Military and personal gear

So I know that you can have a personal optic for your service rifle but do our servicemen get to have other personal stuff like grips, stocks, BCGs, triggers, personal side arms, etc...?

sidearms no. You can pimp ur M4 out as long as your commander approves.

Best to leave the stock configuration alone, only install clamp on or rail grabber stuff that can be removed without disassembly.

Try to avoid swapping pistol grips, selectors, or end plates, this could lead to a non-functioning weapon.

No changing of the trigger, bolt, BCG or recoil springs....some get away with stocks and grips depending on the commander


NO PERSONAL OWNED FIREARMS PERIOD.

TACOM says no modifications at all.

This.

See AR750-10

TACOM is pretty much worthless when it comes to anything.

As said, depending on your CO and level of proficiency, you can modify quite a few things.

LOL

Already answered above.

Do what you want with permission to your M4.

No personal weapons.

Does that give TACOM punitive authority?

When TACOM starts convening Court Martials, let me know.

TACOM is about TACOM, and has long demonstrated that they put bureaucracy above effectiveness.

I'm still pissed about them getting pissy about people ordering an installing heavier duty HMMWV springs when the whole hillbilly armor trend started. They tried to claim it was unsafe. All they were really doing was protecting their parts forecasts.

TACOM can suggest all it wants. That is all it can do, suggest. They don't tell Commanders how to run their companies. Everything in 750-10 is waiverable.

All TACOM does is go out of their way to hinder the war fighter. Bunch of fucking bureaucrats.

Wow. I see a definite trend here with common opinions about TACOM. I got viciously jumped saying this same stuff back in 2005-6 time frame. Then again, maybe that thread was in GD?

When the ALARACT came out in 08ish that required removing aftermarket grips, stocks, and what not, I was in the arms room removing the one aftermarket grip I found.

I've gotten smarter since then.

I guess trying to prevent stupid is a bad thing now.

Some people are perfectly able to work on weapons, some people have zero buisness working on weapons or even changing a ink refill in a bic pen.

A man has to know his limitations.

In my unit we can. Make the weapon work for you. Just no trigger group mods. My work rifle below. 2/325th AIR 82nd ABN DIV

Trying to prevent stupid is not a bad thing. The issue is TACOM, being so distanced from the end user, attempts to prohibit or limit progress and functionality for the guys on the ground.

TACOM should serve as the conduit to let people know what is safe and what is not safe. That is not what they do. They simply avoid the issue, and hide behind regulations. They do this to protect rice bowls.

Now, we have people doing mods anyway, and no guidance from the people who should be providing it.

There is no reason why commanders can't be provided sober, accurate information about what mods can and can't do, what the possible risk is, and how to best mitigate those risks.

If you seriously believe that putting an M4 stock on a 20" barreled rifle is inherently unsafe, and there is not an ideal buffer, extractor combination to best ensure reliability for such a thing, maybe you can get a job at TACOM. Maybe you can even tell the Canadians they are putting their troops at risk and make up a munch of BS scare tactics. The rest of the Army has work to do.

In the Corps you cant have shit

Which is equally stupid. Typical big organization thinking, it's expensive and time consuming to train large numbers of people to a reasonable standard, so instead just prohibit the activity and save the time and money.

If you needed it, it would be issued to you

More like, if you dont want it, it will be issued to you anyway and you will have to use it whether you like it or not. Sure you can add stuff but you cant replace or take things off your weapon. So basically that leaves you with a vertical grip, bipod, sling, rail panels. Want a new PG, buttstock, rail, optic etc etc? Oh well

As far as gear goes, it depends on the units SOP and how the CO wants things to be. Some allow the use of your own plate carrier, but most dont. Alot allow your own chest rigs, pouches and molle gear but some dont. Whether or not you want it or are going to use it, you will get issued it. Just better hope you dont lose that shit when you turn it into CIF or its coming out of your own pocket because youll have to replace it. Like those pesky green gloves

Yeah gear accountability doesnt seem high on people's list of things to have. And I'm guessing no one is going to search for shit for you when you try to turn shit in so you don't owe the marine corps 2 grand when you leave. Even just at mcrdpi and mct I've seen people lose hundreds of dollars worth of shit and other shit just grow feet and walk off conveniently.

