New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Test results link
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Check GunBroker.com for SWFA's No Reserve and No Minimum bid firearm auctions.

Test results link

 Post Reply Post Reply   Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/07/2007 at 13:15
SwattedOut View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: October/30/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 54

Alright. Starting over. Hey everybody, I found an interesting scope test link, which ,with the help of my secretary, I will post here. Then you can read everything without my blundering. I will add that the name of the Swedish magazine seems to be a legit magazine. (have to search google, search English version.)

 

 

http://forums.basspro.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_top ic;f=15;t=001480

 

Omigosh, I think I did it....

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/07/2007 at 13:39
guitarman87 View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: February/05/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 17
Wow SwattedOut, that is some GREAT information!  Thanks so much for that.  I think it might help settle some of the disputes that go on here in the forum from time to time too.  I kind of wanted to see how the VX-III would test out, and it looks like it did great.  I see that the FFII did as well.  Wish they would have tested the Monarch and a 4200!  Oh well.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/07/2007 at 14:39
Trinidad View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: May/04/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1555

A Fullfield II with the same twighlight performance and better light transmission as a Nightforce and better resolution than a Zeiss VP.

The only thing these tests are good for is a good laugh, imagine what a Signature select would have Ranked at.

 

 

Only at Basspro....



Edited by SVD666
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/07/2007 at 16:42
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 10961
Interesting test results.

Not knowing the details of conditions, instrumentation and test protocol I can neither critique nor endorse it, to be honest. 

A few things seem odd though:

I would argue that 500 to 550 nm is not the best representation of a low light situation.  Heck, any sort of light transmission measurements on highly wavelength dependent devices (like broadband coatings) should be  represented as a spectral plot of light transmission vs wavelength.  That is not a hard thing to do with an available spectrometer.   If they are trying  to determine what works best for a human eye than the transmission curves should filtered with a eye sensitivity function (CIE 1971 would be my recommendation).

Also, I am having a bit of a hard time reconciling the test results for anti-reflex and light transmission.  These are not independent parameters, by any stretch of imagination.

More on light transmission: they call "twilight" performance light transmission for 500 to 550nm.  So what is the non-twilight light transmission? what is the wavelength range?

Field of view:  how exactly do you compare the fields of view of a bunch of scopes of different magnification and different objective lens sizes?

Same for eye relief:  how do you score eye relief when some scopes are specifically designed with shorter eye relief (typically to maximize field of view).

Same for adjustment range: different magnifications and different objective lens sizes.

I can nit pick further, but I think this is sufficient.  Before this test can claim any validity, test protocols (and test sponsors) should be disclosed.

ILya
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/08/2007 at 17:20
Dolphin View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: October/05/2006
Location: North Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 1795

Originally posted by koshkin koshkin wrote:

Interesting test results.

Not knowing the details of conditions, instrumentation and test protocol I can neither critique nor endorse it, to be honest. 

A few things seem odd though:

I would argue that 500 to 550 nm is not the best representation of a low light situation.  Heck, any sort of light transmission measurements on highly wavelength dependent devices (like broadband coatings) should be  represented as a spectral plot of light transmission vs wavelength.  That is not a hard thing to do with an available spectrometer.   If they are trying  to determine what works best for a human eye than the transmission curves should filtered with a eye sensitivity function (CIE 1971 would be my recommendation).

Also, I am having a bit of a hard time reconciling the test results for anti-reflex and light transmission.  These are not independent parameters, by any stretch of imagination.

More on light transmission: they call "twilight" performance light transmission for 500 to 550nm.  So what is the non-twilight light transmission? what is the wavelength range?

Field of view:  how exactly do you compare the fields of view of a bunch of scopes of different magnification and different objective lens sizes?

Same for eye relief:  how do you score eye relief when some scopes are specifically designed with shorter eye relief (typically to maximize field of view).

Same for adjustment range: different magnifications and different objective lens sizes.

I can nit pick further, but I think this is sufficient.  Before this test can claim any validity, test protocols (and test sponsors) should be disclosed.

ILya

I agree with Koshkin, but I will defer to his better knowledge of optical physics.  However, if you look at the final results and ignore the individual tests, the scopes rated as you would have expected, within reason.  I would have liked to have seen some more and better US players as it was more than obvious that there was bias toward European scopes, by their wording.  And, Koshkin is correct, just as in medical testing, all affiliations with scope makers, sponsors, magazines, etc., should be disclosed, to allow each reader to determine for themselves, whether their is bias in the testing.   That is standard procedure.



