Even more realistic ballistics (including "damage").

User avatar
Sherab86
Hunter
Posts: 582
Joined: September 27th, 2017, 2:41 am
Location: Poland
Contact:

Even more realistic ballistics (including "damage").

Post by Sherab86 »

I propose to implement even more realistic ballistics model - I think mainly of terminal ballistics ("damage"), but external ballistics too.

Little bit more details:

- rebalancing "damage" between different cartdridges present in the game (terminal ballistics),
- improving external ballistics (mainly projectile velocity) to met IRL speciffications - at least for cartridges based on IRL counterparts, for example "sponsored" by Nosler.
- More realistic "damage" in general - less "drop on place" shots, more blood tracks to fallow.


My reasoning behind the proposition:

I'm aware that even for IRL hunters, getting even more realistic with guns performance is not needed. But still I do experience some strange results with feel simply not-right to me.

My main example is of 12ga shotgun slugs "damage" compared to high power rifles. I fully agree, that shotgun slugs should realy have problems with penetration part. They are maybe even still too good at this, refering to one user statement.

However, from my experience from hunting Wild Boars, even when achieving comparable penetration - for example, double lungs shot, Wild Boars tends to run about 15-20 meters before dropping dead. While after double lungs shot from 7mm RM they drop on place. This suggest, that 7mm RM makes more severe wounds than 12ga slug, despite being of smaller caliber. Of course 7mm RM projectile model used in game (based on IRL Nosler) expands and fragmentates (IRL), cousing much bigger permament wound cavity, than would be simple FMJ projectile. But generaly, "normal", made of lead slugs also expand and fragmantate to some point.

So again, I do agree, that penetration should be much worse for slugs, than for most of rifle projectiles. But "damage" part for same amount of penetration should be at least comparable if not better.

when it comes to external ballistics, I'm mostly concern about how much lead I need for shooting animals in motion by high powered rifle (again, chambered for 7mm RM). IRL it achieves over 3000 fps at the muzzle. So I realy don't know how it is possible, that at distance of around 65 meters, I need a lead of more than a head lenght (wild boar again) to hit a chest of walking (not even trotting) animal. And this happened to me - not once, but many. I don't know what is the cause of this. But it shows, from my point of view, that something is wrong.

I suppose, that some downgrade of in-game weaponry compared to IRL counterparts might be intentional, to compansate for very short render distance in the game. But I think this is already compensated enough by geographical shaping of the maps, and/or animal models (for example mentioned WIld Boars seems to be much tougher than IRL).

Finaly, I would like to see a little bit more realistic effect on animals being hit. For example, I saw recordings of Elks being shot by 7mm RM (and the shooter claims similar effect for .300), with were maybe shocked after it, but in first moment not even realy spooked. It just started to wander off slowly before it get another shot. Both hits probably went for vitals (I'm guessing - lungs), and the animals didn't go too far. But still, it didn't drop on place.

And yes, I know that even IRL drops on place do occur sometimes, probably even on such big game as Elks or Mooses. But this is rather (from what I know) consequence of animals state of mind (prior and after being shot), and/or realy good, maybe even lucky shot placement (destroying some important nerves etc.) - what I mean - it is rather exception from the rule, and not the rule. Of course wen using OP weapon for the job, such "drops on place" might be more common I suppose. If possible, such "drop on place" situations could have some percentage chance to occur (effect itself probably could be achieved by multiplaying enough "damage formula").

I know, that probably no one realy like to go after this blood track after "perfect" shot he/she took. But still, this would be more realistic and more immersive.
gdawg2101
Newbie
Posts: 4
Joined: November 28th, 2017, 12:53 am
Contact:

Re: Even more realistic ballistics (including "damage").

Post by gdawg2101 »

I think you are right. I know that a lot of calibers in thehunter are not realistic thus making it a little to easy I think. Some are even underpowered. Take the .243 for example. I hunt in real life and I am sure many of you guys do too. If you hunt with a .243 you probably know that it is more than capable of dropping a deer or hogs in its tracks. But here we are not able to even shoot at hogs with this gun. I have taken many deer with this rifle. I have had some bad shots too but the deer still ran 20 yards and dropped. So why is it that even with a lung shot I can't drip a deer in this game. This needs to be fixed. Also take the. 270. I live in texas and we don't have a lot of big game here like bear or moose. But we do have a few elk and here in texas the minimum required caliber to take elk is a .270. But here we are not permitted to shoot elk with this gun. So this needs to change.
User avatar
Hawkeye
Outfitter
Posts: 3849
Joined: July 15th, 2009, 12:49 pm
Location: Fayetteville, AR
Contact:

Re: Even more realistic ballistics (including "damage").

