L85A2

bost more airshit bait, sage

Its okay, pretty accurate. Dont really get why they want to put keymod on it now.

Solidifies that bullpups are still a meme.

>>32537845
I cant tell if it is good, or well...good because it came after the L85A1. It is darn ugly athough for sure.

>>32537845
OP here, the reason im asking is because me and my britbong friend are having an arguement. I dislike the bulpup because of the akwardness of the location of the charging rod and mag release. And the annoying shape of the trigger and trigger guard. He insists that "i trained with the l85 and i think its great." Its too heavy for a bulpup and the iron sights garbage as well. But thats just my opinion. Asking you guys

>>32538081
You would be right that it's a heavy piece of shit and still one of the worst service rifles in the developed world.

Like, 11 pounds for a 5.56 rifle. Nigga what are you doing.

>>32538110
Should probably switch back to the fal. Not because fal meme but because its simply more reliable and less shit

>>32538198
Well, every branch of the British military that has independent purchase authority just buys Colt C8s.

>>32537845
>bullpoop

>>32538110
>one of the worst service rifles in the developed world.

But that's the G36.

>>32537845
>newer L85A2

There's a new bong bullpup?

From what I've read what bong anons have posted in various threads, and doing some research on my own, it's a really good gun. The only actual downsides I see with it is that it's only right hand shoot and weighs as much as a loaded L1A1 SLR, unloaded.

But I'm forever asshurt that I'll literally never have the opportunity to hold one, let alone let off a few rounds.

>>32537845
I want one cause i can't have one but if i got one I'd probably want something else

>>32538605
Refering to the l85A2 as "newer" in relation to the L86A1.

Its shit because of akward actuator rod placement, the mag release is between the rifle and your body causing accidental mag drops during combat. Over all weight at 11lbs is insane. Poor handling design. Shit tier sights. (Even standard issue scopes weigh an excess of 2lbs) obnoxious trigger and trigger guard. Its a bulpup so virtually useless in anything but an urban enviorment. (First world countries only.)

>>32538661
Pardon my typo, L85A2 & L85A1

>>32538661
>the mag release is between the rifle and your body causing accidental mag drops during combat

This has literally never happened to anyone ever with the A2.

2bh your post shows that you've never used one and that you get 100% of your knowledge from the internet

>>32538661
This post literally screams "I don't actually know anything about this rifle minus memes"

>>32537845
Holy fuck just adopt a hk 416 or the M4

>>32538238
>British military that has independent purchase authority just buys Colt C8s

You mean the SAS who have been using M4s since viet or the Royal Marine fleet protection group who use them not because there's anything wrong with the LA2, but because for the fragmentation/penetration properties?

>>32538959
>Use of the C8 has expanded to include, among others, the original SAS and SBS, the Special Forces Support Group, the Pathfinder Platoon of 16 Air Assault Brigade, 43 Commando Fleet Protection Group, Royal Military Police Close Protection teams and MoD Police.

At some point, you may have to face up to the basic fact that 11 pounds for a 5.56 service rifle is garbage.

>>32538959
>same caliber
>same or shorter barrel length
>somehow superior fragmentation/penetration
looks like you learned terminal ballistics from call of duty

>>32539182
Looks like you have, you fucking projecting idiot.

>>32539241
Seriously though.

>same round
>same barrel length
>but this one has better terminal ballistics, I swear

Like what does that mean?

Does it pack the bullet a little egg salad sandwich and tell it to try really hard today?

Like, 5.56 velocity peaks at 20 inches barrel length. So logically speaking, an M16 is going to have the maximum possible terminal ballistics for a 5.56 platform.

>>32539241
???
why don't you explain why a 14.5" barreled 5.56 gun would have superior frag/penetration properties than a 20" barreled 5.56 gun.

go on, i'm waiting

>>32537845
It's like getting sucked off by the Queen.

>>32539241
Dude he is right you are wrong.

>>32538110

>He thinks it still weighs that much

What is TES and weight reduction rebuilts nigga

Handled it a few times and fired a few rounds out of the A2.
Tbh the thing is great and feels comfortable for me. The only problem I've had was the weight which isn't much of a problem in the first place if you don't have wet spaghetti like arms.