Edited by Dolphin
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/08/2007 at 17:28
koshkin View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar
Dark Lord of Optics

Joined: June/15/2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 10961
Some of the scopes rated within reason, some ended up with rankings that I would not expect.  The catch is that with a lab and with some time to play with it, I can produce perfectly legitimate test results that will favor a particular scope or make a particular scope look bad.  Without knowing the exact test protocols, it is hard to really make a conclusion. 

ILya
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/08/2007 at 17:50
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 14310

Also, from what I read into this, this was just a summation of a long report, not the report itself, that someone posted on Bass Pro's discussion board, so the study was neither commissioned nor endorsed by Bass Pro.

 

I would like to find a link to the entire report to see what criteria was used for arriving at the rankings.  As much as anything, what surprised me a little was that the Swaro scope edged out everything but the 3 Zeiss models, including the S&B and Kahles C.  Also, in the list of scopes tested, it shows the Swaro to be a 2.5-10X56, yet in the final score list, the Swaro was listed as a 3-12X.  In addition, it doesn't show the scores for other categories and the individual scores don't add up to the overall score.  We don't know if this is an excerpt from the actual test or the poster's recap of the test.  Since it appears it could be the latter, and as evidenced by the discrepancy in the Swaro's zoom range, some of the scores could very well be typographical errors.



Edited by RifleDude
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/08/2007 at 18:00
Trinidad View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: May/04/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1555

RD I did not refer to this BS bieng commissioned or endorseded by Bass pro. What I meant by(Only at Bass pro..) is

that only at Bass pro would this information be posted in the way that it was posted and shure enough here is everybody all happy and relieved believing it, kind of like GM.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/08/2007 at 18:58
Dolphin View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master


Joined: October/05/2006
Location: North Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 1795
Everyone is exactly right.  Having been in involved in double blind testing, throught my learning career, this study does not meet any strict criteria for proper testing, not to mention, proper testing methods.  As SVD mentioned, this was only an exerpt from the whole test, so complete conlusions cannot be made.  But, I doubt very seriously, it was performed by a group of scientists with an altruistic goal at mind.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/09/2007 at 08:36
oldman47 View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: February/09/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 10
 I liked that one reply that said leupold would replace your scope even if you ran over it with a truck .... " WHAT A JOKE " ... try it once . If that were true everyone would crush them when they got a couple scratches . That guy is like this emoticon ==== 
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/09/2007 at 09:58
RifleDude View Drop Down
MODERATOR
MODERATOR
Avatar

Joined: October/13/2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 14310
My point is, how do we know whether the test is valid or not, because we aren't being given the entire report?  Due to some immediately recognizable inconsistencies in the info (i.e., the change in zoom range on the Swaro scope), some of the results could either be typos or could have been altered by whomever was reporting it.  The test was supposedly done by a Swedish journal, yet I don't see any link to the original source material, if any exists.  We also don't know if the person posting the summary at the above link actually read the report or is only copying & pasting text from another source.  Since this is only the summary, without the test protocol listed, we cannot say for certain that the study wasn't scientifically valid.  Basically, we know nothing, because we aren't getting it from the original source, which, by the way, I looked for but couldn't find.  I did find the same exact, word-for-word summation present on no less than 4 different discussion forums.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/09/2007 at 12:25
tbone1 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: May/31/2004
Status: Offline
Points: 195

I appreciate the info and want to say thanks for posting it.  However I have several problems with these kinds of tests.  I do like the attempt at the side by side testing and I love getting peoples opinions.  I just don't like opinions being camoflauged as indisputable facts.  If that is the case, then I will read the outdoor life optics round up test every summer and buy what they say is good.

 

As has been stated, someone read the test and then interpreted it, and posted what he thought were the relevant points.  Which is ok keeping 2 things in mind.  First, the test is the Swedish Magazines opinion and second you are trusting that all the numbers are correct from the original test.

 

The only thing that really bothers me about the test is the comment "remember this is a lab test, not some testers subjective opinion."  I completely disagree with this statement.

 

Lets look at the twighlight performance part.

"Lights were progressively reduced and scopes were excluded when it was no longer possible to determine the target/crosshairs."