Post by Hawkeye »

gdawg2101 wrote:I think you are right. I know that a lot of calibers in thehunter are not realistic thus making it a little to easy I think. Some are even underpowered. Take the .243 for example. I hunt in real life and I am sure many of you guys do too. If you hunt with a .243 you probably know that it is more than capable of dropping a deer or hogs in its tracks. But here we are not able to even shoot at hogs with this gun. I have taken many deer with this rifle. I have had some bad shots too but the deer still ran 20 yards and dropped. So why is it that even with a lung shot I can't drip a deer in this game. This needs to be fixed. Also take the. 270. I live in texas and we don't have a lot of big game here like bear or moose. But we do have a few elk and here in texas the minimum required caliber to take elk is a .270. But here we are not permitted to shoot elk with this gun. So this needs to change.
I doubt there's many people recommending 90 grain spitzers in 243 for hogs or 130 grain in 270 for elk. Those are the bullets we have in-game for those calibers. That being said, many of the species decisions aren't based on real-life experience, but on game balance. In both of the examples you cited though, I would say the decision is realistic.
User avatar
Sherab86
Hunter
Posts: 582
Joined: September 27th, 2017, 2:41 am
Location: Poland
Contact:

Re: Even more realistic ballistics (including "damage").

Post by Sherab86 »

I was focusing rather on weapons performance compared to each other alone. Question of permitted species lists is another thing. I think that even IRL, aside of "moral", or safety issues, every lawgiver have its own reasons behind decisions he/she makes. And there are different laws in different countries, states and so on. Same way, EW has its own laws. ;) And they are probably dictated by sales as much as by ethics. I can live with that. ;)

Another question is how animals are modeled. Let's take mentioned by me Wild Boar for example. It seems they are not only bigger (by avarage) than in nature, but this "fat shield" effect is highly exagerated on them - they are probably more tought than in reality.

But I find some (rather small from gamer perspective) issues with weapons themselves, I've mentioned in my main post.
User avatar
Sherab86
Hunter
Posts: 582
Joined: September 27th, 2017, 2:41 am
Location: Poland
Contact:

Re: Even more realistic ballistics (including "damage").

Post by Sherab86 »

I'm refreshing the topic, with some ideas based mostly on the lecture of this blog/series of artilces (I've read it quite a bit time a go now, to be honest, but only now i decided to refresh the thread):
http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ball ... nding.html

Well, I would be realy happy, if our devs would contact the author of linked articles and ask him for co-operation or simply for rights to use his mathematical formulas:
http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ball ... eling.html

Here are the details about formulas derivation: http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ball ... -Model.doc

Those are based on observations described in this section:
http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ball ... thods.html


Now, what I would like to see in game, are new damage and penetration formulas, based on analytical models presented in the links. For example, damage could be based on internal area of calculated wound cavity. Depending of the hitboxes this theorethical wound chanel would go through, there would be proper bleeding multipliers applied, as they are right now - but differences in "damage" output, between different ammo, would be more up to reality, I think. They would be based on actual wound cavity (however only in form of mathematical formula - I do not expect 3d modelling of it) instead of carrefully chosen, but artificial "damage" values simply attributed to ammo/weapons.

While there would be a need to add some new attributes to projectiles I guess, I think such system wouldn't be much more demanding on CPU/GPU, than current. But I don't know anything about programming, so I don't know. I see another reason, however, with probably makes me just a wishfull thinker. To work properly, this would need a vast of field testing IRL, to derive some constances needed for the formulas. And this probably would be simly too expensive to EW to do it.