>>32538081
Bongs aren't a good judge of firearm knowledge. Even those that have served in the military will most likely only ever have held and fired the A2 so they have nothing to compare it with. I've met dozens of Brits that swore blind their rifle was just fine, only to cross train on something that isn't a piece of shit and end up either amazed that something can actually feel good to use or ridiculously stubborn about how their special snowflake rifle is special and impervious to criticism.

>>32539806
>people who share my opinion are right and everyone else is wrong

Okay, leddit

>>32538081
>awkward controls
Flaw inherent to all bullpup rifles, comes with the territory.

>trigger shape/control
Certainly unusual, but not necessarily a bad thing. One of the very few parts of the rifle that has always worked to an acceptable standard throughout both variants.

>too heavy
Absolutely. 11 pounds loaded with the SUSAT, compared to 7.5 loaded for an M4 with irons.

>irons are garbage
They're certainly very high, but aren't strictly bad. Although it's a moot point. SUSAT has been standard on every deployment. I highly doubt anyone has ever actually used the irons in a combat situation.

>>32537845
they are insanely heavy and are a terrible service rifle. I trained with a bong unit in the UK over the summer and they are amazed at how light the M4 was and how comfortable it was. Bongs barely ever handle guns outside of the military so like it was said above, they are terrible judges of firearms because none of them have any experience with them.

>>32539883
it's true though. most bongs have no experience with any weapons not issued to them. their service rifle is overweight and offers no real improvements. meanwhile all the units with enough pull are getting AR pattern rifles

I love how in every anti-L85 thread people meme'd about other stuff but got blown the fuck out with facts and now they're making shit up and only ever focusing on the one main, legitimate problem with the rifle, and that's the weight.

Never change, /k/. Whatever the bongs make, you'll continue to cherry pick and shitpost.

>>32540083
it's almost like there are 19 different posters and all but one have been discussing the weight

and bongs prove themselves unable to understand basic terminal ballistics

>>32540204
I can see five-six people talking about the weight of the SA80, and this is in this thread only. The previous few bong L85 threads I've seen, there's always that one asshurt anon sperging about how "The L85 is the worst weapon used by western powers" or something similar along those lines. You have one or two correct him and poof, he starts shitposting again.

Always been amused by the use of stamped steel. Very third-world like.

>>32540263

Crude guns are a British tradition since World War II.

>>32540263

It's just the outer wall. It uses AR180 bolt and guide rods to reduce force placed on the exterior structure.

It's actually clever as a cost and weight saving measure, even if it makes the rifle look fucking stupid.

>>32540297
stamped steel doesn't save weight when you compare to machined aluminum

>>32540302
Aluminum is absolutely shit for a firearm receiver unless it's designed especially for it, like an AR lower.
If the L85 receiver were aluminum the wear would be ungodly.

I think it has a 20" barrel which is impressive, its too bad its not chambered in something like the 6.5 grendel so as to have dmr potential. I question how solid the forend is for mounting the front sight, I think the body of the rifle should be extended to be the forend

>>32540346
pretty sure AR uppers are aluminum
so are SCAR uppers
and Daewoo K2 uppers
and HK416 and 417 uppers.

>>32538577
I've never touched an sa-80 family rifle but as an american gunsmith who works on a ton of machine guns i can confirm that the g36 (and the ump on a somewhat related note) are pretty much disposable guns. Came to /k/ tonight specifically to crap on them.

>>32540302
weight is similar. cost is waaaaaaaaay less. although the economy of scale on ar's probably closes that gap a bit.

>>32540662
Well, the DoD gets M4 Carbines for 650 a unit.

I have this suspicion that the L85 went much, much higher than that by the time they got upgraded to A2.

>>32540736
undoubtedly

i haven't done any reading but it seems like protectionism simply for the sake of keeping some manufacturing jobs that would otherwise go to the US, to Canada, or to Germany

>>32541003
Well, it's reasonable to not want to depend on other countries to supply your military.

Unfortunately, the UK got totally hosed by their contractors.

>>32540736
Prior to 2009, Colt held the exclusive rights to the M4 and were charging over $1000 per rifle

>>32541043
From what I've been able to find the unit cost for a L85A2 is around $2000 by now

>>32541043
Yeah, that's why the DoD held the Individual Carbine contest.

