviet Union, that Mosin Nagants have been given their due at ALL. Ever since at LEAST the Revolution, information on them has been SCARCE in the West, and it was common for "experts" to claim they were inaccurate junk. (All the while even misspelling it!;) ) How little we knew.

    Mausers on the other hand WERE captured en masse after WWI and came to America in time to stir up interest in Bolt action guns as hunting rifles. Until then we had NO interest in them, the lever was the traditional American hunting rifle.


    I cannot help but think, if there WAS a demand HERE, JMB would have designed a Bolt Action better than Paul Vons in the late 1800s himself...


    But the MAIN reason Mosins bring so little compared to MAUSERS now, is simple to explain. Just REVERSE them. Let's say the GERMANS used the Mosin, and it WAS more complicated to build than the Mauser. So that meant since 1918 A million or so were brought into the United States. ALL American shooters AND collectors were familiar with all the markings, arsenals, capabilities, and started building sporter actions on them.

    All the while this ultra secretive Communist police state nobody knows much about is using this strange "Mauser" rifle, that people haven't seen very many examples of, even though Remington and Westinghouse WERE contracted to make them, and THEY were pretty good, and all the "captures" from WWI are getting scarfed up by Finland, it is pretty rare here.

    Then suddenly the Police State falls, is hurting for cash, and we find out they had rearsenaled over 10 MILLION Mausers and stored them in salt mines! And DUMPED them on the world market over just a 5 or 10 year period!

    Which do you think in THAT scenario would be "worth" more, due to simple "supply and demand," and not necessarily the relative capability of the rifle?


    'Clung to the Makarov?" :confused: The Makarov is equal to or superior to any other contempory European defense pistol that was in voque at the time..accurate, dependable, simpler and more powerful than the standard .32acp used by Police and Military in the rest of Europe at the time...I guess I don't get THAT reference, it's a good gun. Still is in fact. Maybe too small of a round for military use, but ALL European Forces issueded .32 acps or the equivalent for that purpose EXCEPT the Germans, but they used a lot of them is ALMOST as powerful as a true 9x19, more powerful than the 9x17 Kurz, not even considering the larger diameter bullet.



    THe Makarov is a GREAT weapon. Now "clung to the Nagant REVOLVER" I would give you!:p

    But the point on battle rifles still comes back to...simplicity, in use and manufacture. And the Mauser had neither. It WAS more complicated than a lot of it's contemporaries, and cost more to build.

    But finally, it NEVER "won" a war, while Mosins, Enfields, and Springfields did.

    The Swedish Mauser? Just like the Swiss Scmidt Rubins, and other such designs, we will never know if they truly ARE "Battle Rifles," since they were never IN a real battle!


    And since all 6.5mm cartridges were technical failures in battle rifles at the time, mainly due to lack of power in LMGs, especially against vehicles and aircraft, so ALWAYS meant the military that adopts it needs now TWO service rounds, it would have failed just as the 6.5 Japanese, the 6.5 Carcano, and the 6.5 Dutch.

    At the time of the famous Swedish propaganda photo of the "hedgehog" meant to dissuade German aggression, the Swedes had a glorious total of 3 antiaircraft rounds PER GUN in their inventory. They did not need, nor could they have AFFORDED, to produce and supply two small arms rounds at the same time.
  13. LDBennett

    LDBennett Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    6,519
    Location:
    Hesperia, CA
    Between my son-in-law (who collects Mausers and other military weapons including Moisin Nagants) and me, we have many of each. Assuming the guns are in equal condition (bore excellent and the gun not abused) the Mauser are more accurate.

    How do we know? We regularly shoot at our club range where we never put up paper as there are metal targets at nearly every 100 yd interval all the way beyond 500 yds. We take modern guns, military guns, pistols and everything imaginable to that range so we get a pretty good idea of what guns are accurate enough for the longer range metal targets. We have shot several different military guns, modern guns with scopes, lever guns, pump guns. You name it we have shot at those targets.

    The Mausers are more accurate than the Mosin Nagant. The most accurate military style rifles we have for the long range targets with open sights are the Swiss K31's with their "match" surplus ammo. But the Mausers are more accurate than the Mosin Nagants we have. I would also add the Mauser are much more robustly made ... more durable .... and simpler. As for German stuff being too complicated .... that certainly does not apply when you compare a Mosin Nagant to a Mauser K98!

