ARCHIVED ARCHIVED
  Previous Page
Page:  / 3
Author
Message
BauerC
Offline
Posts: 83
Feedback: 100% (2)
Posted: 7/18/2012 10:08:08 PM
So, is there an official answer to whether these are stolen government property or just surplus?
I cant seem to find a definite answer either way.
osha
These Pretzels Are Making Me Thirsty!
Online
Posts: 1658
Feedback: 100% (147)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/18/2012 10:29:51 PM
There have been several threads, but I'll post again what KevinB has said each time.

Any and all USMC-marked KAC rear micro BUIS are US Gov't property, so if an individual is selling one, it is stolen.
dangerdan
Royal Gunfighter
Military
Offline
Posts: 2458
Feedback: 100% (39)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/19/2012 3:42:38 AM
I've heard a SNCO say "keep it as a souvenir" before...

Yes, technically stolen..but Lance Corporal don't know.
Uncle
Sam's
Misguided
Children
LeonC
U gotta believe.
Offline
Posts: 956
Feedback: 100% (15)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/19/2012 9:02:03 AM
That's a change, us ripping off the Govt instead of the other way around.
Fishbone928
Medic!
Military
Offline
Posts: 155
Feedback: 100% (8)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/20/2012 1:23:44 AM
Originally Posted By LeonC:
That's a change, us ripping off the Govt instead of the other way around.


We can't send NCIS knocking on doors, though.
LeonC
U gotta believe.
Offline
Posts: 981
Feedback: 100% (15)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/29/2012 9:47:38 PM
[Last Edit: 7/29/2012 9:55:57 PM by LeonC]
A quote from a Marine on this forum ...

"I recieved these from our armory a couple times. Before i checked out, i asked what to do with them. The armory didn't want them back. If you've never been there, don't jump to conclusions. Sometimes they just don't let you turn shit back in. I didn't want these sights. I didn't use them. I still probably have them in the bottom of a bag, somewhere, if they didn't get thrown out. Selling them never crossed my mind."


How are they stolen if they don't want them back?
Though I'm not saying that's the case every time -
It doesn't automatically mean they're stolen.

... I could see how it would be bothering KAC as they're being sold back at a fraction of what KAC sells them to civilians.
I highly doubt there is a shortage of them if the armory is turning them away.
I'm assuming surplus.

There are just a tad over 200,000 active Marines.
USMC ordered 250K pieces. (Straight from KAC)
Do the math.

At the end of the day it's poor management of money/inventory by the Gov.
No surprise there.

KAC is going to claim stolen property, though it's not that cut and dry.


R0N
Member
Military
Online
Posts: 12189
Feedback: 100% (27)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/30/2012 4:55:07 AM
Originally Posted By LeonC:


There are just a tad over 200,000 active Marines.
USMC ordered 250K pieces. (Straight from KAC)
Do the math.



The Marine Corps is being us the vehicle for other peoples buys, this goes on all the time in the military you just transfer the money to the purchaser and you get the item without having to go through all the issues of contracting a purchase.
In the real world off-campus, good marksmanship trumps good will.
KevinB
Director of MilOps
Offline
Posts: 7023
Feedback: 0% (0)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/30/2012 10:39:05 AM
Originally Posted By LeonC:KAC is going to claim stolen property, though it's not that cut and dry.




Actually it is.

The USMC bought these sights.
The USMC is saying they are still short of these, and have not DMRO'd any. Keep in mind the USMC is putting these on their M4A1's, their M16A4's and their M27 IAR's, for both the Regular and Reserve components.

So any USMC marked sight is in fact government property.
Kevin S. Boland
Director of Military Operations
Knight's Armament Company
701 Columbia Blvd.
Titusville, Fl 32780
1(321)607-9956
kboland@knightarmco.com

www.knightarmco.com
LeonC
U gotta believe.
Offline
Posts: 984
Feedback: 100% (15)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/30/2012 12:56:22 PM
[Last Edit: 8/1/2012 2:47:26 PM by LeonC]
Originally Posted By KevinB:
Originally Posted By LeonC:KAC is going to claim stolen property, though it's not that cut and dry.




