Jump to content

Hamster Buys an Lct, and Isn't Entirely Impressed……


Recommended Posts

  • Supporters

So I’m normally not the biggest fan of “out of the box” style reviews especially on youtube where the focus seems to be spending 80% of the time discussing how ambidextrous an m4 is followed by some shooting on a 10m range and declaring it to be the greatest thing ever.

Indeed I have another new pew I’d love to review but I’m intentionally waiting until I can answer a couple of questions about it that I know I’d like to see in a review. However unlike a lot of youtube reviews I bought this gun with my own money, and I’m not making any profit by taking the time to write out my thoughts on it and I sure as hell aint getting any commission from any of the manufacturers I’m referencing for comparison.

However, I done bought an lct ak, for the longest time I’ve been of the opinion (by reputation) that lct’s ak’s were the equals to e&l in terms of offering solidly built ak’s made of proper blued steel with respectable internals.

Unfortunately this is an opinion that has changed somewhat, now granted I’m talking about a sample size of 1 here, and we all know Friday afternoon guns exist, and some of the features that bug me are maybe not so big a deal for someone else but I’m going to indulge in a little elitism.

 

So the version I bought was this:

https://gunfire.com/en/products/g03-nv-assault-rifle-replica-1152198592.html

 

aesthetic choices aside, I liked the looks of the upper handguard and the right hand folder is ideal for me for both transport and because I like using side-mounted optics and the ability to still fold the stock is of value to me.

Full disclosure, this did need a spring downgrade meaning gunfire’s tech department did crack open the box but I have no reason to believe they messed with anything but the spring  so I’m not going to put any blame on them for the issues I’ll be discussing.

 

So fastforward, I gets a gun.

 

Out of the box and “hmmm, this isn’t as shiny as I thought it would be”

This is going to be a very hard one to photograph, but fortunately I currently happen to have an e&l 105 which can illustrate for comparison, as a note the assembled gun is the e&l and the disassembled gun is the lct (yes I stripped down a brand new gun):

 

IMG_20200904_104116.thumb.jpg.f863f4a422b3bc502bf1d839dce82fa3.jpg

 

so what you’re looking at there is the dust cover from the lct fitted to the e&l. notice how the bluing on the e&l is, well, blue, and the lct is more of a matt black, it’s much more evident in the flesh compared to photographs.

It’s not a bad finish per-se, and maybe it’ll wear in nicely, but I must admit I really prefer the e&l bluing. The lct’s finish almost looks like the paint you’d find on the lower end guns like jg’s or cyma’s.

Next issue on the externals is this:

 

IMG_20200904_104526.thumb.jpg.8224a63a327830782e0fbed8c8724598.jpg

 

Now I’m not exactly a markings freak, I’m cool with a gun not having markings, but that really irks me having that etched on the bottom of the receiver, especially when they bothered to actually put markings on the trunnion:

 

IMG_20200904_104535.thumb.jpg.c0f97905fe44045bad198e6b4e590b52.jpg

 

Moving on around the externals lets talk about stock fixing, the stock is held on by 2 pegs and a bolt into the rear of the receiver, but take a look at this:

 

IMG_20200904_104614.thumb.jpg.e664a7c3bd603f7bf02c53e3be2ec342.jpg

 

Yep, that’s 2.5mm of metal if I’m being generous, not exactly the most robust mounting for a gun stock, fortunately the bolt protrudes quite a way so getting a nut and washer in there to secure it properly won’t be too much of an issue.

 

There’s also other details, this is kind of a spree of comparing lct and e&l and not really a functional problem, but observe that for things like the trigger guard, sight block, gas block etc which on an ak are either pinned or riveted have bolts on the lct. Now granted this means you can more easily remove them, which is a blessing or a curse depending on how look at it, personally I prefer the proper riveting on the e&l

 

IMG_20200904_104641.thumb.jpg.2a43ebdfcbdd8b289ce73a67e2906687.jpg

 

Lct trigger guard with bolts

 

IMG_20200904_104651.thumb.jpg.3cd5880ed6a8fd0a517240d489eaf928.jpg

 

E&l with rivets

 

e&l sight block with, well I’m not entirely sure how they’ve mounted that, I’m guessing a press fit because there are no screws or rivets holding it on:

 

IMG_20200904_104808.thumb.jpg.d3ce490d717558d56405537c632ffc29.jpg

 

Lct sight block with screws and pins.