 

My first question is, who determined that it was no longer possible to see.  Obviously someone had to look through it and say that he could see or not.  This is subjective because you are relying on someones eye.  Second this does not seem to me the best way replicate twightlight performance.  Based on what was posted it sounds like they placed the scopes in a room looking at a target and turned down the dimmer switch and when they could no longer see, they marked where the switch was.  Now I know, I am probably over simplifying this and that it was more scientific.  I just don't believe that is a good way to test twightlight performance.  I would prefer it outside in Natural fading light.  I put that in bold because I have tried to test optics in various types of light, at night with moonlight or distant streelight,  in nearly pitch black dark and inside with dimming the lights to darkness.  In my opinion, the best way is in natural fading light (not darkness) preferably in woods or a field, away from any artificial light, streetlamps ect....

 

Also color and contrast

"Field testing, can/cannot see various targets, details and colours under equal conditions and settings."

 

Same question, if it is "not subjective" then who or what is determining what they could or couldn't see.  In my experience this is an incredibly difficult thing to determine.  In binos its hard to do but I have been able to see slight differences in color and contrast, in scopes its extremely hard to do.  I have spent several hours with various scopes side by side trying to determine differences in color and contrast.  I have not posted much on this because the results have been inconclusive.  I personally would not even look at the results they posted in this category.

 

How repeatable are the results?  That's the main question we all need to consider when reading anyones side by side opinion, including the results that I post.  Let me explain.  What if I were to write a post stating that Remington rifles were out of the box the most accurate because I bought a brand new Remington and a new Browning and shot them both.  The Remington shot 1.2" groups and the Browning shot 1.5".  You would all think that I am crazy because you know that every rifle is different and the results are not repeatable.  You could buy 2 more of each and get completely different results.  We all accept this with rifles but don't consider this with optics.

 

Now with optics, there is not that much variation, but as with all man made products, there are slight differences.  I have posted this before.  I have tested Zeiss FL binos and thought they may be slightly brighter than the Swarovski and then I tested 2 different pair and thought that the Swarovski were brighter.  The point is that with products that are in the same class and you are looking at such a slight difference in optics you have to consider the variation from scope to scope.  In other words if scope A rated as a 6 and scope B as a 9, then you could probably conclude that scope B was a better scope.  But if scope D was an 8 and scope B was a 9, then you really need to test a larger sample size to conclude anything.  Because another sample of scope D might get a 9, or another sample of scope B might get an 8.  When I do side by side testing, I always try to keep this in mind and I try to test more than one if I can.

 

Overall, I am not going to say the results or wrong.  I just keep in mind that it is an opinion, scientific maybe and I applaud them for it, but it is still an opinion.  And also that the results are far from concrete.  For the most part the results are what, most of us would expect.  $1500 scopes are better than $500 scopes.

 

Some of it I disagree with.  For example, they score a Zeiss VM/V as a 73 and a Zeiss ZM/Z as a 72 overall.  I agree that with the same glass you would expect very similar score in optics.  But the scores for "field of view" and "tube effect" should be drastically different.  As I have said the "tube effect" or tunnel vision on low power was fairly dramatic with the ZM/Z.  The VM/V eliminated this and greatly improved field of view and ergonomics.  If there number system was to be taken as he stated, there should be a minimum 5-6 point difference between them.  I also disagree with the twighlight performance of the S&B vs. Swarovski.  I am not saying they are wrong because 1 point is within an acceptable range, however I have found different results in my comparisons.  As I have said, I think the color/contrast is extremely subjective and I will overlook any of the results.

 

Overall though, an interesting review and good info.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/09/2007 at 12:32
SwattedOut View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: October/30/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 54

I posted this for a couple of reasons. First, I had some doubts myself about the Swaorvski values. I wanted to see what everyone's take was on the test. Second, on the chance that it was accurate, then we had some pretty good information at hand to discuss. Didn't mean to start an argument between members. So let's just go back where we were...........Leupold sucks cause we don't like them, Chuck Hawkes is a liar. Craig Boddington endorses products he uses. Every test is incorrect because we don't agree. Some of us are scope Gods and others are destined to discuss Tascos. Oh yeah,almost forgot..... Tell me again for the one thousandth time why you like the Bushnell Elite........