I asked this question not because im joining the army but one of my close friends is joining the marines and asked the question I said Id ask around so thats what im doing. thanks for the replies guys

The last thing your friend needs to worry about is putting stuff on his rifle.

Trust me they care about accountability. Leave your shit laying out when you hit the FMF and im sure you will find it duct taped to the top of the CO's office when hes not around. If shit grows feet and walks off then you arent being accountable. No one will tell you they are missing their gortex top, their beanie or some stupid shit like a BFA or some useless junk like black leather gloves. They will do whatever they can to get theirs back, leaving you no choice but to take a trip to Saigon Sams and pay premium. Thats of course if you dont trying to steal someone elses shit. None of that crap is serialized so no one cares nor can you track who took it. It all looks the same. Weapons and serialized gear is another story and thats what EDL's and log books are for.

This. OP tell your friend to get through Boot Camp first and stop being a motard because its nothing like Call of Duty or Battlefield 3

In my unit, they let us do whatever we want, as long as we don't touch the FCG or BCG. No internal mods. Stocks, grips, optics, sling endplates (MagPul ASAP) etc. are ok.

I ran a personally owned EOTech 552 on my M249 back when I was a SAW gunner while in Iraq in 2007.

When I deployed to Afghanistan, we had a lot of guys buying EOTech/Magnifier combos, and running those.

The MagPul CTR/MOE was a popular stock to see, as well as the VLTOR EMod/IMod.

It really depends on your unit, and how your CO and Company Armorer feel about it.

Gear/OCIE, maybe.

Any sensitive items, high-dollar value items, or worse, CCI that goes missing means your on lockdown until its found. No one leaves. You sleep at your unit.....ask me how I know.

not even my sling shot?

Thats because you have not been in long enough for you to have done hands across a two mile long drop zone just to find a 600$ M9 that the Army probably only has 150$ invested in. Accountability is a bigger issue than you realize.
For the OP, in my last unit we were allowed to make any non permanet changes we wanted. There is no reason to change anything internally on the weapons.

how about searching for 2 weeks, hands and knees, 4 drop zones, tank trails, and everyting in between for a KYK13 the fooken Brits had taken home as a "souvenier"?

Yeah, that was fun.

Not anymore

My CDR allowed me to use my MK12 SPR upper on my last deployment

Free

Like others have said it's extremely Unit SOP/CO/BC dependent.

I have a buddy in 4th ID who converted his squad's M4's to M4A1's (full auto instead of burst) and no one gives a shit.

He also is currently using his own upper.

My old 1SG didn't even want us using vertical fore grips.

We got a new 1SG and within a month it looked like half the company had been dragged through the entire Magpul catalog.

Which was pretty badass. Willingness to listen to SME's, adapt, and putting his name out there for you are pretty good CO qualities.

Exactly, i just didnt wanna use that quote lol

Does not change the fact that it is a violation of GO 1.

Your CDR just decided that he was willing to take the hit and allow you (even though your CDR said you could do it, you still knowingly violated GO 1 so you could take a shot to the chest as well) to take the hit if and when someone made an issue of it. Unless you happened to be working directly for the CENTCOM commander, there is no one else in theater that has the authority to suspend GO1. And yes, people have gotten hemmed up for violating that portion of GO 1.

Yes, some folks are able to sneak bye with personal "weapons" (generally uppers is what slips through) and weapons mods that violate the various peices of paper that say they are not ok (freefloat rails, sling attachement devices, etc). What someone gets away with and what is "authorized" are two very different things.

Those that decide to do the things above, are making a decision and decisions have conseqences. If you can live with the consquences, then have it. If you can't, don't tread there.

Please cite exactly where in GO1 uppers are considered weapons on their own. Aren't you the guy who said the MP's destroyed his personally owned upper and optics for having them in the barracks?

Even in a leadership position in theater I couldn't find a copy of the damned thing. Is there even one on the 'net? At what point does an order like that get too big, and we need a number 2?

If it does mandate adhering to the "no modifications" directive from TACOM, that would indeed make it a punitive order. At least, legally.

I think you will find a copy on the ARCENT web page under links to PAO. In some back issue of the magazine they put out.

You got a GO 1B that came out in like 2006 and then for some reason there is a GO1A that came out for OIF in around 2010 that was more specific. Got a printed copy on my desk but today is a day of resilience
so I am off. I do think that it says parts of weapons...just not sure.

Nope, not I. Been a LONG time since I had to live in the barracks.

Your right, GO1 does not specificly call out an upper as a POW. the verbiage if I recall correctly is something like "Purchase, possession, use or sale of privately owned firearms, ammunition, explosives, or the introduction of these items into the AOR" I don't have it in front of me at the moment.

We can go back and forth over the defintion of a "weapon", "firearm", etc all day long. Ultimalty, neither one of us are the final authority. All we can do is try and guess what the covening authority and his JAG is going use as a defintion of firearm. Now, if one of us happens to be a convening authority, we at least know what our interperation is going to be.

Like I said, all decisons have consqences.

Ultimately, if that's all it says, you are not talking about the same issue AT ALL.

I've worked with people like you - those who try to find excuses not to do things as opposed to those who try to find ways to do things. Have fun with that.

Agreed, the CDR is a powerful entity and if he sticks his neck out for mission accomplishment then more power to him, when appropriate. I think Adam is correct though, at some point GO1 gets a bit too broad. FWIW, I wasn't trying to be a dick about it, just wondering if it actually spelled it out, I've never actually seen the verbage in GO1. My bad on the mistaken identity as well.

Just found 2 copies on SIPR dated 2011. They use the same verbiage as I listed in my last post. "Purchase, possession, use or sale of privately owned firearms, ammunition, explosives, or the introduction of these items into the AOR"

Which means it will be up to the convening authority and lawyers that makes it an issue to determine what a "firearm" is. Could go either way depending on who is doing the determining.

Where are our resident JAG's, perhaps they might offer some insight into this?

Wow, look at the assumptions going on, but then this is close to GD, so I should expect it. Edit to add: ain't worth it....


NUcadet, no worries. GO 1 is way to big, tries to roll every eventuallity into one order and that weakens it. More importantly, GO 1 is not backed up / enforced by lower chains of command consitently (mostly because it is cumbersome, unclear, and not supported with proper resources and references), and that is the biggest flaw. It leaves far to much interperation to the lower levels ( and even within the JAG circles) to allow it to be applied consitently.

Hence my comment about a CDR and a Individual making decsions. That is what a CDR does, he weighs cost benifits and conseqences and goes with what he is willing to accept. That is why they get the big bucks and that title.

Would be interested to hear another legal perspective on it. I have gotten several others, but always good to get another point of view on a much debated and disagreed topic.

What a "firearm" is? That is an easily definable concept and term. An upper receiver is in no way, shape, or form a firearm. Weapons accessories are not firearms. Tac lights are not firearms. Optics are not firearms. I don't even understand how you could come close to it. I don't understand your reasoning and I think you're coming waaaaay out of left field.

What convening authority and what lawyer? Who has ever been UCMJ'ed for having something on their rifle that has been signed off by the Commander? You talk about assumptions being made but you're the one making the biggest assumption. "What if someone decides to come up with a totally new definition of a concept that is already easily and widely definable?" We cannot go back and forth all day over what is defined as a firearm. It has already been defined and is not what you are suggesting.

Are boot laces definable as boots now? What about a sling? Is that a weapon now too?

Slow down there highspeed.

First, WHEN has the .mil every done easily definable concept and term. I don't think it is a good idea to apply common sense or generally accepted civillain concepts to this discussion. How many true weapons savy / gun smart folks have you seen wearing lots of stripes, oak leaf's, eagles, or stars? For example, trying to fly home through Kuwait on a standard R&R flight and getting refused to be allowed to carry empty M4 and M9 magazines as they were considered (weapons components) by the Navy Customs folks. Even had it on paper signed by an O-6 listing all the things that were considered weapons components. So somewhere someone decided that and made it policy. Trying to get my stuff home from same deployment (had to mail stuff home since I was PCSing 2 weeks after I got home) having to send registered mail personally owned optics as they were considered weapons components ( again, USG decison, granted USPS, but still USG).

In 2005, a SGT in 1-4 ADA (fell under 1AD) was CM'd for taking a personally owned AR-15 M4gry upper on a deployment instead of his M16A2, that is the only personal example I know for an upper alone and I don't use internet rumor to use for support of others.

Had I never been part of this discussion for a deploying and/or deployed units, I would not offer an opinion. Had I never seen the turf protecting and hand wringing by the Army weapons and maintenance "authorities", I would not offer and opinion. Had I not have had to spend way too much time convincing senior BCT leaders that it was OK for a Soldier to subsitite quality optics, stocks, and weapons accessories for "standard issue" stuff, i would not offer an opinion. Had I not have to spend time to produce a local policy dicating what was going to be allowed once I accomplised that last line, I would not offer and opinon.

Do not for a second make the assumption that I agree with it, that I agree with much of what is put out by TACOM and the others, or that I think that some directives that is put out by various commands is vaild.

I have my own opinions on the subject, and just might have been one of those guys that weighed benifit vice conseqence and went with what I felt was right. I just want to make sure people understand, that there are those out there that don't think like many of the folks on here.


I am not talking bolt on stuff that does not require some level of DS or higher level maintentance work to put on (that is covered under various TACOM directives (debatable authority) and alaracts), and don't see where I ever referenced items like Optics or taclights as applying to the GO 1 discussion, if I did please point it out so I can retract as that was not my intent.

Ridiculous regulations get thought up by people who have little experience with the actual topic, people looking to guard rice bowls, risk adverse leadership scared of their own shadows, and people looking to pass down their pet peeves. What does the military define as a firearm?

I imagine that SGT brought a personally owned weapons component without the blessing of his CoC, correct? What was the result of that CM? I can't see how they would justify an uppers as a POW for a conviction much less an appeal.

I included weapons and tac lights because they are just like upper receivers......weapons components, not actual firearms. If people are going to consider an upper a weapon, then why not a light, optic, or sling? They're all equally ridiculous.

You can have as many magazines as you want on your r&r flights, they just need to go into checked baggage. Unless that's changed from all the times I went through that process.

It's amazing the Army is able to succeed in spite of the bureaucrats that run rampant through the ranks. The problem is people putting on paper things they have no idea what they're talking about. Even with a decade of deployments, senior leaders forget they are in a war fighting organization. Overly zealous risk manag,ent has been leading the Army down a dark and dangerous path.

Scout, I do not disagree with your statements one bit. Even after over 10 years at war, bureaucrats still run things. Thank God for the Junior enlisted, NCO's, and Officers, or we would be doomed. We are still a military of trying to regulate and codify everything instead of allowing our leaders to actually do thier job. Things go sideways, and too many "leaders" look for a way to deflect blame or insulate themselves from the problem. Orders, Policies, and Regulations are a perfect way to do just that.

Copy on the lights and such, just wanted to make sure I had not misstated what I intended to say. I agree that there is a world of difference between a weapon, a weapon component, and weapons accessories. Unfortuantly, I am fairly confident, for every Senior leader I can find that understands the difference in the three, I can find 2 more that don't.

This was in 2010 that I came throught Kuwait this last time. The were not allowing any "weapons components" at all in checked or otherwise for R&R flights home. My options were to surrender all my mags or wait for the Saturday rotater flight. Hope it has been corrected since then, but I have no personal knowledge of if it was or not. All my previous trips through there were either unit redeployment flights which it was no issue or was for actual R&R and did not have any mags with me anyway.

As far as our young SGT that got hemmed up, actually no. His BTRY CDR had approved him to bring it (the BTRY CDR, just failed to make sure he had to top cover for it), he also had approved the armor to modifiy of all of his M16A2 lowers to collapisable stocks. I honestly don't recall what the punishment was, but I don't think it was terriably severe. I can dig back and see if I can find the specifics if you would like.

Fuck that. I'll send him a new grip and a big fucking screwdriver if he promises to put it on during senior drill instructor time.

Copyright © 1996 - 2013 :: AR15.Com LLC :: All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.