 

IMG_20200904_104914.thumb.jpg.46daa10d200c71f7a7bbf93d4321d15c.jpg

 

 

Rear sight block where we see our choice of battlesight marking, the e&l appears to be more faithful to the markings on proper sights although I’m not enough of an expert to say that N isn’t also valid.

 

IMG_20200904_104744.thumb.jpg.128f093756d344e91b0d6271ce60ac14.jpg

 

Next is the muzzle device, oh what joys…..

Out of the box it was a bit rattly, no biggie that’s a pretty common one, I’ll just do my usual trick of stuffing o-rings in there until it doesn’t rattle any more….

Well this is where we have a problem, for those unfamiliar with the ak platform the way you remove the muzzle device is you push down a pin and screw it off.

So the e&l we can see the pin is accessible with a fingernail also note how the cutout is rounded so you can poke something in there to pull the pin back:

 

IMG_20200904_104808.thumb.jpg.d3ce490d717558d56405537c632ffc29.jpg

 

Now contrast that to the lct, ignore the strand of ptfe tape I used to reduce the wobble:

 

IMG_20200904_104859.thumb.jpg.8863942c1865dadf3e8ad69338317da2.jpg

 

What’s not evident from photos is how much of a pain in the ass it is to remove.

The pin is sunk in due to a lack of chamfer on the rear of the brake, meaning you can’t just get a fingernail on it and pull it back, and the square end of the slot meant I couldn’t even get a needle in the gap to push it back to get unscrewing.

Eventually I had to remove the front sight block completely, punch out the pin that holds the back end of the spring, pull the spring out (really awkwardly as it had to go round a 90 degree bend) then tap the whole assembly until the pin had shifted enough to get a needle in and pull it back.

So what should be a 10 second field accomplished job took 20 minutes and a bunch of tools.

 

The next (albeit minor) bugbear is the thread assembly, this is one of those features that isn’t so bad but it’s a difference so I’ll mention it. E&l’s threads are the coarse Russian threads which are cast as one-piece into the sight block, this means you’re not putting standard 14mm ccw devices on there without an adaptor. The lct setup is similar to the jg’s/cyma’s I’ve seen where the sight block has a 14mm ccw thread, then an adaptor that bulks it out to the Russian style. This is the cause of the wobble however the installation of an o-ring around the smaller thread takes up a lot of that slack.

I’d take pictures of it but that would involve trying to remove the muzzle device again and screw that…..

Ok, so these are the aesthetic features, stuff that’s not really a functional issue at least if you’re not planning on any major modification to the externals.

 

However there is a bunch of functional stuff.

Lets start with the hop and magwell.

E&l you get a spacer as so:

 

IMG_20200904_104657.thumb.jpg.be6cc3a8f311f52531920f8afda5a4a9.jpg

 

Makes it nice and easy to get the front feed-lip into it’s slot for a speedier reload, not that I’m a tacticool reloading type but it’s a little quality of life feature you also enjoy on jg’s and cyma’s albeit implemented differently.

I haven’t got a photo of the lct’s magwell but it has no such spacer, meaning you’ve got to take a little extra time indexing the mag properly.

 

Next up is one of the really big bugbears- the hop mounting

So the standard way for pulling the gearbox on a top-wired ak is as such:

1.       Remove pistol grip

2.       Remove selector lever

3.       Unbolt hop

4.       Slide hop forwards

5.       Gearbox wiggles out the top of the gun

Pretty damn simple and I must say a much nicer process to deal with than say the extended process to pull the box out of an m4.

However, lets do a little comparison:

 

IMG_20200904_104706.thumb.jpg.d6bf6f19c51883178caa0cf1d31175fa.jpg

IMG_20200904_104951.thumb.jpg.0ea0ca34bd0508195ddd6ef4af51ca5b.jpg

 

Note the “step” in the barrel extension, on the e&l this is about 1.5” forward of the hop mounting, meaning plenty of room to slide forward and clear the nozzle, jg’s and cyma’s are the same although they have various blocks that need to be removed/slid forward to make clearance (and require the nozzle to be in the rear position)

 

However on the lct you can’t do this, so as far as I can tell it’s not possible to remove the gearbox without pulling the whole goddamn outer barrel assembly off, maybe owners can chime in on this if there’s a trick I’m missing but for the sake of a few more seconds milling time they could have made it so much easier.