Thanks to DHRifleman, I know for sure now, that damage is applied in two ways in the game - there is instant damage, with projectile do to the target when it hits it, and there is damage over time, with simulates bleeding. So I suggest to make instant damage as small as possible. This is because projectile hitting the target don't usualy kill just because it penetrates through the target. This is simpliffication of course. There are organs as brain or liver, with are rather stiff, and can be realy destroyed by bullet passage. Lungs can collaps and so on. But usualy, even if heart is completely destroyed, there is still enough oxygen in the brain to sustain most volontary actions for about 10-15 seconds. So this takes time - hence, this should be achieved rather by damage over time effect. I don't argue for complete remove of instant damage simply because I suspect this value is needed for multipliers of those few "organs" with can indeed disable animal on place - brain and cervical part of spine cord. Shots there should provide instant "death", as they do right now in the game.

For most other organs, I would argue for 10 seconds treshold keeping animal alive, besides how much damage it recived. However this treshold should probably do not "trigger" if there would be great dissproportion in animal size and mass, and projectile used. For example, hitting a cottontail with .45-70, or .340 projectiles. This is simply because those projectiles would be able to destroy many locomotory muscles and internal organs at once. While this dosn't neccesery mean, that rabbit would be really clinicaly death, shock to an organism would be high enough to incapitate him for sure (and dissable it's locomotory functions) - so in game terms, it could be considered death.

For most of the big game, I think there could be a "chance" for drop-on-spot situation in case of lungs, heart or spine (behind the neck) shots. A kind of "critical hit", using RPG's terminology. This is simply because such situations do occurs IRL too, of course, and there are probably many reasons behind them. However they are not the norm - usualy there is a need of blood-tracking shooted animal at least for those 10-20 meters, from what I know.



So... those are my new thoughts on the subject. This more for discussion, really... I do not expect this will be ever introduced into the game - too much effort, with little revenue for EW. But I realy would like to see such changes. :)
User avatar
SoftShoe
Outfitter
Posts: 1165
Joined: January 10th, 2018, 1:40 pm
Location: Kentucky
Contact:

Re: Even more realistic ballistics (including "damage").

Post by SoftShoe »

Sherab86 wrote: So... those are my new thoughts on the subject. This more for discussion, really... I do not expect this will be ever introduced into the game - too much effort, with little revenue for EW. But I realy would like to see such changes. :)
I'm going to start with your last comment because its probably the most important insofar as making this a reality.
The current model of TH deincentivises the guns. If you have a 7mm mag its a 7mm mag irregardless of what style rifle its in. Accuracy, ballistics & handling are all identical. Well why are there so many different kinds of rifles IRL other then different manufactures? Because everything is a trade off. EW could capitalize on this. As an example say they have a 7mm bull barrel. In game terms it would have bonuses to decrease wobble & increased velocity (read terminal ballistics) owing to its longer barrel but it would be heavier reducing how much other stuff you can carry & shoulder more slowly. Conversly a standed 7mm, lets call it a generic "long action" would be just as it is now & finally have a featherweight as well. It would have more wobble, be lighter & shoulder very fast but decreased velocity & much more recoil. Here we just took 1 gun & made 3 each with definite bonuses & detriments. Do you see a hunt where a long range tack driver might come in handy? Or how about one where the shots will be shorter but you want the power of the 7mm & ability to carry more?
Then there is the option to personalize guns via different skins from custom wood stocks to camo. We all love to personalize our experience so this would be another great way to add value to the game & revenue to EW.

Now about ballistics
One of the quirks of ballistics is whats called hydrostatic shock. Want to see it in action? Throw a rock in a pond. Those ripples are hydrostatic shock. The same thing happens when a bullet strikes flesh. It has the ability to immediately incapacitate/kill animals. Its a direct reflection of velocity/bore size (sectional density) meaning a big bullet or a small bullet traveling fast creates allot of hydrostatic shock. The larger the animal the better chance they can withstand the shock with the wild card of some especially tough individuals able to shrug it off & keep going even though they are quite literally dead on their feet. This could be expressed in game terms by lets call it a "kill factor".
For example using the same 7mm mag & factoring in external ballistics let say you shot a roe deer at 100yds. The bullet is traveling 2800fps so it would have a kill factor of 90% meaning if you make a vital hit there is a 90% chance that roe deer will be dead right there. The same scenario but now the target is a whitetail deer. The kill factor would be 80% owing to the larger body size. Elk would be 50% et cetera, Hits to non vital areas would be a factor bore diameter/wound channel with it being entirely possible to just cripple & not eventually kill an animal.