    LDBennett
  14. I've had the same experience myself, LDB. My Mausers are definitely more accurate than the my Mosins, and I have several of each. I've compared, side by side at the range, the best Mosin I have (a 91/30 Mosin in almost pristine condition v. an M48 Mauser that easily rates NRA Excellent) and the Mauser wins hands down. I agree on the K31s. Those rifles are amazing!
  15. k98k792

    k98k792 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    42
    Location:
    Third stone from the sun
    Please do not think I am basing the usefulness of the weapons under discussion here on the current market value.
    I got my first 91/30 in the early 90s Took me years just to find a bayonet for it. Won't say what I paid.

    I have a couple of Maks,a Russian and a Bulgy. Great, tough little pistols.
    But they are from the era of pistols as a badge of rank, rather then a modern combat side arm. Heel mag release,8 round capacity,and the 9x18 round. They are simply out classed today. And have been for 40 years.
    Hidebound thinking kept them in the Soviet inventory. They are now being replace by the Grach a high capacity 9x19.

    Springfield 03s were on the winning side in WW1.

    O3A3s were substitute standards in WW2, my father carried one.(It worked well enough to get him through the Battle of the Bulge,when his unit was overrun.)
    So did the Free French units.

    Closes enough copies that Uncle Sam had to pay royalties for it.

    Swedish Mauser's were extensively used by Swedish volunteers in the Russo-Finnish War. Where the round ,the rifles and volunteers performed very well. Quite a real battle.


    The 6.5 Jap certainly did the trick in China,worked well enough to remove us from the Philippines.
    Of course the Japanese had begun to change over to the 7.7 something they never fully accomplished.

    I have a couple of 7.7 type 99s. They are essentially Mauser clones,and the strongest actions used in WW2. One over the most unjustly underrated rifles in history

    It is interesting that the new 6.8 spec round is very similar in performance to the the 6.5 jap round that Federov used when he built the worlds first true assault rifle. The thinking on weapons caliber seems to be coming full circle.

    Lastly I would say JMB knew when things did not need to be improved!:)
  16. bunnyhunter12

    bunnyhunter12 New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2007
    Messages:
    1,090
    Location:
    Newfoundland, Canada
    I'm staying out of this one man. They know the Enfield is best, they're just arguing over what rifle fits in second place. :p :D
  17. LDBennett

    LDBennett Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    6,519
    Location:
    Hesperia, CA
    "Also I am surprised some Enfield guy hasn't chimed in yet!"

    I don't own one (Enfield) because they are just plain ugly! Maybe they shoot better than an Olympic rifle of any brand or make but they are still ugly! For every beautiful thing the Brits make (like a Jag or a Triumph motorcycle) they make an ugly thing (like a Royal Enfield or their funny little Brit only small cars). Guns have to be good looking for me to buy one and the Enfields most certainly don't make it for me. You may have a different opinion but that's mine. You most certainly don't have to agree!

    LDBennett
  18. bunnyhunter12

    bunnyhunter12 New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2007
    Messages:
    1,090
    Location:
    Newfoundland, Canada
    All depends on perspective LDB, to me the Enfield looks like a rifle should and everything else just looks different, weird or ugly. All depends on your early experience with rifles. I grew up around Enfields so it's what I'm used to. Mausers look too fragile and I don't like the "hump-back or Notre Dame" comb on the Mosin. These views are baseless but I can't seem to shake them, even though I know the Mauser is not fragile and the Mosin stock is comfortable to shoot. To my eye, they don't look "right", like an Enfield.

    Again, all a matter or perspective.
  19. But Bunny, the problem with those Enfields was that they always stopped working at 4:00. Tea time, you know. :D ;) :p
  20. bunnyhunter12

    bunnyhunter12 New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2007
    Messages:
    1,090
    Location:
    Newfoundland, Canada
    Yeah but so do I. We make a great pair. Kind of like beauty and the beast. I'll let you guess who's who.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
Curio & Relics Forum Let's see some old French firearms: Aug 16, 2012
Curio & Relics Forum Let's Dance VII... May 17, 2003

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page