To force Colt's hand by threatening them with replacement.

It works, now there's a bunch of different subcontractors and the unit price is like 650.

File: japanesetype892.jpg (89KB, 775x519px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 775x519px

>>32541083
Still less than what the Japs pay for their licensed AR-18 copy
They cost $2800 per rifle in 2005 money

>>32541120
>They cost $2800 per rifle in 2005 money
how

>>32538081
you're absolutely right and your friend is delusional.

Bullpup design doesn't fit the assault rifle role. Especially when taking urban operations into account.

>You need to see what's happening around the core of your gun : its chamber, bolt, and magazine in case of a malfunction.
>You need to eventually switch from right to left shoulder if you have to take cover behind a wall.
>Modern 5.56 rounds don't need a long barrel to achieve high velocity or level of accuracy which would be irrelevant given the balistics of the 5.56 round.
>A classical layout will always be lighter.
>A classical layout will always procure better firing sensations and controlability.
>Most bullpups don't allow you to adjust your stock length.
>To achieve a higher accuracy, a good balance is a nice thing to have, however it is easily trumped by the better lever ratio coming from a farther grip.

to name a few reasons.

t. a frog happy to see the famas going away.

File: 1230720-bigthumbnail.jpg (72KB, 450x321px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 450x321px

>>32541180
They want to keep most of their defense industry domestic and the rifles are made on limited runs
Same reason why they put so much money into building bigger F-16s

File: comparison_TS.png (34KB, 572x152px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 572x152px

>>32540346
>>32540297

Steel stampings were clever in 1942. Aluminum was clever in 1972. Move on, the only problem remaining to be solved for plastic composites is long term heat degradation.

I've always thought the Brits should use that M16 the Canadians use.

>>32542225
Colt Canada is doing good business with Europe right now. I got one from a Danish contract recently, they're decent rifles.

File: l85 replacement poo in loo candidate rifle.png (2MB, 3069x1161px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3069x1161px

>>32537845
you do realize that the brits are changing it ou in 2020 for this version of the INSAS, to placate the london population and keep the bullpup familiarity

>>32541791
The problem with carbon fibre is that the actual stiffness is not directly related to those numbers but rather to how the carbon tubes are arranged and placed in the material.

>>32542627
This is a shop right?

>>32537845
Why are the iron sights three miles above the barrel?

>>32542836
Because Europoors can't into reasonable height over bore.

File: 1473749588138.jpg (113KB, 858x472px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 858x472px

Looks like another anti-bullpup thread.

>>32539182
>>32539306

You both assume to much.

http://www.janes.com/article/58501/uk-royal-marine-unit-ditches-the-sa80-for-colt-c8

>The logic behind the move was because the L119 has "reduced ricochet, limited collateral damage" features. Both the L119 and L85A2 are chambered in the NATO-standard 5.56x45 mm round, indicating that 43 Commando will be using a low-velocity round for its L119s.

File: screen shot 2015-10-02 at 10.03.25 am.jpg (53KB, 955x622px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 955x622px

>>32542836
>>32542855
????

>>32543016
>reasonable

>>32543046
You understand that there's very little difference in height between the two, right.

>>32538081
>I dislike the bulpup because of the akwardness of the location of the charging rod and mag release

100% american AR bias right there.

>>32543016
Fuck i forgot how cute 14.5" looks

>>32543143
It's a pretty significant difference.

File: 1483425873655[1].jpg (38KB, 650x433px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 650x433px

It's important that we don't forget just how much of a weak fucking sister 5.56 out of a short barrel is. 5.56mm M855 ammunition is optimized for a 20" barrel with a 1:7 twist. It is not surprising that its greatest velocity of 2979 ft/sec is obtained in a 20" barrel. After all, Stoner designed the cartridge for the 20" barrel.

Decreased velocity with barrels much shorter than 14.5" (the M4 carbine barrel) have a number of unwanted effects. Lowered linear velocity produces lower rotational velocity, which will result in diminished gyroscopic stability of the bullet. It will also result in significantly decreased projectile kinetic energy, decreased ability to generate a significant would channel, and will reach a point of diminishing returns where lethality of the round definitely comes into question. Once you go below 11", muzzle velocity nose dives. M855 bullets traveling below 2500 fps when impacting a target will not produce a lethal wound channel. On the graph, anything below the red line is shit).