I could probably talk at length about ballistics both external & terminal but I am at work & dont have the time to elucidate. I think with that small insight you all probably catch where I am going with this.

Image
User avatar
Sherab86
Hunter
Posts: 582
Joined: September 27th, 2017, 2:41 am
Location: Poland
Contact:

Re: Even more realistic ballistics (including "damage").

Post by Sherab86 »

SoftShoe wrote:
Sherab86 wrote: So... those are my new thoughts on the subject. This more for discussion, really... I do not expect this will be ever introduced into the game - too much effort, with little revenue for EW. But I realy would like to see such changes. :)
I'm going to start with your last comment because its probably the most important insofar as making this a reality.
The current model of TH deincentivises the guns. If you have a 7mm mag its a 7mm mag irregardless of what style rifle its in. Accuracy, ballistics & handling are all identical. Well why are there so many different kinds of rifles IRL other then different manufactures? Because everything is a trade off. EW could capitalize on this. As an example say they have a 7mm bull barrel. In game terms it would have bonuses to decrease wobble & increased velocity (read terminal ballistics) owing to its longer barrel but it would be heavier reducing how much other stuff you can carry & shoulder more slowly. Conversly a standed 7mm, lets call it a generic "long action" would be just as it is now & finally have a featherweight as well. It would have more wobble, be lighter & shoulder very fast but decreased velocity & much more recoil. Here we just took 1 gun & made 3 each with definite bonuses & detriments. Do you see a hunt where a long range tack driver might come in handy? Or how about one where the shots will be shorter but you want the power of the 7mm & ability to carry more?
Then there is the option to personalize guns via different skins from custom wood stocks to camo. We all love to personalize our experience so this would be another great way to add value to the game & revenue to EW.
Yes, you are right. It would be nice also, if there would be a couple of rifles of same model, but chambered for different ammo. It would be also great, if we would have a choice of several ammunition types (projectile's weights and loads) for same caliber. But this is probably asking too much. ;)


SoftShoe wrote:
Now about ballistics
One of the quirks of ballistics is whats called hydrostatic shock. Want to see it in action? Throw a rock in a pond. Those ripples are hydrostatic shock. The same thing happens when a bullet strikes flesh. It has the ability to immediately incapacitate/kill animals. Its a direct reflection of velocity/bore size (sectional density) meaning a big bullet or a small bullet traveling fast creates allot of hydrostatic shock. The larger the animal the better chance they can withstand the shock with the wild card of some especially tough individuals able to shrug it off & keep going even though they are quite literally dead on their feet. This could be expressed in game terms by lets call it a "kill factor".
For example using the same 7mm mag & factoring in external ballistics let say you shot a roe deer at 100yds. The bullet is traveling 2800fps so it would have a kill factor of 90% meaning if you make a vital hit there is a 90% chance that roe deer will be dead right there. The same scenario but now the target is a whitetail deer. The kill factor would be 80% owing to the larger body size. Elk would be 50% et cetera, Hits to non vital areas would be a factor bore diameter/wound channel with it being entirely possible to just cripple & not eventually kill an animal.

I could probably talk at length about ballistics both external & terminal but I am at work & dont have the time to elucidate. I think with that small insight you all probably catch where I am going with this.
Well, I'll try to answer in short here. For details, I suggest to read linked articles, because I greatly agree with the author.

I do consider something called "hydrostatic shock" (even if term itself is scientificaly wrong). However, there are many problems with it. First one - it is poorly defined, hence many people using it thinks actually about many different things. And it is poorly researched. There is definitely a chance, that hydrodynamic pressure, created by bullet's passage, can at least temporary disable, or even destroy some parts of central nervous system, brain included. Especialy if bullet hitted near a spine, and exactly at a heartbit - when blood pressure was already at the peak. But there dosn't seems to be any real rule to this. So while this phenomenom may occur, this is mostly about luck.

Animals can drop-on-spot also from other reasons. Not without a meaning is mental and physical state. However, this do not have anything to do with so called "knock down power". Usualy, animals are not clinically death either - they simply react to shock (or more properly, to the trauma) - both - mental, and physical. You will probably see different results in case calmly grazing doe, and a buck in the rut, ready to fight, with body filled with testosteron.