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/09/2007 at 12:40
SwattedOut View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper
Avatar

Joined: October/30/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 54
Hey tbone, your post was not up when I wrote my mine. Your response was EXACTLY what I was looking for when I originally wrote this. Intelligent, well thought out, skeptical but open minded responses......I could have saved my Evil side from that rant. Thanks, good reading.
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/09/2007 at 13:19
Trinidad View Drop Down
Optics Master
Optics Master
Avatar

Joined: May/04/2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1555

SwattedOut I do not think there is a argument here between members. But to be honest I would have never posted

anything like this. I have seen alot of these scopes in the field and these results the way they are written are

embarasing IMO. What do you think of a Fullfield II bieng ranked with a scope resolution of 10 and

a Kahles CB with a 6? We all have our opinions and observations and that is what we are here to discuss.

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/09/2007 at 14:08
tbone1 View Drop Down
Optics Apprentice
Optics Apprentice
Avatar

Joined: May/31/2004
Status: Offline
Points: 195

Swattedout,  thanks for the compliment.  I don't think you started an arguement, i'd call it a debate.  Most of the time, if you start a good debate, we all learn something new.  The post had alot of good information in it, because there is so little side by side testing being done.  I also like hearing others opinions who have done the side by side testing even if I don't agree with the results.

 

When I first started on this forum, I used to believe that sxs was the only way to tell a difference between optics.  It seemed like an easy concept that noone every did especially the magazines because they didn't want to upset their advertisers.  So I would try to test scopes and binos every chance I had, whether it was mine or a friend brought one over.  After doing it for a while, I realized that it is alot more difficult than I thought.  It's fairly easy to tell a difference between a $400 scope and a $1500 scope but alot harder with scopes or binos of similar quality.  When I would get home from work, I would get the scopes out and put them over the roof of the car on towels and go back and forth.  One day, I would look for brightness, another day I would look for color and contrast.  I sometimes would place air force resolution chart on a tree at a set distance and try to determine differences in resolution.  It actually got frustrating.

 

The color and contrast was one area that really troubled me.  I would look at 3 or 4 different targets, something colorful like a distant sign, also something dark like the woods in the corner of the field, ect...  For example I would have a Zeiss vs. S&B or Leupold Varix- III vs. Conquest.  At first I couldn't see any noticable difference in color,  then after about 30 minutes of really trying, I thought I could determine maybe that one had more vivid colors or one may be slightly sharper.  Then I would let that set in my mind, then after thinking about I would try to erase the bias of the previous day and see if I could see the same things again.  Then next day I wouldn't be able to see any appreciable difference.  In other words, sometimes I could see noticable differences, and sometimes I couldn't.  Sometimes it would take a certain kind of light. 

 

This may sound crazy but, our sometimes eyes can play tricks on us.  I remember on more than one occasion  I would glance through a scope and believe it was slightly brighter and then after about 5 minutes the other one looked brighter.  It's fun when there definately is a very noticable difference but frustrating when its hard to see.  Alot of times especially with scopes of different quality the difference would be very noticable.  I have alot of results that I really never got around to posting.

 

Since then, I have been little more cautious about proclaiming one brand over another until I have more than one situation or experience to help form my opinion.  I think it is important to be open minded and acknowledge that we all have a little personal bias, after all we're human.

 

Take care

 

 

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/09/2007 at 15:55
VSLaika View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: April/12/2005
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 13

I have this magazine nr 6 2004 right in front of me. And they did actually test a Bushnell Elite 4200 2.5-10x40. The problem was that this was the only 40mm scope, so the results are like comparing oranges to apples. Most scopes were 56mm or 50mm Like Zeiss,Swarovski and others this scope got 9 points for light transmission..

The points given for twilight performance are the result of how late you can shoot with that scope. In other words how late you can se the target AND the reticle. A illuminated reticle nr 4 in a first focal scope like Zeiss is of course much easier to see when it's dark than a thin multi-x 2.focal reticle in this Bushnell. Most of the scopes also had illuminated reticles. Scopes without illuminated reticles were Bushnell,Burris,both Meoptas,Pecar, S&B Classic.

I'am not 100% sure ,but I think the points were given for using the illuminted reticle in these scopes. Anyway if I'am wrong there are a big difference between a fat nr 4 reticle and a thin multi-x reticle.Here Bushnell got "only" 5 points

Bushnell got a total of 58 points. I guess a 2.5-10x50 illuminated  would have got perhaps 3-5 points more.