Secondly, with shorter barrels, tuning of the gas port for weapon cycling becomes more critical. Adding a suppressor, which does slightly increase bore pressure, will result in more erratic and forceful cycling of the weapon leading to earlier weapon failure. It is also apparent that the pressure near the barrel rises exponentially with less barrel length, which necessitates that suppressors on shorter barrel weapons be designed to handle much higher pressures. The M4 does use appropriate suppressors, but many casual gun owners may put themselves at risk by putting one of those on a 10.5 inch barrel AR.

In short, there has been a cultural shift from the 20-inch barrel length in AR-15/M16 weapon systems chambered for 5.56 to progressively shorter barrels for the purpose of producing an increasingly more compact assault weapon without resorting to a bullpup design. This causes problems with sound, and lethality. If you don't want those problems, use a bullpup.

File: 1479768688432.gif (414KB, 480x287px) Image search: [Google]

414KB, 480x287px

>>32543214
>Stoner designed the cartridge

>>32543214
M855A1 and MK262 have solved the lethality problem.

It's just so. fucking. ugly.

>>32543266
I literally used M855 as my basis. I know that trend toward shorter barrels resulted in the U.S. Army and Marine Corps adopting the 14.5-inch barreled M4 carbine with a re-design of 5.56×45 from the 55 grain SS-109 to the 63 grain M855 ammunition to optimize this barrel length. The differing bullet design also necessitated a change in the rifling twist rate from the original 1:12 inches to 1:7 inches. The graph shows M855 and how it performs with a 14.5" barrel. 5.56mm's home is at 20". That's where it is always going to be the most effective.

File: 5381655+_2c81772e9766f553ca3c6f142f114714.jpg (55KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 625x626px

>>32543353
I've seen this pasta before.

>>32543380
I'm not lying, bud. Even if you've seen me say these things before.

File: 1475285983771.jpg (123KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 960x960px

>>32543401

>>32540422

The front sight is attacted to the gas block. It's solid

>>32543214

That graph is bs

>>32543485
It came from a study.

>>32542987
That doesn't make any sense though? Why wouldn't they just use frang in their L85s?

>>32543353
>I know that trend toward shorter barrels resulted in the U.S. Army and Marine Corps adopting the 14.5-inch barreled M4 carbine with a re-design of 5.56×45 from the 55 grain SS-109 to the 63 grain M855 ammunition to optimize this barrel length.
You don't know shit. M855 came about to meet armor penetration requirements out of a 20" barreled SAW.

>>32543566
Whose study, some guy with a chrono in his backyard? M855 velocities vary wildly from lot to lot, it's not exactly match grade.

>>32543735
You don't know dick about the history of the round or its performance. The guys used scientific method to do this. The results clearly demonstrate the negative effects of firing 5.56 from short barrels.

http://www.sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=1093

>>32543839
>You don't know dick about the history of the round or its performance.
Coming from someone who thinks SS109 is 55 grain! Fucking priceless. I shouldn't have to tell you this, but SS109 is the NATO designation for the steel tipped round the US military calls M855. In other words, it's the same fucking thing, retard.

>The guys used scientific method to do this.
Along with a complete lack of understanding wrt basic grammar, you've proven you don't know how science is fucking done.

Where did they find evidence to support that a 62 grain projectile traveling 2500fps is physically incapable of causing a lethal wound? If that's the case, lemme shoot you with a .22lr, it's only 40gr traveling at sub 2000 fps so it's totally nonlethal!

Anyways the velocity data can't be extrapolated to all M855, the authors themselves state they only tested one lot, and M855 is known to exhibit serious velocity variations across lots.

>>32538081
>people shouldn't like something they have experience because i don't like them and have no experience with the thing I'm complaining about

>>32543915
>you've proven you don't know how science is fucking done
>grammar attacks when grammar is actually perfect

You're going for the knockout when you haven't even broken the guard, and in tern have revealed that you don't know anything about 5.56mm and gotten knocked out yourself.

>Where did they find evidence to support that a 62 grain projectile traveling 2500fps is physically incapable of causing a lethal wound?

It doesn't fragment below that speed. You could shoot me with a .22 from 200m away, but I'm pretty sure I'd live to shoot you back with a 5.56mm round fire from a 20'' barreled AR, and that my bullet would be more "lethal".

With regards to the authors only testing one lot, if they tested various ammo, it would only add variables. Better to just test the round that the military or police uses.

File: 5181659+_321b078abb9b1ccfd0e9ada0bd9a7c8b.png (39KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 625x626px

>>32543735
>>32543915

>>32538081
> I dislike the bulpup because of the akwardness of the location of the charging rod and mag release. And the annoying shape of the trigger and trigger guard. He insists that "i trained with the l85 and i think its great."

he's right. train with it and its perfectly fine.

train with it first and then go to an AR pattern, everything feels as you describe - akward locations for charging rod, mag release, etc.

its not that its a bad layout, its just you arent used to it.


>>32538605
>There's a new bong bullpup?

I'm sorry to break the news to you, but you've been in a coma for the last 17 years, it seems.

>>32537845
I've shot an A1 in full auto. I don't know if its just the weight of it or not but it was surprisingly very stable during full auto.

>>32543164
It's not.

>>32544648
>You're going for the knockout when you haven't even broken the guard, and in tern have revealed that you don't know anything about 5.56mm and gotten knocked out yourself.
>being this delusional
>"the guys used scientific method to do this" is perfect grammar
>tfw knowing what SS109 is and refuting the incorrect claims by the "study" authors is evidence of not knowing anything about 5.56mm

Just fucking google SS109. I'm waiting. It's the fucking same thing as M855. You're thinking of M193 when you talk about 55gr, dumbass.

>It doesn't fragment below that speed. You could shoot me with a .22 from 200m away, but I'm pretty sure I'd live to shoot you back with a 5.56mm round fire from a 20'' barreled AR, and that my bullet would be more "lethal".
So the authors' diagram caption is wrong, and furthermore the extrapolations regarding terminal ballistics only apply to the 62gr M855 projectile and not to 77gr SMKs or to 62gr MK318.

>With regards to the authors only testing one lot, if they tested various ammo, it would only add variables. Better to just test the round that the military or police uses.
>thinking that different lots means a totally different round
>Not knowing that military issued ammo is produced in lots over time.
>As in there are many, many different lots of M855 produced across the years, hence lot numbers on the packaging so you can source the ammo if some QC issues are found.

Actually this is fucking hilarious. I'm putting on a goddamn clinic about 5.56mm history and this retard thinks I'm baiting him.

Anyways SS109/M855 originally came about to penetrate the NATO CRISAT armor model (meant to replicate Soviet body armor) at a distance, out of then state-of-the-art 20" barreled M249.

The change in M16 barrel twist to 1:7 came as a response to SS109, and not the other way around as originally suggested. Furthermore the Army actually wanted 1:9, but didn't get it. Apparently at the time people assumed 1:7 was the slowest twist rate that would stabilize SS109 and the equivalent tracer loading, which later turned out to be questionable.

>>32545370
One should note that the Army was right to question the 1:7 twist rate as we now know 1:8 and even 1:9 will stabilize 62gr projectiles sufficiently. It's not clear why everyone jumped on the 1:7 train, although I think this comes from FN Herstal's guidance. The Army recommendation for 1:9 twist came about in an Army Research Institute hit piece on the Marine-designed M16A2, so any valid points that were made were likely immediately lost in inter-service shit flinging.

>>32541120
Why is the para so sexy?

Because its just the evolution of the AR-18 we never got... especially in the fact we still can't get it.

>>32541180

Because Japan has strict gun laws and the government is the only customer so no economies of scale. Same reason the Famas was so expensive for France.

>>32541089
>35% cheaper
That's pretty fucking impressive.
Military procurement working as intended for once.

>>32541791
And stiffness (composite matricies are a bitch), heat resistance, wear resistance (stress cycles), and them being finickier and more annoying to work with than metals as a whole.

>>32538081
>He insists that "i trained with the l85 and i think its great."

If he trained with it, and assuming he's in the forces, then I imagine that's all he used as we don't use any other rifle (apart from small isolated cases with specific units). I imagine he liked it because he has no basis for comparison.