Actually it is.

The USMC bought these sights.
The USMC is saying they are still short of these, and have not DMRO'd any. Keep in mind the USMC is putting these on their M4A1's, their M16A4's and their M27 IAR's, for both the Regular and Reserve components.

So any USMC marked sight is in fact government property.


If the armory is turning them away from being turned in what are the Marines suppose to do? Shove them down Uncle Sams throat?
Which makes me question your shortage comment.
If there was a shortage they wouldn't be quick to hand them out like candy, and they would require you to sign and turn them in.
Logically doesn't make sense.
My point being is that not EVERY sight in-possession is stolen, which you're claiming.

Think of it this way, I lend you my magpul sight -
You try to give it back, but I say keep it - I don't want it back.
Is it stolen?

As I stated prior there are just slightly north of 200,000 active Marines.
Only a fraction are active duty, roughly 40,000.
You stated USMC ordered 250k units from you.
And now you claim there are Marines without BUIS sights.
Your numbers don't add up.
Just seems like bitterness on your part due to the fact that they're being resold for a fraction of what you charge civilians.

Here's the quote from a Marine posted on a previous thread regarding the armory turning them away.

Post -

All I'm trying to say is, it's not as cut and dry as you're claiming that Marines straight out stole them and selling them for a profit.
That might not always be the case.

FedDC
Member
Online
Posts: 5369
Feedback: 100% (9)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/30/2012 1:26:53 PM
Are there any fakes floating around yet? Perhaps they are fake?
LeonC
U gotta believe.
Offline
Posts: 985
Feedback: 100% (15)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/30/2012 1:58:25 PM
Originally Posted By FedDC:
Are there any fakes floating around yet? Perhaps they are fake?


Possibly, but not likely.
According to Kevin those marked USMC are genuine KAC sights sold to the USMC.
Friendly_Crusader
Nonsense personified
Offline
Posts: 6664
Feedback: 100% (85)
Link To This Post
Posted: 7/31/2012 1:49:06 PM
The unfortunate part is that if a supply person tells you he doesn't want something because it's not logged in or it's marked destroyed/lost, and you don't take it, he takes it or it goes in the trash.

People are really overthinking things. Is it wrong? Sure. Should it be handled differently? Sure, but that's how it is.
Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even where there is no river.
-Nikita Khrushchev

Posts dictated but not read.
Lancelot
Member
Military
Offline
Posts: 15862
Feedback: 100% (8)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/1/2012 7:42:00 AM
I saw one in person recently. I have never touched a KAC 600 until this week.

It had the USMC on the front. It had an arrow to mark where the drum was on the front, and on one side. It had nothing on it that said KAC, and had no logo. It was in a sealed bag with a label on it, and a card inside that described how to zero it.

I have seen these for sale lots of places. I am now seeing that some look different. So is it possible that now there are fakes out there, or that most of these are fakes?
smithc6
Arfcom will not bow to sewing terrorists! ~Aimless
Military
Offline
Posts: 5324
Feedback: 100% (46)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/1/2012 10:34:24 AM
Originally Posted By Lancelot:
I saw one in person recently. I have never touched a KAC 600 until this week.

It had the USMC on the front. It had an arrow to mark where the drum was on the front, and on one side. It had nothing on it that said KAC, and had no logo. It was in a sealed bag with a label on it, and a card inside that described how to zero it.

I have seen these for sale lots of places. I am now seeing that some look different. So is it possible that now there are fakes out there, or that most of these are fakes?


I remember Kevin mentioning there were 2 versions they did and both were legit. I also wouldnt be surprised if there were fakes already...
"F that guy. F his apathetic old man. F everything he holds dear until it's bleeding from the ass and crying into a pillow." ~Evil_ATF on JustinWB
OIF_Vet08-09
Fear is the foundation of most governments.
Military
Offline
Posts: 4572
Feedback: 100% (112)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/1/2012 11:00:23 AM
It suprised me how many of these sights are popping up. Ebay is literally loaded with the USMC sights at around $60/ea.
Yesterday, I was on the train sitting across from a smoking hot Thai chick. I kept saying to myself, please don't get an erection, please don't get an erection, but, she did.
-rainman
LeonC
U gotta believe.
Offline
Posts: 1010
Feedback: 100% (15)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/1/2012 4:34:00 PM
[Last Edit: 8/1/2012 4:36:00 PM by LeonC]
Originally Posted By OIF_Vet08-09:
It suprised me how many of these sights are popping up. Ebay is literally loaded with the USMC sights at around $60/ea.


A fraction if you consider how many were sold to the USMC .... 250,000 pieces.
From the Marines comment, it appears they were handing them out like candy and did not want them turned back in.

Though you could obviously see Kevin's frustration when KAC is selling the same sight minus USMC stamp for $200.
Lancelot
Member
Military
Offline
Posts: 15864
Feedback: 100% (8)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/1/2012 7:10:11 PM
So which mark do you use to zero a 600? Do you set the number to the arrow mark on the side, or the one on the front. I don't own a 600 but its on my short list.
jaqufrost
Member
Military
Online
Posts: 4514
Feedback: 100% (47)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/1/2012 7:32:22 PM
It should be the arrow up on the side. To zero set the site on the Z mark and shoot 3 rounds at a 25yd target. Make adjustments to the FSP as needed. The markings are averaged between an M16A4 and a M4 so the reference marks may be off a click or two. It is reccomended that you fire at known distances and ensure the marks are right for your rifle (or annotate any changes that need to be made).

Just because your armorer doesn't want them back doesn't mean you can sell it.
LeonC
U gotta believe.
Offline
Posts: 1013
Feedback: 100% (15)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/1/2012 8:12:32 PM
[Last Edit: 8/1/2012 8:21:44 PM by LeonC]
Originally Posted By jaqufrost:
It should be the arrow up on the side. To zero set the site on the Z mark and shoot 3 rounds at a 25yd target. Make adjustments to the FSP as needed. The markings are averaged between an M16A4 and a M4 so the reference marks may be off a click or two. It is reccomended that you fire at known distances and ensure the marks are right for your rifle (or annotate any changes that need to be made).

Just because your armorer doesn't want them back doesn't mean you can sell it.


Doesn't mean you SHOULD sell it -
Completely different from CAN.

Same as I've said before ...
If you gave me your sight and no longer wanted the sight back/wouldn't let me return it, it is no longer your sight.
You relinquished ownership when you declined possession of said sight.
In-turn, it no longer is your decision on what I do with it ... be it throw it into the bottom of a locker or sell it.

I would completely agree with you that can't sell them, if they were required to be returned to the armorer.
If they're specifically being declined your point becomes moot.

Would you rather see the rear sights being thrown into a bin and trashed?
buckjay
King Kong
Offline
Posts: 651
Feedback: 100% (204)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/1/2012 8:54:36 PM
Originally Posted By LeonC:
Originally Posted By jaqufrost:
It should be the arrow up on the side. To zero set the site on the Z mark and shoot 3 rounds at a 25yd target. Make adjustments to the FSP as needed. The markings are averaged between an M16A4 and a M4 so the reference marks may be off a click or two. It is reccomended that you fire at known distances and ensure the marks are right for your rifle (or annotate any changes that need to be made).

Just because your armorer doesn't want them back doesn't mean you can sell it.


Doesn't mean you SHOULD sell it -
Completely different from CAN.

Same as I've said before ...
If you gave me your sight and no longer wanted the sight back/wouldn't let me return it, it is no longer your sight.
You relinquished ownership when you declined possession of said sight.
In-turn, it no longer is your decision on what I do with it ... be it throw it into the bottom of a locker or sell it.

I would completely agree with you that can't sell them, if they were required to be returned to the armorer.
If they're specifically being declined your point becomes moot.

Would you rather see the rear sights being thrown into a bin and trashed?


I talked to a friend of mine who just returned recently. He said they were burning all their equipment, mountains of it, because someone in the government decided it wasn't worth bringing back. I have a feeling its not different in regards to a lot of things.
autoxer240
Member
Offline
Posts: 168
Feedback: 100% (92)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/2/2012 9:10:58 AM
[Last Edit: 8/2/2012 9:20:03 AM by autoxer240]
Originally Posted By buckjay:
Originally Posted By LeonC:
Originally Posted By jaqufrost:
It should be the arrow up on the side. To zero set the site on the Z mark and shoot 3 rounds at a 25yd target. Make adjustments to the FSP as needed. The markings are averaged between an M16A4 and a M4 so the reference marks may be off a click or two. It is reccomended that you fire at known distances and ensure the marks are right for your rifle (or annotate any changes that need to be made).

Just because your armorer doesn't want them back doesn't mean you can sell it.


Doesn't mean you SHOULD sell it -
Completely different from CAN.

Same as I've said before ...
If you gave me your sight and no longer wanted the sight back/wouldn't let me return it, it is no longer your sight.
You relinquished ownership when you declined possession of said sight.
In-turn, it no longer is your decision on what I do with it ... be it throw it into the bottom of a locker or sell it.

I would completely agree with you that can't sell them, if they were required to be returned to the armorer.
If they're specifically being declined your point becomes moot.

Would you rather see the rear sights being thrown into a bin and trashed?


I talked to a friend of mine who just returned recently. He said they were burning all their equipment, mountains of it, because someone in the government decided it wasn't worth bringing back. I have a feeling its not different in regards to a lot of things.


Just because leadership mismanages their budgets and equipment doesn't give the individual Soldier, Sailor, Airman, Marine authorization to steal anything purchased with appropriated taxpayer dollars. Not that the individual troop is even aware of the rules. It is a failure of leadership. DRMO is the correct avenue to dispose of excess equipment.
LeonC
U gotta believe.
Offline
Posts: 1019
Feedback: 100% (15)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/2/2012 11:02:43 AM
[Last Edit: 8/2/2012 11:07:43 AM by LeonC]
Originally Posted By autoxer240:
Originally Posted By buckjay:
Originally Posted By LeonC:
Originally Posted By jaqufrost:
It should be the arrow up on the side. To zero set the site on the Z mark and shoot 3 rounds at a 25yd target. Make adjustments to the FSP as needed. The markings are averaged between an M16A4 and a M4 so the reference marks may be off a click or two. It is reccomended that you fire at known distances and ensure the marks are right for your rifle (or annotate any changes that need to be made).

Just because your armorer doesn't want them back doesn't mean you can sell it.


Doesn't mean you SHOULD sell it -
Completely different from CAN.

Same as I've said before ...
If you gave me your sight and no longer wanted the sight back/wouldn't let me return it, it is no longer your sight.
You relinquished ownership when you declined possession of said sight.
In-turn, it no longer is your decision on what I do with it ... be it throw it into the bottom of a locker or sell it.

I would completely agree with you that can't sell them, if they were required to be returned to the armorer.
If they're specifically being declined your point becomes moot.

Would you rather see the rear sights being thrown into a bin and trashed?


I talked to a friend of mine who just returned recently. He said they were burning all their equipment, mountains of it, because someone in the government decided it wasn't worth bringing back. I have a feeling its not different in regards to a lot of things.


Just because leadership mismanages their budgets and equipment doesn't give the individual Soldier, Sailor, Airman, Marine authorization to steal anything purchased with appropriated taxpayer dollars. Not that the individual troop is even aware of the rules. It is a failure of leadership. DRMO is the correct avenue to dispose of excess equipment.


Do you consider it stealing if the armory turns away a return and lets the Marine have the sights?
That's the question at hand more or less.
I wouldn't purchase a USMC sight, but I do not blame Marines for selling them if they were allowed to keep them which seems to be the case quite often.
Also I much rather see them being resold to civilians instead of trashed.

I do agree with the fact that you shouldn't be taking something without permission or authorization.
If they're turning the item away and letting you keep it, that's a different story.

My entire point being is that I don't consider every sight on the market marked USMC to be "stolen" as Kevin claimed, if the armory is turning away returns and letting Marines keep them.
Nor do I believe there is a "shortage" of them contemplating the amount ordered and actual active Marines, and more importantly factoring in the fact that they're handing them out like candy and turning them away from being returned.

As I've said before, this situation isn't as cut and dry as Kevin claims it to be.
smithc6
Arfcom will not bow to sewing terrorists! ~Aimless
Military
Offline
Posts: 5325
Feedback: 100% (46)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/2/2012 11:53:13 AM
[Last Edit: 8/2/2012 12:06:27 PM by smithc6]
Originally Posted By LeonC:
Originally Posted By autoxer240:
Originally Posted By buckjay:
Originally Posted By LeonC:
Originally Posted By jaqufrost:
It should be the arrow up on the side. To zero set the site on the Z mark and shoot 3 rounds at a 25yd target. Make adjustments to the FSP as needed. The markings are averaged between an M16A4 and a M4 so the reference marks may be off a click or two. It is reccomended that you fire at known distances and ensure the marks are right for your rifle (or annotate any changes that need to be made).

Just because your armorer doesn't want them back doesn't mean you can sell it.


Doesn't mean you SHOULD sell it -
Completely different from CAN.

Same as I've said before ...
If you gave me your sight and no longer wanted the sight back/wouldn't let me return it, it is no longer your sight.
You relinquished ownership when you declined possession of said sight.
In-turn, it no longer is your decision on what I do with it ... be it throw it into the bottom of a locker or sell it.

I would completely agree with you that can't sell them, if they were required to be returned to the armorer.
If they're specifically being declined your point becomes moot.

Would you rather see the rear sights being thrown into a bin and trashed?


I talked to a friend of mine who just returned recently. He said they were burning all their equipment, mountains of it, because someone in the government decided it wasn't worth bringing back. I have a feeling its not different in regards to a lot of things.


Just because leadership mismanages their budgets and equipment doesn't give the individual Soldier, Sailor, Airman, Marine authorization to steal anything purchased with appropriated taxpayer dollars. Not that the individual troop is even aware of the rules. It is a failure of leadership. DRMO is the correct avenue to dispose of excess equipment.


Do you consider it stealing if the armory turns away a return and lets the Marine have the sights?
That's the question at hand more or less.
I wouldn't purchase a USMC sight, but I do not blame Marines for selling them if they were allowed to keep them which seems to be the case quite often.
Also I much rather see them being resold to civilians instead of trashed.

I do agree with the fact that you shouldn't be taking something without permission or authorization.
If they're turning the item away and letting you keep it, that's a different story.

My entire point being is that I don't consider every sight on the market marked USMC to be "stolen" as Kevin claimed, if the armory is turning away returns and letting Marines keep them.
Nor do I believe there is a "shortage" of them contemplating the amount ordered and actual active Marines, and more importantly factoring in the fact that they're handing them out like candy and turning them away from being returned.

As I've said before, this situation isn't as cut and dry as Kevin claims it to be.


Im with you, but one thing to keep in mind, one or two people on the internet claiming this is what the armory told them doesnt make for a complete story and doesnt mean this is always the case. For all we know the only guys told to keep them are arfcom guys and the rest of the ones weve seen have been stolen. This argument is about statistics, and one example in statistics does not make a trend. Shoot with 250k sights, 10 examples do not make a trend. What Im getting at is Im not sure Id base your entire argument off one guys statement...mainly because its getting super old and redundant.
"F that guy. F his apathetic old man. F everything he holds dear until it's bleeding from the ass and crying into a pillow." ~Evil_ATF on JustinWB
LeonC
U gotta believe.
Offline
Posts: 1023
Feedback: 100% (15)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/2/2012 1:16:10 PM
[Last Edit: 8/2/2012 1:19:52 PM by LeonC]
Originally Posted By smithc6:
Originally Posted By LeonC:
Originally Posted By autoxer240:
Originally Posted By buckjay:
Originally Posted By LeonC:
Originally Posted By jaqufrost:
It should be the arrow up on the side. To zero set the site on the Z mark and shoot 3 rounds at a 25yd target. Make adjustments to the FSP as needed. The markings are averaged between an M16A4 and a M4 so the reference marks may be off a click or two. It is reccomended that you fire at known distances and ensure the marks are right for your rifle (or annotate any changes that need to be made).

Just because your armorer doesn't want them back doesn't mean you can sell it.


Doesn't mean you SHOULD sell it -
Completely different from CAN.

Same as I've said before ...
If you gave me your sight and no longer wanted the sight back/wouldn't let me return it, it is no longer your sight.
You relinquished ownership when you declined possession of said sight.
In-turn, it no longer is your decision on what I do with it ... be it throw it into the bottom of a locker or sell it.

I would completely agree with you that can't sell them, if they were required to be returned to the armorer.
If they're specifically being declined your point becomes moot.

Would you rather see the rear sights being thrown into a bin and trashed?


I talked to a friend of mine who just returned recently. He said they were burning all their equipment, mountains of it, because someone in the government decided it wasn't worth bringing back. I have a feeling its not different in regards to a lot of things.


Just because leadership mismanages their budgets and equipment doesn't give the individual Soldier, Sailor, Airman, Marine authorization to steal anything purchased with appropriated taxpayer dollars. Not that the individual troop is even aware of the rules. It is a failure of leadership. DRMO is the correct avenue to dispose of excess equipment.


Do you consider it stealing if the armory turns away a return and lets the Marine have the sights?
That's the question at hand more or less.
I wouldn't purchase a USMC sight, but I do not blame Marines for selling them if they were allowed to keep them which seems to be the case quite often.
Also I much rather see them being resold to civilians instead of trashed.

I do agree with the fact that you shouldn't be taking something without permission or authorization.
If they're turning the item away and letting you keep it, that's a different story.

My entire point being is that I don't consider every sight on the market marked USMC to be "stolen" as Kevin claimed, if the armory is turning away returns and letting Marines keep them.
Nor do I believe there is a "shortage" of them contemplating the amount ordered and actual active Marines, and more importantly factoring in the fact that they're handing them out like candy and turning them away from being returned.

As I've said before, this situation isn't as cut and dry as Kevin claims it to be.


Im with you, but one thing to keep in mind, one or two people on the internet claiming this is what the armory told them doesnt make for a complete story and doesnt mean this is always the case. For all we know the only guys told to keep them are arfcom guys and the rest of the ones weve seen have been stolen. This argument is about statistics, and one example in statistics does not make a trend. Shoot with 250k sights, 10 examples do not make a trend. What Im getting at is Im not sure Id base your entire argument off one guys statement...mainly because its getting super old and redundant.


It's not one guys statement, it's numerous Marines saying the same thing.
I specially pointed out the post from a Marine that Kevin ignored in the previous thread regarding the same thing.
Secondly, equipment being turned away and destroyed is a common occurrence sadly.
Specially when it's "cheap" unregistered items such as the rear sights.
Do you realize how many M16s were left behind in Vietnam?

By the way, I still think Kevin should go after people listing dozens and dozens of them on eBay.
Such as this guy ...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/USMC-Knights-Armament-600M-Micro-Flip-UP-Rear-Rifle-Sight-Picatinny-Black-25650-/271025249258?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3f1a5d1bea
smithc6
Arfcom will not bow to sewing terrorists! ~Aimless
Military
Offline
Posts: 5326
Feedback: 100% (46)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/2/2012 1:32:06 PM
Originally Posted By LeonC:
Originally Posted By smithc6:
Originally Posted By LeonC:
Originally Posted By autoxer240:
Originally Posted By buckjay:
Originally Posted By LeonC:
Originally Posted By jaqufrost:
It should be the arrow up on the side. To zero set the site on the Z mark and shoot 3 rounds at a 25yd target. Make adjustments to the FSP as needed. The markings are averaged between an M16A4 and a M4 so the reference marks may be off a click or two. It is reccomended that you fire at known distances and ensure the marks are right for your rifle (or annotate any changes that need to be made).

Just because your armorer doesn't want them back doesn't mean you can sell it.


Doesn't mean you SHOULD sell it -
Completely different from CAN.

Same as I've said before ...
If you gave me your sight and no longer wanted the sight back/wouldn't let me return it, it is no longer your sight.
You relinquished ownership when you declined possession of said sight.
In-turn, it no longer is your decision on what I do with it ... be it throw it into the bottom of a locker or sell it.

I would completely agree with you that can't sell them, if they were required to be returned to the armorer.
If they're specifically being declined your point becomes moot.

Would you rather see the rear sights being thrown into a bin and trashed?


I talked to a friend of mine who just returned recently. He said they were burning all their equipment, mountains of it, because someone in the government decided it wasn't worth bringing back. I have a feeling its not different in regards to a lot of things.


Just because leadership mismanages their budgets and equipment doesn't give the individual Soldier, Sailor, Airman, Marine authorization to steal anything purchased with appropriated taxpayer dollars. Not that the individual troop is even aware of the rules. It is a failure of leadership. DRMO is the correct avenue to dispose of excess equipment.


Do you consider it stealing if the armory turns away a return and lets the Marine have the sights?
That's the question at hand more or less.
I wouldn't purchase a USMC sight, but I do not blame Marines for selling them if they were allowed to keep them which seems to be the case quite often.
Also I much rather see them being resold to civilians instead of trashed.

I do agree with the fact that you shouldn't be taking something without permission or authorization.
If they're turning the item away and letting you keep it, that's a different story.

My entire point being is that I don't consider every sight on the market marked USMC to be "stolen" as Kevin claimed, if the armory is turning away returns and letting Marines keep them.
Nor do I believe there is a "shortage" of them contemplating the amount ordered and actual active Marines, and more importantly factoring in the fact that they're handing them out like candy and turning them away from being returned.

As I've said before, this situation isn't as cut and dry as Kevin claims it to be.


Im with you, but one thing to keep in mind, one or two people on the internet claiming this is what the armory told them doesnt make for a complete story and doesnt mean this is always the case. For all we know the only guys told to keep them are arfcom guys and the rest of the ones weve seen have been stolen. This argument is about statistics, and one example in statistics does not make a trend. Shoot with 250k sights, 10 examples do not make a trend. What Im getting at is Im not sure Id base your entire argument off one guys statement...mainly because its getting super old and redundant.


It's not one guys statement, it's numerous Marines saying the same thing.
I specially pointed out the post from a Marine that Kevin ignored in the previous thread regarding the same thing.
Secondly, equipment being turned away and destroyed is a common occurrence sadly.
Specially when it's "cheap" unregistered items such as the rear sights.
Do you realize how many M16s were left behind in Vietnam?

By the way, I still think Kevin should go after people listing dozens and dozens of them on eBay.
Such as this guy ...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/USMC-Knights-Armament-600M-Micro-Flip-UP-Rear-Rifle-Sight-Picatinny-Black-25650-/271025249258?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3f1a5d1bea


Numerous Marines? A dozen? A hundred? That still doesnt prove much. Im guessing you dont know these guys from Adam, so what you should be doing is taking their words with a grain of salt. Just because some POG armory/supply Sgt told these guys he didnt want the sights back doesnt mean he should have made that call. He may have not wanted to do extra paperwork because he's a lazy POS. I realize the military is less than efficient most of the time, but until we hear from the TOP himself that this is what has been happening and they are ok with it your argument doesnt hold water...
"F that guy. F his apathetic old man. F everything he holds dear until it's bleeding from the ass and crying into a pillow." ~Evil_ATF on JustinWB
LeonC
U gotta believe.
Offline
Posts: 1024
Feedback: 100% (15)
Link To This Post
Posted: 8/2/2012 2:00:12 PM
[Last Edit: 8/2/2012 2:02:49 PM by LeonC]
Originally Posted By smithc6:
Originally Posted By LeonC:
Originally Posted By smithc6:
Originally Posted By LeonC:
Originally Posted By autoxer240:
Originally Posted By buckjay:
Originally Posted By LeonC:
Originally Posted By jaqufrost:
It should be the arrow up on the side. To zero set the site on the Z mark and shoot 3 rounds at a 25yd target. Make adjustments to the FSP as needed. The markings are averaged between an M16A4 and a M4 so the reference marks may be off a click or two. It is reccomended that you fire at known distances and ensure the marks are right for your rifle (or annotate any changes that need to be made).

Just because your armorer doesn't want them back doesn't mean you can sell it.


Doesn't mean you SHOULD sell it -
Completely different from CAN.

Same as I've said before ...
If you gave me your sight and no longer wanted the sight back/wouldn't let me return it, it is no longer your sight.
You relinquished ownership when you declined possession of said sight.
In-turn, it no longer is your decision on what I do with it ... be it throw it into the bottom of a locker or sell it.

I would completely agree with you that can't sell them, if they were required to be returned to the armorer.
If they're specifically being declined your point becomes moot.

Would you rather see the rear sights being thrown into a bin and trashed?


I talked to a friend of mine who just returned recently. He said they were burning all their equipment, mountains of it, because someone in the government decided it wasn't worth bringing back. I have a feeling its not different in regards to a lot of things.


Just because leadership mismanages their budgets and equipment doesn't give the individual Soldier, Sailor, Airman, Marine authorization to steal anything purchased with appropriated taxpayer dollars. Not that the individual troop is even aware of the rules. It is a failure of leadership. DRMO is the correct avenue to dispose of excess equipment.


Do you consider it stealing if the armory turns away a return and lets the Marine have the sights?
That's the question at hand more or less.
I wouldn't purchase a USMC sight, but I do not blame Marines for selling them if they were allowed to keep them which seems to be the case quite often.
Also I much rather see them being resold to civilians instead of trashed.

I do agree with the fact that you shouldn't be taking something without permission or authorization.
If they're turning the item away and letting you keep it, that's a different story.

My entire point being is that I don't consider every sight on the market marked USMC to be "stolen" as Kevin claimed, if the armory is turning away returns and letting Marines keep them.
Nor do I believe there is a "shortage" of them contemplating the amount ordered and actual active Marines, and more importantly factoring in the fact that they're handing them out like candy and turning them away from being returned.

As I've said before, this situation isn't as cut and dry as Kevin claims it to be.


Im with you, but one thing to keep in mind, one or two people on the internet claiming this is what the armory told them doesnt make for a complete story and doesnt mean this is always the case. For all we know the only guys told to keep them are arfcom guys and the rest of the ones weve seen have been stolen. This argument is about statistics, and one example in statistics does not make a trend. Shoot with 250k sights, 10 examples do not make a trend. What Im getting at is Im not sure Id base your entire argument off one guys statement...mainly because its getting super old and redundant.


It's not one guys statement, it's numerous Marines saying the same thing.
I specially pointed out the post from a Marine that Kevin ignored in the previous thread regarding the same thing.
Secondly, equipment being turned away and destroyed is a common occurrence sadly.
Specially when it's "cheap" unregistered items such as the rear sights.
Do you realize how many M16s were left behind in Vietnam?

By the way, I still think Kevin should go after people listing dozens and dozens of them on eBay.
Such as this guy ...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/USMC-Knights-Armament-600M-Micro-Flip-UP-Rear-Rifle-Sight-Picatinny-Black-25650-/271025249258?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3f1a5d1bea


Numerous Marines? A dozen? A hundred? That still doesnt prove much. Im guessing you dont know these guys from Adam, so what you should be doing is taking their words with a grain of salt. Just because some POG armory/supply Sgt told these guys he didnt want the sights back doesnt mean he should have made that call. He may have not wanted to do extra paperwork because he's a lazy POS. I realize the military is less than efficient most of the time, but until we hear from the TOP himself that this is what has been happening and they are ok with it your argument doesnt hold water...


Okay, in that case why don't you give Obama a call aand get the final word.

It's really not that complicated.
My point was that this entire ordeal isn't so cut and dry as Kevin claimed it was.
That's all.

On top of that Kevin's numbers and information didn't add up.
  Previous Page
Page:  / 3
ARCHIVED ARCHIVED