Nontheless, I do concider all those aspects - hence I propose those "critical hit" chance to be introduced.

But, as far as I know, there are only two sources of true (long term) incapacitation (usualy fallowed by clinical death) - direct damage to central nervous system (this one is instant), and drop of blood pressure (by bleeding) to the point of brain's oxygen starvation (and this takes time).

This section of linked articles deals most directly with concepts you are reffering to:
http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ball ... tml#energy
User avatar
SoftShoe
Outfitter
Posts: 1165
Joined: January 10th, 2018, 1:40 pm
Location: Kentucky
Contact:

Re: Even more realistic ballistics (including "damage").

Post by SoftShoe »

Sherab86 wrote: Well, I'll try to answer in short here. For details, I suggest to read linked articles, because I greatly agree with the author.

I do consider something called "hydrostatic shock" (even if term itself is scientificaly wrong). However, there are many problems with it. First one - it is poorly defined, hence many people using it thinks actually about many different things. And it is poorly researched. There is definitely a chance, that hydrodynamic pressure, created by bullet's passage, can at least temporary disable, or even destroy some parts of central nervous system, brain included. Especialy if bullet hitted near a spine, and exactly at a heartbit - when blood pressure was already at the peak. But there dosn't seems to be any real rule to this. So while this phenomenom may occur, this is mostly about luck.

Animals can drop-on-spot also from other reasons. Not without a meaning is mental and physical state. However, this do not have anything to do with so called "knock down power". Usualy, animals are not clinically death either - they simply react to shock (or more properly, to the trauma) - both - mental, and physical. You will probably see different results in case calmly grazing doe, and a buck in the rut, ready to fight, with body filled with testosteron.

Nontheless, I do concider all those aspects - hence I propose those "critical hit" chance to be introduced.

But, as far as I know, there are only two sources of true (long term) incapacitation (usualy fallowed by clinical death) - direct damage to central nervous system (this one is instant), and drop of blood pressure (by bleeding) to the point of brain's oxygen starvation (and this takes time).

This section of linked articles deals most directly with concepts you are reffering to:
http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ball ... tml#energy
I just read the article & almost 100% agree with his assessment.

I will concede that hydrodynamic is technically the correct term to use for this phenomena. He does admit there may be merit in hydrodynamic impulses.
Having shot many hundreds of animals from prairie dogs to elk, I have seen its effect 1st hand. For lack of a better term its almost a force multiplier that scales in reverse. For example, if I shoot a elk with a 180gr SP in a 300 mag the effect of hydrodynamic shock isnt as great as if I were to shoot a whitetail with that same load. What I think happens is the bullet performs as intended expanding but the sheer mass of the target animal is better able to absorb the impact. The wound channel in the elk & deer are pretty much identical but the elk will trot a short distance while the deer will drop in its tracks. Why does this happen? Same bullet, same velocity, same impact point. The only variable is body size of the target which explains hydrodynamic shock.

There is a free radical in that not all animals will succumb to it. I will occasional shoot a deer that by some miracle runs a short distance but they are the exception not the rule.

In the interest of transparency my primary big game gun is a Winchester 70 in 300 Win mag but I also have a Weatherby Accumark in 30-378 for when I head west to hunt & the ranges are farther.

Image
User avatar
Sherab86
Hunter
Posts: 582
Joined: September 27th, 2017, 2:41 am
Location: Poland
Contact:

Re: Even more realistic ballistics (including "damage").

Post by Sherab86 »

SoftShoe wrote: I just read the article & almost 100% agree with his assessment.

I will concede that hydrodynamic is technically the correct term to use for this phenomena. He does admit there may be merit in hydrodynamic impulses.
Having shot many hundreds of animals from prairie dogs to elk, I have seen its effect 1st hand. For lack of a better term its almost a force multiplier that scales in reverse. For example, if I shoot a elk with a 180gr SP in a 300 mag the effect of hydrodynamic shock isnt as great as if I were to shoot a whitetail with that same load. What I think happens is the bullet performs as intended expanding but the sheer mass of the target animal is better able to absorb the impact. The wound channel in the elk & deer are pretty much identical but the elk will trot a short distance while the deer will drop in its tracks. Why does this happen? Same bullet, same velocity, same impact point. The only variable is body size of the target which explains hydrodynamic shock.