>>32543915
>lemme shoot you with a .22lr
But meme bounce

>>32543839
They're bongs, they don't know shit about guns.

Watched the Forgotten Weapons episode about the L85A1. What really surprised me was the crappy look of the gun on the close shots. The L85A1 looks like it was made from Nigerian potmetal in an Indian slum. In comparison Romanian AKs look like they were made from mithril and diamonds.

>>32547624

>they don't know shit about guns

Actually many of us know plenty.

>>32539068
11lbs with ACOG/ELCAN and empty rail, loaded mag is pretty bad. And that's without Grippod and a LLM.

M4 with ACOG, PEQ, grip and surefire is lighter, hell M4 and M203 is lighter

I was issued A1 and as I could read and listen and wasn't a Royal Marine who considered himself special, never had a problem with it. It was not well made, but I kept it clean and looked after it. Ergonomically it was poor, with too much weight toward the rear of the rifle. The furniture was adequate, the trigger was soon altered to be slightly easier to use (but still too heavy). I used both incarnations of the A1, the factory fresh one and the one which was altered to have the mag release (and other things) changed. The only reason I got my hands on the factory unaltered version was due to chance, by the time I joined it was A1 with improvements as standard.

The A2 was a massive improvement. "Accuracy" is something that gets bandied about a lot, but the A2 was an accurate weapon. It eliminated most of the A1 issues and performed well where we took it.

All that said, I also used Diemacos (and other AR pattern rifles) and was under the distinct impression that it was a more refined product. It didn't function differently or provide a massive advantage, it was just that bit lighter, that bit easier to move around when bending over or moving through water, better balanced. When it came to shooting the thing as per its designed use, it was no different.

>>32543711
RM claimed it wouldn't fire frangible ammunition. When it was demonstrated to them that it would, they had a very angry response about just how different their job was. The response that came back was an outline of how utterly pump their last Afghanistan tour was.

SAS hated SA80, as they had hated the SLR before it. They specified a need for a "flat top rifle" (which the SA80 is) then kicked off enough to get issued Diemaco, again. Army Infantry AR rifles were nearly all Colts and M16A1, which were used by my grandfather (who unfortunately posts here at times) in Borneo and by parts of the Infantry since - most notably by COP in Northern Ireland.

>>32547820

It was 11lb when it had the metal mags, SUSAT and the heavier components.

It's lighter now.

>>32547624
If you check the markings on the side it was a RoF test weapon, not an adopted one.

One of the main issues we had with the A1 was SNCOs assuming that you could clean it like you could anything else, so everyone scrubbed the coating off the parts. Once RM and others had got a guy in from the design team to show them how to clean it, they had something like 80 percent fewer stoppages.

The A1 was a bad weapon for a number of reasons but it cycled and fired just fine, it just needed looking after. When the people you issue it to first already have a complex and think they should be able to choose what rifle they're issued with, you could give them anything and they'd find fault with it.

>>32547899
>Which were used by my grandfather (who unfortunately still posts here at times)
The old ex army bong who was in SE Asia?

>>32547624
but i'm not a bong
and the guy you're quoting literally thinks SS109 is 55gr ball ammo, so it's obvious who doesn't know dick.

>>32547278
Ofc more difficult to make than metals, otherwise wouldn't be the future would it, progress onwards and upwards etc. Immediate heat resistance and wear resistance can be very good, c. Teflon or carbon fiber brake pads. Heat conduction and absorption isn't. There is also a basic problem of longevity to do with evaporating hydrocarbons.

Numbers>>32541791
show how out of balance the ultimate argument is . Elasticity is OK, not an intrinsically bad thing and can be varied anyway. But NB 56% the density of Aluminum while 4 1/2 times as strong. If was a cross-sectional strength test (probably is) implies 8 times as strong per weight.

>>32538661
>accidental mag drops during combat
Not been in combat but been on plenty of exercises as infantry using the A1 and never seen this happen.
t. Gareth.

File: fucking bongs in charge of fucking everything up.jpg (83KB, 800x510px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 800x510px

Still super fucking sexy. Tfw no bullpup AR-18 with SA80 aesthetics that works

File: 2b8df3aa89dfaa92b2adb0d3f1b27dd0.jpg (9KB, 236x260px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 236x260px

>>32542627
20 shekels