 

Whilst I’m going to reserve judgement on the hop for when I actually fire it, it’s a plastic unit compared to the aluminium unit on the e&l, now plastic hop units aren’t necessarily bad (hence reserving full judgement) for example jg’s white plastic hop units are really good, but the lct’s doesn’t look or feel even as well made as the jg unit, in fact it feels much like the unit you got with the ASCU2 mosfet with the microswitch for last round cutoff, anyone unfortunate enough to own one of those knows exactly what I’m talking about.

 

So far these are all intentional design features rather than quality control, now we’re straying into the territory where it could be a bad luck Friday afternoon gun but here goes.

The comparison here is again with the e&l although I’m going to also reference jg’s blowback line to highlight the point.

 

So, the e&l out of the box, plug in a battery “ooh that’s rough sounding”, adjust the motor height screw “ahh that’s better”, a quick general inspection of the box reveals perfect air seal and no reason to mess with things like shimming, aoe etc.

The lct out of the box, plug in a battery “ooh that’s rough sounding”, adjust the motor height screw, nope she still sounds like she ate a bag of gravel.

So pull the box and take a look. For starters the air seal isn’t quite as good as the e&l (although certainly passable) however the real problem is the gears….

 

I mentioned earlier gunfire’s tech department had already opened the box to downgrade the spring but I have no reason to believe they’d mess with the shimming while in there.

However we find 3 shims total of ~0.3mm

 

After taking the time to do it properly it needed nearly 1mm of shims on just the sector gear alone and it was a massive pain in the ass getting the gears into a position where they wouldn’t rub against each other or the box. However this didn’t fix the issue, she’s still sounds awful, well here’s why:

IMG_20200904_120638.thumb.jpg.12522b755eaf21ab9c7dc33de43d45cd.jpgIMG_20200904_120647.thumb.jpg.9021cba940556d56a00f7c2a8b1e25e5.jpg

 

 

It’s kinda hard to see on camera but there’s visible pitting and roughness on the engagement surfaces of the gears.

 

Sure the faces of the gears are all shiny and machined down, but the actual business end that does the needed job is atrocious. It says a lot that a jg or cyma of 1/3 the cost gets this shit right.

the bevel gear admittedly doesn’t have this roughness, instead it’s such a tight fit to the bearings it needs to be punched out and makes splitting the box a massive pain, although granted once assembled a nice tight fit to the bearings is a good thing.

 

The motor was rather underwhelming, the e&l, AGM and jg motors have stronger magnets (note that’s listed in order with e&l’s being the strongest, somewhat comparable to the asg basic you get in an evo).

 

The aoe was also bad, real bad, now whilst I can hear negative airsoft screaming in the background this was way too far forward, a criticism I can’t level at the e&l (mostly due to the e&l using a thicker “silent” type piston head)

 

Now fortunately in this case I’m no stranger to pulling boxes apart and I’d planned before I’d bought it to change the gearing anyway, but most folk probably don’t expect a brand new and nominally high end gun to merit this kind of tlc. Maybe I’ve got a Friday afternooner, or maybe nuprol’s influence has taken the qc down a few notches, but needless to say it’s not what I was expecting based on my impressions of lct’s reputation up until now.

 

So here we are, I’m awaiting an ak2m4 order to fix the gearbox issues (hmmmm zci advanced gears…..) and while I’m waiting I figured I’d put it out as a review to explain why in future I’m going to be changing to recommending e&l’s offerings over lct, although granted lct do some models that e&l don’t (like the gun I’m reviewing).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say that this is an interesting read, especially as I know very little about either company, or ak's in general. but the comparison is definitely something I'll remember and is very handy if only for understanding their design philosophies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah good read - I did just check my LCT 74u and you're correct about the hop having the step, I must have taken something else apart that didn't have that step, maybe an older model.

LCT was a way better prospect back before the Nuprol hike, you could expect to pay about £230/£240 for a AK-74M or something of the ilk and E&Ls prices were up in the £300s, now that's pretty much reversed and the E&Ls prices are more like LCTs old ones. The things like the magwell adapters, etc. were something you could take on the chin just because you'd saved money :D Between the two I'd just go for the cheapest you can find right now.

 

There have been comments on the internet about the E&L finish being nicer to look at but not lasting as long as LCTs (prone to rusting or something), as well as their steel being thicker but of a lower quality - though this is the internet so I take that with a bag of salt (more than a pinch as the internet is full of cry babies 😄)

One minor thing to point out is that the G-04 is something that LCT put together, so the galil style stock is something that they've thrown on and the rear sight has the N over the cyrillic whilst other LCT AKs have the proper marking.

 

Genuinely think my next project is going to be a CYMA 105 and throw some bits on, I can't bring myself to spray over an LCT or E&L and the value for the bits you're getting just seems great.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Shaydee said:

There have been comments on the internet about the E&L finish being nicer to look at but not lasting as long as LCTs

The E&L bodies need to be cleaned and oiled regularly or they rust very quickly, this can be a good or bad thing depending on whether or not you want that worn battlefield pick up look or not. I've never owned an LCT so I can't really comment on how they compare 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Supporters
21 minutes ago, Shaydee said:

LCT was a way better prospect back before the Nuprol hike, you could expect to pay about £230/£240 for a AK-74M or something of the ilk and E&Ls prices were up in the £300s, now that's pretty much reversed and the E&Ls prices are more like LCTs old ones. The things like the magwell adapters, etc. were something you could take on the chin just because you'd saved money :D Between the two I'd just go for the cheapest you can find right now.

 

price is a valid point and indeed e&l's are very reasonably priced currently.

 

21 minutes ago, Shaydee said:

There have been comments on the internet about the E&L finish being nicer to look at but not lasting as long as LCTs (prone to rusting or something), as well as their steel being thicker but of a lower quality - though this is the internet so I take that with a bag of salt (more than a pinch as the internet is full of cry babies 😄)

 

i suppose i can't really comment on the longevity, i agree that e&l's do need a bit of care and attention in terms of giving them a good oiling every now and again but then that's the price you pay for the bluing. frankly i'd expect the lct would have needed the same treatment.

 

the lct is needless to say brand new although there is some rust under the trunnion where the handguard slots in.

 

mate of mine did manage to bend an e&l reviever but the circumstances around that very much constitute rough treatment.

 

21 minutes ago, Shaydee said:

One minor thing to point out is that the G-04 is something that LCT put together, so the galil style stock is something that they've thrown on and the rear sight has the N over the cyrillic whilst other LCT AKs have the proper marking.

 

quite possible, i'm not as massive an ak nerd as some, although i did look it up before buying and the NV version of the ak and it seemed to be a night optic variant, although i'm damned if i can find the source for that info now....

 

it's not something i normally bother looking at in that kind of depth purely something i noticed while taking photos and thought i'd include. it's worth noting the fire selector markings are in cyrillic

 

21 minutes ago, Shaydee said:

Genuinely think my next project is going to be a CYMA 105 and throw some bits on, I can't bring myself to spray over an LCT or E&L and the value for the bits you're getting just seems great.

 

if you're gonna spray it why the hell not, can't fault cyma or jg for their ability to make a gun that accomplishes the fundamental task of lobbing plastic. only reason to go for the higher end variants is externals (hence the deep dive into comparisons).

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Adolf Hamster said:

 I suppose i can't really comment on the longevity, i agree that e&l's do need a bit of care and attention in terms of giving them a good oiling every now and again but then that's the price you pay for the bluing. frankly i'd expect the lct would have needed the same treatment.

 

the lct is needless to say brand new although there is some rust under the trunnion where the handguard slots in.

 

I'll say the only 'first hand' evidence I have is an LCT 74M with olive furniture, I sold it but still know the owner - I bought it about 5 years ago now and only ever left it under a radiator to dry in the case of rain, the only rust was some surface stuff near the front sight posts and similarly the trunion.

 

23 minutes ago, Adolf Hamster said:

quite possible, i'm not as massive an ak nerd as some, although i did look it up before buying and the NV version of the ak and it seemed to be a night optic variant, although i'm damned if i can find the source for that info now....

 

I want to say the NV in the LCT case just means 'New Version' - as for if that's correct, or what the 'new version' has/does, I don't have the foggiest 😄

 

Edit: Now I think about it, you may be thinking of just the N on the end of AKMN, AK-74N and the like, denoting the side mount originally used for the night vision optics as these weren't something originally added (not noted on all models though, just the older ones I think). I'll thank Tarkov for that bit of useless knowledge that got stuck in the head.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Supporters
52 minutes ago, Shaydee said:

I want to say the NV in the LCT case just means 'New Version' - as for if that's correct, or what the 'new version' has/does, I don't have the foggiest 😄

 

Edit: Now I think about it, you may be thinking of just the N on the end of AKMN, AK-74N and the like, denoting the side mount originally used for the night vision optics as these weren't something originally added (not noted on all models though, just the older ones I think). I'll thank Tarkov for that bit of useless knowledge that got stuck in the head.

 

i have it in my head it was n-2 or something was the designation for the side-folder variant, although i'm damned if i can find a pic of it. but yeah one of the earlier optic mounts before they became standard

 

made sense at the time to think the right folder would be on an optics model given the left folders interfere with the optics, although regardless of the legitimacy of the galil style stock my main annoyance is how poor the mounting is.

 

if the nv is new version in lct's parlance i havent a bloody clue whats new about it either, i mean there's nothing revolutionary about the design in the slightest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Will give E&L credit for making some of their AKs available in kit form. It's useful if you are intending on changing the internals from the get go.

Some of the LCT lineup are coming out of the box with magwell spacers.  It's annoying that they don't do it across the board. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Shaydee said:

LCT was a way better prospect back before the Nuprol hike

This.

Back in 2018 you could get the budget LCT AK for under £200. And for that you got a good body and a gearbox that was a bit hit or miss. Some were good out of the box, others needed minor corrections. Generally they didn't need any parts adding, it was just a case of going in and making sure the shimming and airseals were right. A basic E&L was £300+ it was always known that they made the better gun, but the LCT was almost as good, and destroyed the plastic competition without breaking the budget.

E&L are now cheaper than LCT for some models, and when compared side by side as you have done E&L are the clear winner.

Bring that back up to now and there seems to be a much lower QC on the LCT gearbox. You are not alone in having to replace parts, I spoke to a guy with a new G3 on facebook the other day and he had loads of small problems and QC issues that means new parts rather than just adjustments. I tried to speak to LCT about the G3 mag issues and they still persist 2 years later. I doubt if any of the other LCT problems will be corrected.

Nuprol may well have bought a controlling share in LCT (speculation), And because of that we are seeing a price hike as well as a reduction in QC. We already know what most Nuprol guns are like internally, They cut corner to maximise profits on an industrial scale. So aside from a few models and variant that you can only get by LCT - G3 and some very select AK variants, It's now better to look at the E&L variants.

Neither company do a good gun blue. LCT is a paint but it's thin and can be weathered It also looks very good once it gets some sheen. E&L use a chemical blue but it's not the same as you get with a regular gun personally I don't think it looks correct - Good gun blue is almost black. If you want to see what it should look like go find a gun dealer in the UK and have a browse, There are plenty about and you will see a huge variance in blues.

Also you can pay to have any steel parts professionally blued, have a look at the examples on here and you will see what I mean by closer to black.

http://www.gunrestoration.co.uk/case-studies/index.asp

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Supporters
5 hours ago, Iceni said:

Back in 2018 you could get the budget LCT AK for under £200. And for that you got a good body and a gearbox that was a bit hit or miss. Some were good out of the box, others needed minor corrections. Generally they didn't need any parts adding, it was just a case of going in and making sure the shimming and airseals were right. A basic E&L was £300+ it was always known that they made the better gun, but the LCT was almost as good, and destroyed the plastic competition without breaking the budget.

 

i've heard conflicting info over the years, hence my opinion they seemed on average to be held in about the same regard as e&l's stuff (some folk said one was better, others the reverse etc)

 

5 hours ago, Iceni said:

E&L are now cheaper than LCT for some models, and when compared side by side as you have done E&L are the clear winner.

 

that's the conclusion i've come to. kinda wish i owned that 105....

 

5 hours ago, Iceni said:

Bring that back up to now and there seems to be a much lower QC on the LCT gearbox. You are not alone in having to replace parts, I spoke to a guy with a new G3 on facebook the other day and he had loads of small problems and QC issues that means new parts rather than just adjustments. I tried to speak to LCT about the G3 mag issues and they still persist 2 years later. I doubt if any of the other LCT problems will be corrected.

 

interesting to know i'm not alone on the gearbox side of things. i must admit i was really taken aback by just how bad the gears/motor are. i'm really not exaggerating to say that even JG have done a better job on their ~£110 recoil line (although those guns do punch well above their price bracket)

 

5 hours ago, Iceni said:

Nuprol may well have bought a controlling share in LCT (speculation), And because of that we are seeing a price hike as well as a reduction in QC. We already know what most Nuprol guns are like internally, They cut corner to maximise profits on an industrial scale. So aside from a few models and variant that you can only get by LCT - G3 and some very select AK variants, It's now better to look at the E&L variants.

 

afaik, at least from the rumour mill (salt piles on standby), is that nuprol own both e&l and lct, but they're getting lct to make the recievers for their own product line (that come with nuprol branded gearboxes and seem aimed at competing with arcturus), presumably they've left e&l to their own devices because the 105 is also a recent purchase and seems to be on a par with the other e&l's i've worked on.

 

5 hours ago, Iceni said:

Neither company do a good gun blue. LCT is a paint but it's thin and can be weathered It also looks very good once it gets some sheen. E&L use a chemical blue but it's not the same as you get with a regular gun personally I don't think it looks correct - Good gun blue is almost black. If you want to see what it should look like go find a gun dealer in the UK and have a browse, There are plenty about and you will see a huge variance in blues.

 

this is true, although subjectively i still think e&l's looks nicer. guess that's why real sword exists.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Adolf Hamster said:

i've heard conflicting info over the years, hence my opinion they seemed on average

LCT have had a rocky past for QC. They did make significant progress with the V3 gearboxes a couple of years ago, and that's when people started to recommend them. Before then, the original gearboxes caused issues because of cheap parts - the guns were advised as wall hangers and projects to upgrade.

Nuprol seem to have sent them back to how the gearboxes used to be, Either that or they just picked up an absolute bucket load of really poor parts on a contract. It's not outside of the realm of possibility that these issues are been caused by a contract with a supplier that was signed for several years or for a specific quantity, and now LCT are locked to those parts with no way of getting out unless they pay. I've seen similar things happen with engineering contracts where I work. You buy a service contract for a set time period but the supplier cuts corners and there is no direct way to escape that contact without the courts.

It's speculation at best but it's only the gearboxes that seem to be affected, the bodies are still exactly the same. There has been no reduction in steel thickness, finish, or welding quality. All things I would expect to be hit first as those processes would save more money than bulk gearbox parts and assembly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Supporters
18 hours ago, Iceni said:

LCT have had a rocky past for QC. They did make significant progress with the V3 gearboxes a couple of years ago, and that's when people started to recommend them. Before then, the original gearboxes caused issues because of cheap parts - the guns were advised as wall hangers and projects to upgrade.

Nuprol seem to have sent them back to how the gearboxes used to be, Either that or they just picked up an absolute bucket load of really poor parts on a contract. It's not outside of the realm of possibility that these issues are been caused by a contract with a supplier that was signed for several years or for a specific quantity, and now LCT are locked to those parts with no way of getting out unless they pay. I've seen similar things happen with engineering contracts where I work. You buy a service contract for a set time period but the supplier cuts corners and there is no direct way to escape that contact without the courts.

It's speculation at best but it's only the gearboxes that seem to be affected, the bodies are still exactly the same. There has been no reduction in steel thickness, finish, or welding quality. All things I would expect to be hit first as those processes would save more money than bulk gearbox parts and assembly.

 

it's a hard one to call, i'm talking about just one gun so it's entirely possible i just got the bad luck of the draw and those gears are the exception rather than the rule.

 

that said, you don't need to be all that experienced at teching to pull the trigger and realise it doesn't sound right.

 

on the subject of welding the spot welds on the reciever are rather visible and not particularly neat, so maybe they are cutting corners there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...