 

This magazine Vapentidningen are not the only ones comparing 40mm scopes to bigger scopes.Savageshooters have done two tests,the first including this Bushnell modell vs Nikon Monarch 3.5-10x50 and a Leupold VX-L 3.5-10x50 And the last one Bushnell Elite 4200 6.5-24x40 vs Leupold VX-III 6.5-20x50 and Nikon Monarchn 6.5-20x50

 

A smaller objective lense will not only have an effect on twilight performance , but also have less resolution , contrast and give less flare.

 

Considering points given for tube effect

4 points for no tubeeffect at all.

3 for tubeeffect only at low power

2 tubeeffect on both low and high power

1 very much tubeffect on low and tubeeffect on high power

0 much tubeffect on both low and high power

 

In the comments we can see there are differences between Zeiss V and Z even if they got equal scores in many categories.

 

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/09/2007 at 23:35
www.technika.nu View Drop Down
Optics Journeyman
Optics Journeyman


Joined: August/02/2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 611

I cant really understand why someone have problems with this kinds of tests.

 

If there is a question around who funded the test, or what testing method that was used the easyest is to emial them and ask. The Email adress is redaktionen@vapentidningen.se.

 

I think it's great with laboratory tests as you gets numbers on the different subjects that otherwise only would be a subjective idea. The numbers doesent take the brand into consideration either.

 

When you then compare the numbers with own testing experience out in the field you often find out that it seems pretty close. And who can really be surprised when a 1500dollar scope is better than a 500 dollar scope? I mean it's quite obvius that you most of the time gets what you pay for(even though there is exeptions)

 

I do how ever agree that lab results not are everything, espesially as different eyes sees differently.

Different people see colours differently and I belive here is one reason why some prefers one brand to another.

 

When it comes to advertisers Swedish magazines does not care that much about them in the testing.

Cause when you look at the economics you will find out that they don't advertise for very much money per year so the link is not that important.

I do the testing for some of the magazines here and I have written out in clear words that various guns from all the big importers have big problems. I have of course also written that there is guns that is very good.

But I have never cared about advertisers and there have never been redaktional correction of my articles. I have aslo in one case recomended the importer in my article to withdraw the product from the market as I assume the warranty costs will be bigger thn the margin.

They went absolutely furious but a few months later they did actually quit with that manufacturer (Rössler rifle from Austria, Titan 6)

 

So just because the econonmy works one way in the US it doensent necesarily mean that it does the same all over.

For those who can take a look in DWJ or wild und Hund from Germany and compare the numbers of ads to US magazines and how the ads are precented.

 

Regards Technika

Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)     Back to Top Direct Link To This Post Posted: February/11/2007 at 13:19
1stscope View Drop Down
Optics GrassHopper
Optics GrassHopper


Joined: January/14/2007
Status: Offline
Points: 66

"I cant really understand why someone have problems with this kinds of tests."

 

I only saw the posted summary, not the whole article. That being said, such tests are better than the typcial review of 'yeah, we used it, didn't compare it with anything, and we liked it", but it's still subjective when they assign numbers for ranking. This is especially true for reducing a chart of wavelength by percent transmission to a number; thanks, I prefer to draw my own conclusions. A scope maker that emphasizes a peak at one wavelength can be perecived to have brighter optics, if you consider how many people really, really like the blue filtered headlights bulbs because they're 'brighter'.

 

Resolution can be compared at center and edge of field not unlike as is done with camera lenses, and scopes should probably also be comapred at high and low brightness levels. Posting field of view at x magnification is more informative than 'tunnel effect', etc.    

 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Similar Threads: "Test results link"
Subject Author Forum Replies Last Post
VXR vs VX3 pseudo-test results urbaneruralite Rifle Scopes 19
Interesting scope test results SwattedOut Rifle Scopes 18 2/14/2007 10:52:48 PM
Test results for Zeiss vs IOR billiam13 Rifle Scopes 6 4/7/2007 11:21:26 AM
bino testing results SAKO75 Binoculars 0 11/23/2007 2:04:56 PM
Scope Comparison Tests: Check out link 8Runner Rifle Scopes 3 1/9/2007 8:57:58 AM
Multiple Rifle Scope tests from Europe..REAL TESTS SAKO75 Rifle Scopes 6
MT Deer and Elk Draw Results Bitterroot Bulls General Hunting 2
Some load results Gil P. Shooting 45
2013 MT License/Permit Results Bitterroot Bulls General Hunting 2
Hitler Finds Out The WY Draw Results Chris Farris General Hunting 6


This page was generated in 0.221 seconds.