There is a free radical in that not all animals will succumb to it. I will occasional shoot a deer that by some miracle runs a short distance but they are the exception not the rule.

In the interest of transparency my primary big game gun is a Winchester 70 in 300 Win mag but I also have a Weatherby Accumark in 30-378 for when I head west to hunt & the ranges are farther.
And I agree, that such phenomenom can take place occasionaly. Please, don't take this personally, and don't feel offended - I respect yours RL experience as a hunter and a shooter. But I tend to apporach with caution to hunter's stories. I mean - I believe them, or you, that they note more or less instances of drop-on-spot situations. Maybe even quite big numbers indeed. But that's it. This don't have to proove in any way, that hydrodynamic shock is responsible for every account. Some hunters, seeing similar things like you, tend to speak of "knock down power", for example - with from my standpoint is totaly wrong. Personally, I would blame physical (lot's of pain, for example) and mental trauma to similar extend as hydrodynamic shock. But this is guessing only, because we still don't realy now what is going on under the hood, when it comes to those instant drops. Hydrodynamic pressure on nervous or circulatory system might be one of them, sure.

From my standpoind, the biggest problem with all those causes is that, it is rather hard to quantify them - hence I (only personally) see "critical hit" chance as best way to introduce them. And sure - those chance should be probably bigger for let's say .300 vs. a deer, than .300 vs. an elk. :)
User avatar
Sherab86
Hunter
Posts: 582
Joined: September 27th, 2017, 2:41 am
Location: Poland
Contact:

Re: Even more realistic ballistics (including "damage").

Post by Sherab86 »

SoftShoe wrote: The wound channel in the elk & deer are pretty much identical but the elk will trot a short distance while the deer will drop in its tracks. Why does this happen? Same bullet, same velocity, same impact point. The only variable is body size of the target which explains hydrodynamic shock.
I was thinking about this little more. And I think this might be not soley because of differences in mass, but also due to actual dimensions of a chest region. What I mean by this - if you place your shot, lets say, into lower portion of a whitetail's chest (but lets assume it is still double lung hit), this will be still closer to the spine, than in case of an elk, or a moose. Hence, by avarage, accoustic wave created by bullet's passage has greater chance to reach spine cord with enough of "force" (speaking informally - I'm not such a scientific purist as the author of linked articles ;) ) to incapacitate a deer, than it has in case of elk. Also shots through a shoulder blade naturaly bring in high trauma to a spine nad nervous system as such. So I guess, hunters having a habit to shot through scapula may notice instant drops more often, than those with shoot rather just behind a leg - perhaps.

There is also another mechanism author of reffered articles mention in his section on "A mechanics of leathal wounding":
There is another mechanism of cardiac arrest that is less well understood but which may account for the nearly instantaneous death of game animals hit with modern weapons and that is induced cardiac fibrillation and arrest. The precise mechanism for the onset of the cardiac arrest is not fully understood, but its effect is well documented. It may involve some type of local neurological or humeral communication between the heart and lungs that gets short-circuited. Alternatively, a violent wound to the lung tissue may create a tiny embolism that interrupts cardio-pulmonary function at a critical moment.

Additionally, there is some evidence to suggest that the sudden pressure resulting from the bullet's passage (through the heart?) coupled with the coincidence of the systolic peak of the blood pressure cycle may communicate up the arteries to the brain and produce, in effect, a ruptured cranial aneurysm resulting in an indirect injury to the central nervous system.
And here is also some interesting reading:
http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ball ... study.html
Description comes again from same author, I know, but the research itself wasn't done by him (as far as I undestand).

It seems, that caliber do not have signifficant meaing for instant incapacitation (however it may have some). And this is more about shot placement. And occurs for little more than 50% shots for a whitetail. Unfortunaetly, .300 RM wasn't included. .308 projectile has rather similar dimensions, but starts it's travel at much lower speed - and this may have a meaning for accoustic wave "intensity", so to speak.

Whole this subject is really interesting. :) Still however, I don't know how it could be implemented better, than by "critical hit chance" method. But I'm open to suggestions - especialy that this is probably only for debate purposes, and it is doubtful EW will ever practilaly use it. ;)
Post Reply

Return to “Weapons & Weapon Accessory Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest