[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Sig M18 might have just killed an Airman (Page 22 of 28)
|
Quoted: @packinheavy I was told by GD that this is a lie and that the AF is expanding its stand down to other commands. Quoted: Quoted: We received an email Monday stating we could return to normal M18 ops and that we could also suspend the inspections as it had been determined that the incident was due to improper procedures and not a mechanical failure. There are rumors floating around on the net if you go looking for them. @packinheavy I was told by GD that this is a lie and that the AF is expanding its stand down to other commands. I won't speak to what other commands are doing, but mine said the above. But hey, I'm just an O-5 SFS/CC. I could just be making shit up for internet clout or something.  |
|
Quoted: We received an email Monday stating we could return to normal M18 ops and that we could also suspend the inspections as it had been determined that the incident was due to improper procedures and not a mechanical failure. There are rumors floating around on the net if you go looking for them. |
|
Quoted: I won't speak to what other commands are doing, but mine said the above. But hey, I'm just an O-5 SFS/CC. I could just be making shit up for internet clout or something. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: We received an email Monday stating we could return to normal M18 ops and that we could also suspend the inspections as it had been determined that the incident was due to improper procedures and not a mechanical failure. There are rumors floating around on the net if you go looking for them. @packinheavy I was told by GD that this is a lie and that the AF is expanding its stand down to other commands. I won't speak to what other commands are doing, but mine said the above. But hey, I'm just an O-5 SFS/CC. I could just be making shit up for internet clout or something. Thanks, but this may hurt your clout among the GD 320 lords. 
|
|
Quoted: Thanks, but this may hurt your clout among the GD 320 lords. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: We received an email Monday stating we could return to normal M18 ops and that we could also suspend the inspections as it had been determined that the incident was due to improper procedures and not a mechanical failure. There are rumors floating around on the net if you go looking for them. @packinheavy I was told by GD that this is a lie and that the AF is expanding its stand down to other commands. I won't speak to what other commands are doing, but mine said the above. But hey, I'm just an O-5 SFS/CC. I could just be making shit up for internet clout or something. Thanks, but this may hurt your clout among the GD 320 lords. I'll survive.  And I'm definitely still not a fan of the pistols. But that's based on the issues on the civilian side and generally viewing them as cheap crap. But as I've said before, I shoot the damn thing pretty well even if I don't like it. |
|
Quoted: I won't speak to what other commands are doing, but mine said the above. But hey, I'm just an O-5 SFS/CC. I could just be making shit up for internet clout or something. I haven't been to work the last two days so I don't know the formal word just yet. I have heard the original story has shifted and it wasn't the airman's side arm that went off. I don't have any formal verification yet. My defender SEL friend is on leave and OOA. |
|
Quoted: I haven't been to work the last two days so I don't know the formal word just yet. I have heard the original story has shifted and it wasn't the airman's side arm that went off. I don't have any formal verification yet. My defender SEL friend is on leave and OOA. Quoted: Quoted: I won't speak to what other commands are doing, but mine said the above. But hey, I'm just an O-5 SFS/CC. I could just be making shit up for internet clout or something. I haven't been to work the last two days so I don't know the formal word just yet. I have heard the original story has shifted and it wasn't the airman's side arm that went off. I don't have any formal verification yet. My defender SEL friend is on leave and OOA. Yeah, the rumors seem to be going towards horse play of some sort. |
|
Quoted: I'll survive. And I'm definitely still not a fan of the pistols. But that's based on the issues on the civilian side and generally viewing them as cheap crap. But as I've said before, I shoot the damn thing pretty well even if I don't like it. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: We received an email Monday stating we could return to normal M18 ops and that we could also suspend the inspections as it had been determined that the incident was due to improper procedures and not a mechanical failure. There are rumors floating around on the net if you go looking for them. @packinheavy I was told by GD that this is a lie and that the AF is expanding its stand down to other commands. I won't speak to what other commands are doing, but mine said the above. But hey, I'm just an O-5 SFS/CC. I could just be making shit up for internet clout or something. Thanks, but this may hurt your clout among the GD 320 lords. I'll survive. And I'm definitely still not a fan of the pistols. But that's based on the issues on the civilian side and generally viewing them as cheap crap. But as I've said before, I shoot the damn thing pretty well even if I don't like it. It is all good dude. Thanks for setting the record straight. |
|
Quoted:Yeah, the rumors seem to be going towards horse play of some sort. If someone had claimed this same situation with an M9 whoever was taking their statement would have needed a moment to compose themselves after laughing their ass off at the suggestion. |
|
Quoted: Yeah, the rumors seem to be going towards horse play of some sort. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I won't speak to what other commands are doing, but mine said the above. But hey, I'm just an O-5 SFS/CC. I could just be making shit up for internet clout or something. I haven't been to work the last two days so I don't know the formal word just yet. I have heard the original story has shifted and it wasn't the airman's side arm that went off. I don't have any formal verification yet. My defender SEL friend is on leave and OOA. Yeah, the rumors seem to be going towards horse play of some sort. |
|
Quoted: This just shows where the 320 is in the court of public opinion anyway. If someone had claimed this same situation with an M9 whoever was taking their statement would have needed a moment to compose themselves after laughing their ass off at the suggestion. Quoted: Quoted:Yeah, the rumors seem to be going towards horse play of some sort. If someone had claimed this same situation with an M9 whoever was taking their statement would have needed a moment to compose themselves after laughing their ass off at the suggestion. Every youtube guntard is trying to get clicks on it so it will blow up. How many of the idiots do you think will put up a retraction? It is the same stupid shit that the liberal media does. It reminds me of back in the day when SUVs became popular and collision deaths were the "SUV" killed this child instead of driver. Same smell. |
|
Quoted: Horseplay with the gun out, or horseplay with a holstered M18? Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I won't speak to what other commands are doing, but mine said the above. But hey, I'm just an O-5 SFS/CC. I could just be making shit up for internet clout or something. I haven't been to work the last two days so I don't know the formal word just yet. I have heard the original story has shifted and it wasn't the airman's side arm that went off. I don't have any formal verification yet. My defender SEL friend is on leave and OOA. Yeah, the rumors seem to be going towards horse play of some sort. Haven't heard yet, but since they said it wasn't a mechanical failure you can draw your own conclusions. |
|
Quoted: Horseplay with the gun out, or horseplay with a holstered M18? Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I won't speak to what other commands are doing, but mine said the above. But hey, I'm just an O-5 SFS/CC. I could just be making shit up for internet clout or something. I haven't been to work the last two days so I don't know the formal word just yet. I have heard the original story has shifted and it wasn't the airman's side arm that went off. I don't have any formal verification yet. My defender SEL friend is on leave and OOA. Yeah, the rumors seem to be going towards horse play of some sort. 
|
|
Quoted: Every youtube guntard is trying to get clicks on it so it will blow up. How many of the idiots do you think will put up a retraction? It is the same stupid shit that the liberal media does. It reminds me of back in the day when SUVs became popular and collision deaths were the "SUV" killed this child instead of driver. Same smell. Now it’s ‘Tesla’ |
|
Quoted: Haven't heard yet, but since they said it wasn't a mechanical failure you can draw your own conclusions. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I won't speak to what other commands are doing, but mine said the above. But hey, I'm just an O-5 SFS/CC. I could just be making shit up for internet clout or something. I haven't been to work the last two days so I don't know the formal word just yet. I have heard the original story has shifted and it wasn't the airman's side arm that went off. I don't have any formal verification yet. My defender SEL friend is on leave and OOA. Yeah, the rumors seem to be going towards horse play of some sort. Haven't heard yet, but since they said it wasn't a mechanical failure you can draw your own conclusions. I’m on terminal leave so I am out of the loop but I’ve been talking to some guys in the squadron and they are saying it’s only the ANG that is saying to continue M18 ops and stop doing inspections. Is that correct? |
|
Quoted: I’m on terminal leave so I am out of the loop but I’ve been talking to some guys in the squadron and they are saying it’s only the ANG that is saying to continue M18 ops and stop doing inspections. Is that correct? Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I won't speak to what other commands are doing, but mine said the above. But hey, I'm just an O-5 SFS/CC. I could just be making shit up for internet clout or something. I haven't been to work the last two days so I don't know the formal word just yet. I have heard the original story has shifted and it wasn't the airman's side arm that went off. I don't have any formal verification yet. My defender SEL friend is on leave and OOA. Yeah, the rumors seem to be going towards horse play of some sort. Haven't heard yet, but since they said it wasn't a mechanical failure you can draw your own conclusions. I’m on terminal leave so I am out of the loop but I’ve been talking to some guys in the squadron and they are saying it’s only the ANG that is saying to continue M18 ops and stop doing inspections. Is that correct? Possibly, but that's who I belong to so it's the only guidance I've received. I haven't talked to any of my active or reserve friends about it. And their guidance will probably vary by majcom. |
|
Quoted: Possibly, but that's who I belong to so it's the only guidance I've received. I haven't talked to any of my active or reserve friends about it. And their guidance will probably vary by majcom. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I won't speak to what other commands are doing, but mine said the above. But hey, I'm just an O-5 SFS/CC. I could just be making shit up for internet clout or something. I haven't been to work the last two days so I don't know the formal word just yet. I have heard the original story has shifted and it wasn't the airman's side arm that went off. I don't have any formal verification yet. My defender SEL friend is on leave and OOA. Yeah, the rumors seem to be going towards horse play of some sort. Haven't heard yet, but since they said it wasn't a mechanical failure you can draw your own conclusions. I’m on terminal leave so I am out of the loop but I’ve been talking to some guys in the squadron and they are saying it’s only the ANG that is saying to continue M18 ops and stop doing inspections. Is that correct? Possibly, but that's who I belong to so it's the only guidance I've received. I haven't talked to any of my active or reserve friends about it. And their guidance will probably vary by majcom. Pretty bold for ANG to go out on that limb and state it was NOT a mechanical failure and occurred as a result of negligence. I’d like to think that it would be pretty easy for AFOSI and CATM folks to quickly determine if the gun went off in the holster or not as Safariland’s SLS locks the gun in the holster by the ejection port. If the gun went off in the holster the damage would be pretty evident. If it did not, then why start all this “pausing” of carrying the M18 and require CATM to do inspections. In my 27 years of CATM and SF, I’ve never seen a ND drive that level of response. Peculiar. |
|
Quoted: @packinheavy I was told by GD that this is a lie and that the AF is expanding its stand down to other commands. Quoted: Quoted: We received an email Monday stating we could return to normal M18 ops and that we could also suspend the inspections as it had been determined that the incident was due to improper procedures and not a mechanical failure. There are rumors floating around on the net if you go looking for them. @packinheavy I was told by GD that this is a lie and that the AF is expanding its stand down to other commands. lol One report came from one of the largest military news sites on the internet. The other was a DM screenshot from JewHater6988. I'll take packinheavy at his word, but there's clearly a credibility discrepancy between the two previous sources. |
|
Quoted: This just shows where the 320 is in the court of public opinion anyway. If someone had claimed this same situation with an M9 whoever was taking their statement would have needed a moment to compose themselves after laughing their ass off at the suggestion. Quoted: Quoted:Yeah, the rumors seem to be going towards horse play of some sort. If someone had claimed this same situation with an M9 whoever was taking their statement would have needed a moment to compose themselves after laughing their ass off at the suggestion. I've seen NDs with nearly every weapons system you'd find in a combined arms BN including even the 25mm on a Brad. I've never heard of a stand down for a firearm like this. The "pause" was ordered by a four star general about 36-48 hours after the incident. If there was funny business, information of such should have made it to his level by then. |
|
Quoted: Pretty bold for ANG to go out on that limb and state it was NOT a mechanical failure and occurred as a result of negligence. I’d like to think that it would be pretty easy for AFOSI and CATM folks to quickly determine if the gun went off in the holster or not as Safariland’s SLS locks the gun in the holster by the ejection port. If the gun went off in the holster the damage would be pretty evident. If it did not, then why start all this “pausing” of carrying the M18 and require CATM to do inspections. In my 27 years of CATM and SF, I’ve never seen a ND drive that level of response. Peculiar. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I won't speak to what other commands are doing, but mine said the above. But hey, I'm just an O-5 SFS/CC. I could just be making shit up for internet clout or something. I haven't been to work the last two days so I don't know the formal word just yet. I have heard the original story has shifted and it wasn't the airman's side arm that went off. I don't have any formal verification yet. My defender SEL friend is on leave and OOA. Yeah, the rumors seem to be going towards horse play of some sort. Haven't heard yet, but since they said it wasn't a mechanical failure you can draw your own conclusions. I’m on terminal leave so I am out of the loop but I’ve been talking to some guys in the squadron and they are saying it’s only the ANG that is saying to continue M18 ops and stop doing inspections. Is that correct? Possibly, but that's who I belong to so it's the only guidance I've received. I haven't talked to any of my active or reserve friends about it. And their guidance will probably vary by majcom. Pretty bold for ANG to go out on that limb and state it was NOT a mechanical failure and occurred as a result of negligence. I’d like to think that it would be pretty easy for AFOSI and CATM folks to quickly determine if the gun went off in the holster or not as Safariland’s SLS locks the gun in the holster by the ejection port. If the gun went off in the holster the damage would be pretty evident. If it did not, then why start all this “pausing” of carrying the M18 and require CATM to do inspections. In my 27 years of CATM and SF, I’ve never seen a ND drive that level of response. Peculiar. I have lots of questions as well. We might eventually get the whole story. |
|
Quoted: I have lots of questions as well. We might eventually get the whole story. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I won't speak to what other commands are doing, but mine said the above. But hey, I'm just an O-5 SFS/CC. I could just be making shit up for internet clout or something. I haven't been to work the last two days so I don't know the formal word just yet. I have heard the original story has shifted and it wasn't the airman's side arm that went off. I don't have any formal verification yet. My defender SEL friend is on leave and OOA. Yeah, the rumors seem to be going towards horse play of some sort. Haven't heard yet, but since they said it wasn't a mechanical failure you can draw your own conclusions. I’m on terminal leave so I am out of the loop but I’ve been talking to some guys in the squadron and they are saying it’s only the ANG that is saying to continue M18 ops and stop doing inspections. Is that correct? Possibly, but that's who I belong to so it's the only guidance I've received. I haven't talked to any of my active or reserve friends about it. And their guidance will probably vary by majcom. Pretty bold for ANG to go out on that limb and state it was NOT a mechanical failure and occurred as a result of negligence. I’d like to think that it would be pretty easy for AFOSI and CATM folks to quickly determine if the gun went off in the holster or not as Safariland’s SLS locks the gun in the holster by the ejection port. If the gun went off in the holster the damage would be pretty evident. If it did not, then why start all this “pausing” of carrying the M18 and require CATM to do inspections. In my 27 years of CATM and SF, I’ve never seen a ND drive that level of response. Peculiar. I have lots of questions as well. We might eventually get the whole story. It wouldn’t be the first time the DoD tried to railroad someone to save themselves embarrassment. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_turret_explosion |
|
Quoted: Pretty bold for ANG to go out on that limb and state it was NOT a mechanical failure and occurred as a result of negligence. I’d like to think that it would be pretty easy for AFOSI and CATM folks to quickly determine if the gun went off in the holster or not as Safariland’s SLS locks the gun in the holster by the ejection port. If the gun went off in the holster the damage would be pretty evident. If it did not, then why start all this “pausing” of carrying the M18 and require CATM to do inspections. In my 27 years of CATM and SF, I’ve never seen a ND drive that level of response. Peculiar. The rumors are absolutely contrary to what I’ve heard from some well placed sources. Count me in for what’s sure to be a shit show. |
|
Quoted: It wouldn’t be the first time the DoD tried to railroad someone to save themselves embarrassment. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_turret_explosion Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I won't speak to what other commands are doing, but mine said the above. But hey, I'm just an O-5 SFS/CC. I could just be making shit up for internet clout or something. I haven't been to work the last two days so I don't know the formal word just yet. I have heard the original story has shifted and it wasn't the airman's side arm that went off. I don't have any formal verification yet. My defender SEL friend is on leave and OOA. Yeah, the rumors seem to be going towards horse play of some sort. Haven't heard yet, but since they said it wasn't a mechanical failure you can draw your own conclusions. I’m on terminal leave so I am out of the loop but I’ve been talking to some guys in the squadron and they are saying it’s only the ANG that is saying to continue M18 ops and stop doing inspections. Is that correct? Possibly, but that's who I belong to so it's the only guidance I've received. I haven't talked to any of my active or reserve friends about it. And their guidance will probably vary by majcom. Pretty bold for ANG to go out on that limb and state it was NOT a mechanical failure and occurred as a result of negligence. I’d like to think that it would be pretty easy for AFOSI and CATM folks to quickly determine if the gun went off in the holster or not as Safariland’s SLS locks the gun in the holster by the ejection port. If the gun went off in the holster the damage would be pretty evident. If it did not, then why start all this “pausing” of carrying the M18 and require CATM to do inspections. In my 27 years of CATM and SF, I’ve never seen a ND drive that level of response. Peculiar. I have lots of questions as well. We might eventually get the whole story. It wouldn’t be the first time the DoD tried to railroad someone to save themselves embarrassment. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_turret_explosion dear god that was nearly forty fucking years ago. That event was nearly as close to WWII as it is to today. |
|
Quoted: dear god that was nearly forty fucking years ago. That event was nearly as close to WWII as it is to today. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I won't speak to what other commands are doing, but mine said the above. But hey, I'm just an O-5 SFS/CC. I could just be making shit up for internet clout or something. I haven't been to work the last two days so I don't know the formal word just yet. I have heard the original story has shifted and it wasn't the airman's side arm that went off. I don't have any formal verification yet. My defender SEL friend is on leave and OOA. Yeah, the rumors seem to be going towards horse play of some sort. Haven't heard yet, but since they said it wasn't a mechanical failure you can draw your own conclusions. I’m on terminal leave so I am out of the loop but I’ve been talking to some guys in the squadron and they are saying it’s only the ANG that is saying to continue M18 ops and stop doing inspections. Is that correct? Possibly, but that's who I belong to so it's the only guidance I've received. I haven't talked to any of my active or reserve friends about it. And their guidance will probably vary by majcom. Pretty bold for ANG to go out on that limb and state it was NOT a mechanical failure and occurred as a result of negligence. I’d like to think that it would be pretty easy for AFOSI and CATM folks to quickly determine if the gun went off in the holster or not as Safariland’s SLS locks the gun in the holster by the ejection port. If the gun went off in the holster the damage would be pretty evident. If it did not, then why start all this “pausing” of carrying the M18 and require CATM to do inspections. In my 27 years of CATM and SF, I’ve never seen a ND drive that level of response. Peculiar. I have lots of questions as well. We might eventually get the whole story. It wouldn’t be the first time the DoD tried to railroad someone to save themselves embarrassment. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_turret_explosion dear god that was nearly forty fucking years ago. That event was nearly as close to WWII as it is to today. Thanks for making me feel ancient. 
|
|
Quoted: Thanks for making me feel ancient. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I won't speak to what other commands are doing, but mine said the above. But hey, I'm just an O-5 SFS/CC. I could just be making shit up for internet clout or something. I haven't been to work the last two days so I don't know the formal word just yet. I have heard the original story has shifted and it wasn't the airman's side arm that went off. I don't have any formal verification yet. My defender SEL friend is on leave and OOA. Yeah, the rumors seem to be going towards horse play of some sort. Haven't heard yet, but since they said it wasn't a mechanical failure you can draw your own conclusions. I’m on terminal leave so I am out of the loop but I’ve been talking to some guys in the squadron and they are saying it’s only the ANG that is saying to continue M18 ops and stop doing inspections. Is that correct? Possibly, but that's who I belong to so it's the only guidance I've received. I haven't talked to any of my active or reserve friends about it. And their guidance will probably vary by majcom. Pretty bold for ANG to go out on that limb and state it was NOT a mechanical failure and occurred as a result of negligence. I’d like to think that it would be pretty easy for AFOSI and CATM folks to quickly determine if the gun went off in the holster or not as Safariland’s SLS locks the gun in the holster by the ejection port. If the gun went off in the holster the damage would be pretty evident. If it did not, then why start all this “pausing” of carrying the M18 and require CATM to do inspections. In my 27 years of CATM and SF, I’ve never seen a ND drive that level of response. Peculiar. I have lots of questions as well. We might eventually get the whole story. It wouldn’t be the first time the DoD tried to railroad someone to save themselves embarrassment. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_turret_explosion dear god that was nearly forty fucking years ago. That event was nearly as close to WWII as it is to today. Thanks for making me feel ancient. I mean it doesn't make me feel young either, 1989 was my first year in college. In my head, the 80's were like 15-20 years ago. In reality, my 30 year out of the fleet reserve and into full retirement is this fucking month. |
|
Quoted: Every youtube guntard is trying to get clicks on it so it will blow up. How many of the idiots do you think will put up a retraction? It is the same stupid shit that the liberal media does. It reminds me of back in the day when SUVs became popular and collision deaths were the "SUV" killed this child instead of driver. Same smell. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted:Yeah, the rumors seem to be going towards horse play of some sort. If someone had claimed this same situation with an M9 whoever was taking their statement would have needed a moment to compose themselves after laughing their ass off at the suggestion. Every youtube guntard is trying to get clicks on it so it will blow up. How many of the idiots do you think will put up a retraction? It is the same stupid shit that the liberal media does. It reminds me of back in the day when SUVs became popular and collision deaths were the "SUV" killed this child instead of driver. Same smell. It wouldn’t prove the M18 is safe. There is really nothing to retract if all they said is “wow, it looks like the P320 can go off on its own.” That’s still true regardless. If there’s an egg-on-face it would be for the military if it were covering up for SIG because of whatever “smoke-filled room” deal they may have. |
|
Quoted: Pretty bold for ANG to go out on that limb and state it was NOT a mechanical failure and occurred as a result of negligence. I’d like to think that it would be pretty easy for AFOSI and CATM folks to quickly determine if the gun went off in the holster or not as Safariland’s SLS locks the gun in the holster by the ejection port. If the gun went off in the holster the damage would be pretty evident. If it did not, then why start all this “pausing” of carrying the M18 and require CATM to do inspections. In my 27 years of CATM and SF, I’ve never seen a ND drive that level of response. Peculiar. The silence has been deafening on my side of the Air Force. Not a peep since the incident. |
|
Quoted: dear god that was nearly forty fucking years ago. That event was nearly as close to WWII as it is to today. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I won't speak to what other commands are doing, but mine said the above. But hey, I'm just an O-5 SFS/CC. I could just be making shit up for internet clout or something. I haven't been to work the last two days so I don't know the formal word just yet. I have heard the original story has shifted and it wasn't the airman's side arm that went off. I don't have any formal verification yet. My defender SEL friend is on leave and OOA. Yeah, the rumors seem to be going towards horse play of some sort. Haven't heard yet, but since they said it wasn't a mechanical failure you can draw your own conclusions. I’m on terminal leave so I am out of the loop but I’ve been talking to some guys in the squadron and they are saying it’s only the ANG that is saying to continue M18 ops and stop doing inspections. Is that correct? Possibly, but that's who I belong to so it's the only guidance I've received. I haven't talked to any of my active or reserve friends about it. And their guidance will probably vary by majcom. Pretty bold for ANG to go out on that limb and state it was NOT a mechanical failure and occurred as a result of negligence. I’d like to think that it would be pretty easy for AFOSI and CATM folks to quickly determine if the gun went off in the holster or not as Safariland’s SLS locks the gun in the holster by the ejection port. If the gun went off in the holster the damage would be pretty evident. If it did not, then why start all this “pausing” of carrying the M18 and require CATM to do inspections. In my 27 years of CATM and SF, I’ve never seen a ND drive that level of response. Peculiar. I have lots of questions as well. We might eventually get the whole story. It wouldn’t be the first time the DoD tried to railroad someone to save themselves embarrassment. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_turret_explosion dear god that was nearly forty fucking years ago. That event was nearly as close to WWII as it is to today. While true… Do you really feel like the DoD has gotten less corrupt? Given what could come out if they start pulling the thread with the M18, it’s procurement, the relationship between the DoD and Sig, retired GO’s getting jobs, etc… You’d be nuts to think there isn’t an immense amount of pressure to find Sig not at fault with this investigation. |
|
Quoted: lol One report came from one of the largest military news sites on the internet. The other was a DM screenshot from JewHater6988. I'll take packinheavy at his word, but there's clearly a credibility discrepancy between the two previous sources. And there always will be with up-channel reporting, which I suspect you've had first-hand experience with given your service. This incident received continuing attention at the General Officer level, which is not common. First reporting always has holes, but risk/safety management could have dictated a course of action even as the investigation discovered inconsistencies challenging the initial narrative. Unfortunately, this isn't NCIS where complex cases are solved in 60 minutes. But what would I know, I was only the Security Forces Manager on the General Staff who posted about slowing his role back on the 24th. |
|
Quoted: While true… Do you really feel like the DoD has gotten less corrupt? Given what could come out if they start pulling the thread with the M18, it’s procurement, the relationship between the DoD and Sig, retired GO’s getting jobs, etc… You’d be nuts to think there isn’t an immense amount of pressure to find Sig not at fault with this investigation. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I won't speak to what other commands are doing, but mine said the above. But hey, I'm just an O-5 SFS/CC. I could just be making shit up for internet clout or something. I haven't been to work the last two days so I don't know the formal word just yet. I have heard the original story has shifted and it wasn't the airman's side arm that went off. I don't have any formal verification yet. My defender SEL friend is on leave and OOA. Yeah, the rumors seem to be going towards horse play of some sort. Haven't heard yet, but since they said it wasn't a mechanical failure you can draw your own conclusions. I’m on terminal leave so I am out of the loop but I’ve been talking to some guys in the squadron and they are saying it’s only the ANG that is saying to continue M18 ops and stop doing inspections. Is that correct? Possibly, but that's who I belong to so it's the only guidance I've received. I haven't talked to any of my active or reserve friends about it. And their guidance will probably vary by majcom. Pretty bold for ANG to go out on that limb and state it was NOT a mechanical failure and occurred as a result of negligence. I’d like to think that it would be pretty easy for AFOSI and CATM folks to quickly determine if the gun went off in the holster or not as Safariland’s SLS locks the gun in the holster by the ejection port. If the gun went off in the holster the damage would be pretty evident. If it did not, then why start all this “pausing” of carrying the M18 and require CATM to do inspections. In my 27 years of CATM and SF, I’ve never seen a ND drive that level of response. Peculiar. I have lots of questions as well. We might eventually get the whole story. It wouldn’t be the first time the DoD tried to railroad someone to save themselves embarrassment. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_turret_explosion dear god that was nearly forty fucking years ago. That event was nearly as close to WWII as it is to today. While true… Do you really feel like the DoD has gotten less corrupt? Given what could come out if they start pulling the thread with the M18, it’s procurement, the relationship between the DoD and Sig, retired GO’s getting jobs, etc… You’d be nuts to think there isn’t an immense amount of pressure to find Sig not at fault with this investigation. Calling the entire DOD "corrupt" because of a shitty investigation forty years ago is pretty biased, don't you think? |
|
Quoted: Calling the entire DOD "corrupt" because of a shitty investigation forty years ago is pretty biased, don't you think? Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I won't speak to what other commands are doing, but mine said the above. But hey, I'm just an O-5 SFS/CC. I could just be making shit up for internet clout or something. I haven't been to work the last two days so I don't know the formal word just yet. I have heard the original story has shifted and it wasn't the airman's side arm that went off. I don't have any formal verification yet. My defender SEL friend is on leave and OOA. Yeah, the rumors seem to be going towards horse play of some sort. Haven't heard yet, but since they said it wasn't a mechanical failure you can draw your own conclusions. I’m on terminal leave so I am out of the loop but I’ve been talking to some guys in the squadron and they are saying it’s only the ANG that is saying to continue M18 ops and stop doing inspections. Is that correct? Possibly, but that's who I belong to so it's the only guidance I've received. I haven't talked to any of my active or reserve friends about it. And their guidance will probably vary by majcom. Pretty bold for ANG to go out on that limb and state it was NOT a mechanical failure and occurred as a result of negligence. I’d like to think that it would be pretty easy for AFOSI and CATM folks to quickly determine if the gun went off in the holster or not as Safariland’s SLS locks the gun in the holster by the ejection port. If the gun went off in the holster the damage would be pretty evident. If it did not, then why start all this “pausing” of carrying the M18 and require CATM to do inspections. In my 27 years of CATM and SF, I’ve never seen a ND drive that level of response. Peculiar. I have lots of questions as well. We might eventually get the whole story. It wouldn’t be the first time the DoD tried to railroad someone to save themselves embarrassment. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_turret_explosion dear god that was nearly forty fucking years ago. That event was nearly as close to WWII as it is to today. While true… Do you really feel like the DoD has gotten less corrupt? Given what could come out if they start pulling the thread with the M18, it’s procurement, the relationship between the DoD and Sig, retired GO’s getting jobs, etc… You’d be nuts to think there isn’t an immense amount of pressure to find Sig not at fault with this investigation. Calling the entire DOD "corrupt" because of a shitty investigation forty years ago is pretty biased, don't you think? That’s moving the goal posts… Clearly that investigation isn’t the only example of DoD corruption. It’s just a good example of how they had no problem letting one enlisted man take the fall vs finding high ranking officers at fault. I’m sure it wasn’t the first time, and it certainly won’t be the last. If you think everything the DoD does is above board, you’re delusional. |
|
Quoted: I have lots of questions as well. We might eventually get the whole story. I was waiting for Airman Lovan to be listed on the odmp.org page. Hasn't been. Telling or still too early? Accidental LODD's for various agencies show up there pretty quickly. Sadly, 41 Defenders paid the ultimate sacrifice by various means. https://www.odmp.org/agency/3942-united-states-air-force-security-forces-us-government |
|
Quoted: Calling the entire DOD "corrupt" because of a shitty investigation forty years ago is pretty biased, don't you think? Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I won't speak to what other commands are doing, but mine said the above. But hey, I'm just an O-5 SFS/CC. I could just be making shit up for internet clout or something. I haven't been to work the last two days so I don't know the formal word just yet. I have heard the original story has shifted and it wasn't the airman's side arm that went off. I don't have any formal verification yet. My defender SEL friend is on leave and OOA. Yeah, the rumors seem to be going towards horse play of some sort. Haven't heard yet, but since they said it wasn't a mechanical failure you can draw your own conclusions. I’m on terminal leave so I am out of the loop but I’ve been talking to some guys in the squadron and they are saying it’s only the ANG that is saying to continue M18 ops and stop doing inspections. Is that correct? Possibly, but that's who I belong to so it's the only guidance I've received. I haven't talked to any of my active or reserve friends about it. And their guidance will probably vary by majcom. Pretty bold for ANG to go out on that limb and state it was NOT a mechanical failure and occurred as a result of negligence. I’d like to think that it would be pretty easy for AFOSI and CATM folks to quickly determine if the gun went off in the holster or not as Safariland’s SLS locks the gun in the holster by the ejection port. If the gun went off in the holster the damage would be pretty evident. If it did not, then why start all this “pausing” of carrying the M18 and require CATM to do inspections. In my 27 years of CATM and SF, I’ve never seen a ND drive that level of response. Peculiar. I have lots of questions as well. We might eventually get the whole story. It wouldn’t be the first time the DoD tried to railroad someone to save themselves embarrassment. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_turret_explosion dear god that was nearly forty fucking years ago. That event was nearly as close to WWII as it is to today. While true… Do you really feel like the DoD has gotten less corrupt? Given what could come out if they start pulling the thread with the M18, it’s procurement, the relationship between the DoD and Sig, retired GO’s getting jobs, etc… You’d be nuts to think there isn’t an immense amount of pressure to find Sig not at fault with this investigation. Calling the entire DOD "corrupt" because of a shitty investigation forty years ago is pretty biased, don't you think? Meh. Based on my experience, I subscribe to the Hanlon’s Razor principle: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity And then the brass takes advantage of that to create space for wiggling out of things. |
|
Quoted: That’s moving the goal posts… Clearly that investigation isn’t the only example of DoD corruption. It’s just a good example of how they had no problem letting one enlisted man take the fall vs finding high ranking officers at fault. I’m sure it wasn’t the first time, and it certainly won’t be the last. If you think everything the DoD does is above board, you’re delusional. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I won't speak to what other commands are doing, but mine said the above. But hey, I'm just an O-5 SFS/CC. I could just be making shit up for internet clout or something. I haven't been to work the last two days so I don't know the formal word just yet. I have heard the original story has shifted and it wasn't the airman's side arm that went off. I don't have any formal verification yet. My defender SEL friend is on leave and OOA. Yeah, the rumors seem to be going towards horse play of some sort. Haven't heard yet, but since they said it wasn't a mechanical failure you can draw your own conclusions. I’m on terminal leave so I am out of the loop but I’ve been talking to some guys in the squadron and they are saying it’s only the ANG that is saying to continue M18 ops and stop doing inspections. Is that correct? Possibly, but that's who I belong to so it's the only guidance I've received. I haven't talked to any of my active or reserve friends about it. And their guidance will probably vary by majcom. Pretty bold for ANG to go out on that limb and state it was NOT a mechanical failure and occurred as a result of negligence. I’d like to think that it would be pretty easy for AFOSI and CATM folks to quickly determine if the gun went off in the holster or not as Safariland’s SLS locks the gun in the holster by the ejection port. If the gun went off in the holster the damage would be pretty evident. If it did not, then why start all this “pausing” of carrying the M18 and require CATM to do inspections. In my 27 years of CATM and SF, I’ve never seen a ND drive that level of response. Peculiar. I have lots of questions as well. We might eventually get the whole story. It wouldn’t be the first time the DoD tried to railroad someone to save themselves embarrassment. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_turret_explosion dear god that was nearly forty fucking years ago. That event was nearly as close to WWII as it is to today. While true… Do you really feel like the DoD has gotten less corrupt? Given what could come out if they start pulling the thread with the M18, it’s procurement, the relationship between the DoD and Sig, retired GO’s getting jobs, etc… You’d be nuts to think there isn’t an immense amount of pressure to find Sig not at fault with this investigation. Calling the entire DOD "corrupt" because of a shitty investigation forty years ago is pretty biased, don't you think? That’s moving the goal posts… Clearly that investigation isn’t the only example of DoD corruption. It’s just a good example of how they had no problem letting one enlisted man take the fall vs finding high ranking officers at fault. I’m sure it wasn’t the first time, and it certainly won’t be the last. If you think everything the DoD does is above board, you’re delusional. If you've got to reach for a forty year old example that doesn't even fit your story, your story is probably bullshit. |
|
Quoted: If you've got to reach for a forty year old example that doesn't even fit your story, your story is probably bullshit. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I won't speak to what other commands are doing, but mine said the above. But hey, I'm just an O-5 SFS/CC. I could just be making shit up for internet clout or something. I haven't been to work the last two days so I don't know the formal word just yet. I have heard the original story has shifted and it wasn't the airman's side arm that went off. I don't have any formal verification yet. My defender SEL friend is on leave and OOA. Yeah, the rumors seem to be going towards horse play of some sort. Haven't heard yet, but since they said it wasn't a mechanical failure you can draw your own conclusions. I’m on terminal leave so I am out of the loop but I’ve been talking to some guys in the squadron and they are saying it’s only the ANG that is saying to continue M18 ops and stop doing inspections. Is that correct? Possibly, but that's who I belong to so it's the only guidance I've received. I haven't talked to any of my active or reserve friends about it. And their guidance will probably vary by majcom. Pretty bold for ANG to go out on that limb and state it was NOT a mechanical failure and occurred as a result of negligence. I’d like to think that it would be pretty easy for AFOSI and CATM folks to quickly determine if the gun went off in the holster or not as Safariland’s SLS locks the gun in the holster by the ejection port. If the gun went off in the holster the damage would be pretty evident. If it did not, then why start all this “pausing” of carrying the M18 and require CATM to do inspections. In my 27 years of CATM and SF, I’ve never seen a ND drive that level of response. Peculiar. I have lots of questions as well. We might eventually get the whole story. It wouldn’t be the first time the DoD tried to railroad someone to save themselves embarrassment. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_turret_explosion dear god that was nearly forty fucking years ago. That event was nearly as close to WWII as it is to today. While true… Do you really feel like the DoD has gotten less corrupt? Given what could come out if they start pulling the thread with the M18, it’s procurement, the relationship between the DoD and Sig, retired GO’s getting jobs, etc… You’d be nuts to think there isn’t an immense amount of pressure to find Sig not at fault with this investigation. Calling the entire DOD "corrupt" because of a shitty investigation forty years ago is pretty biased, don't you think? That’s moving the goal posts… Clearly that investigation isn’t the only example of DoD corruption. It’s just a good example of how they had no problem letting one enlisted man take the fall vs finding high ranking officers at fault. I’m sure it wasn’t the first time, and it certainly won’t be the last. If you think everything the DoD does is above board, you’re delusional. If you've got to reach for a forty year old example that doesn't even fit your story, your story is probably bullshit. How long has it been since you were actually in the military? I can think of numerous incidents where the initial blame was placed on Jr ranking members, but subsistent investigations revealed there were much broader command level issues that were truly the root cause. The USS Fitzgerald and USS McCain collision in 2017, the Jessica lynch debacle, Fort Hood disappearances, etc. Not to mention numerous aviation mishaps I’ve been privy to over the years. I hate to break it to you, high ranking military officers are far from saints. I’m not saying they are throwing a Jr enlisted under the bus here to save their skin, but there is plenty of incentive to do so, both in this case and in others, and if went down that way here I wouldn’t find it shocking. |
|
Quoted: How long has it been since you were actually in the military? I can think of numerous incidents where the initial blame was placed on Jr ranking members, but subsistent investigations revealed there were much broader command level issues that were truly the root cause. The USS Fitzgerald and USS McCain collision in 2017, the Jessica lynch debacle, Fort Hood disappearances, etc. Not to mention numerous aviation mishaps I’ve been privy to over the years. I hate to break it to you, high ranking military officers are far from saints. I’m not saying they are throwing a Jr enlisted under the bus here to save their skin, but there is plenty of incentive to do so, both in this case and in others, and if went down that way here I wouldn’t find it shocking. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I won't speak to what other commands are doing, but mine said the above. But hey, I'm just an O-5 SFS/CC. I could just be making shit up for internet clout or something. I haven't been to work the last two days so I don't know the formal word just yet. I have heard the original story has shifted and it wasn't the airman's side arm that went off. I don't have any formal verification yet. My defender SEL friend is on leave and OOA. Yeah, the rumors seem to be going towards horse play of some sort. Haven't heard yet, but since they said it wasn't a mechanical failure you can draw your own conclusions. I’m on terminal leave so I am out of the loop but I’ve been talking to some guys in the squadron and they are saying it’s only the ANG that is saying to continue M18 ops and stop doing inspections. Is that correct? Possibly, but that's who I belong to so it's the only guidance I've received. I haven't talked to any of my active or reserve friends about it. And their guidance will probably vary by majcom. Pretty bold for ANG to go out on that limb and state it was NOT a mechanical failure and occurred as a result of negligence. I’d like to think that it would be pretty easy for AFOSI and CATM folks to quickly determine if the gun went off in the holster or not as Safariland’s SLS locks the gun in the holster by the ejection port. If the gun went off in the holster the damage would be pretty evident. If it did not, then why start all this “pausing” of carrying the M18 and require CATM to do inspections. In my 27 years of CATM and SF, I’ve never seen a ND drive that level of response. Peculiar. I have lots of questions as well. We might eventually get the whole story. It wouldn’t be the first time the DoD tried to railroad someone to save themselves embarrassment. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_turret_explosion dear god that was nearly forty fucking years ago. That event was nearly as close to WWII as it is to today. While true… Do you really feel like the DoD has gotten less corrupt? Given what could come out if they start pulling the thread with the M18, it’s procurement, the relationship between the DoD and Sig, retired GO’s getting jobs, etc… You’d be nuts to think there isn’t an immense amount of pressure to find Sig not at fault with this investigation. Calling the entire DOD "corrupt" because of a shitty investigation forty years ago is pretty biased, don't you think? That’s moving the goal posts… Clearly that investigation isn’t the only example of DoD corruption. It’s just a good example of how they had no problem letting one enlisted man take the fall vs finding high ranking officers at fault. I’m sure it wasn’t the first time, and it certainly won’t be the last. If you think everything the DoD does is above board, you’re delusional. If you've got to reach for a forty year old example that doesn't even fit your story, your story is probably bullshit. How long has it been since you were actually in the military? I can think of numerous incidents where the initial blame was placed on Jr ranking members, but subsistent investigations revealed there were much broader command level issues that were truly the root cause. The USS Fitzgerald and USS McCain collision in 2017, the Jessica lynch debacle, Fort Hood disappearances, etc. Not to mention numerous aviation mishaps I’ve been privy to over the years. I hate to break it to you, high ranking military officers are far from saints. I’m not saying they are throwing a Jr enlisted under the bus here to save their skin, but there is plenty of incentive to do so, both in this case and in others, and if went down that way here I wouldn’t find it shocking. Funny you'd mention Fitzgerald and McCain. I know people on both, I ran fire drills on both, and I was there when my colleagues dragged Fitz in and tied her to the pier. I was CDO the day PACFLT flew in and relieved 7th Fleet over those incidents. My wife knew several of the people who were killed. There's a LOT more to say about that but I'll leave it there. Again, you're dragging up things that are either ancient history or you don't know anything about. |
|
Quoted: I doubt this will do much to sig as a company, even if true. People have been killed by all sorts of ordinance and arms in the military and companies keep chugging along. Who would have thought the osprey would have survived? That said, sig would probably have done better to figure out what is going on and redesign some parts to eliminate it, or the chance of it. Sig makes some good to great stuff, the p320 has never been either of those Quoted: I think someone posted a while back info showing that crash rate of the Osprey is not different from any other aircraft in service. Not sure if the info was legit though. Anyway I wouldnt compare a complex machine like the Osprey to a striker fired handgun A) the Osprey’s safety record isn’t as bad as the internet would lead one to believe, in comparison to other aircraft. The conclusion people jump to or repeat is driven by limited info. B) it does things that made it the only one of its kind. At best, a M17/18 could be interchanged with lots of other existing pistols with no impact. Yes, I’ve worked in them, and yes I’ve lost friends in them, but the same could be said of other aircraft. |
|
Quoted: We received an email Monday stating we could return to normal M18 ops and that we could also suspend the inspections as it had been determined that the incident was due to improper procedures and not a mechanical failure. There are rumors floating around on the net if you go looking for them. |
|
Quoted: No shit. Wonder what happened Quoted: Quoted: We received an email Monday stating we could return to normal M18 ops and that we could also suspend the inspections as it had been determined that the incident was due to improper procedures and not a mechanical failure. There are rumors floating around on the net if you go looking for them. |
|
Quoted: Strange. Misconduct? Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: We received an email Monday stating we could return to normal M18 ops and that we could also suspend the inspections as it had been determined that the incident was due to improper procedures and not a mechanical failure. There are rumors floating around on the net if you go looking for them. Strange. Misconduct? The rumor is two airmen were goofing off, and one shot the other - a tragic commanded discharge, not an uncommanded one. The other rumor was the 1st one that circulated - the deceased airman took his holstered 320 off his belt and tossed it on the desk, shooting him in the chest. If it is a criminal investigation, we'll hear of an airman in custody most rickety tick. |
|
Quoted: No shit. Wonder what happened Quoted: Quoted: We received an email Monday stating we could return to normal M18 ops and that we could also suspend the inspections as it had been determined that the incident was due to improper procedures and not a mechanical failure. There are rumors floating around on the net if you go looking for them. Still nothing further. I'm sure it'll either leak at some point or we'll get something official. The rumors are getting more interesting and I love the "I'll check with my relative who is in the AF" comments. |
|
Quoted: Still nothing further. I'm sure it'll either leak at some point or we'll get something official. The rumors are getting more interesting and I love the "I'll check with my relative who is in the AF" comments. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted:We received an email Monday stating we could return to normal M18 ops and that we could also suspend the inspections as it had been determined that the incident was due to improper procedures and not a mechanical failure. There are rumors floating around on the net if you go looking for them. Still nothing further. I'm sure it'll either leak at some point or we'll get something official. The rumors are getting more interesting and I love the "I'll check with my relative who is in the AF" comments. |
|
I have read the inspection criteria and inspected weapons are back service. Look at the captive safety lever and ensure it’s free of burrs or spurs. Same for the two sear notches. Inspect the striker hook and striker safety lock for burrs or spurs and freedom of movement Inspect the striker lock spring is clean and properly functioning. (That’s the little spring on the striker safety lock) Nothing earth shattering. The FCU pictured in the inspection document is dirty as fuck. The USAF needs some ultrasonic cleaners for these things. I haven’t seen anything about the case and if I had I would not post it publicly. Of note, the pistols are back in service as I mentioned. |
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Sig M18 might have just killed an Airman (Page 22 of 28)
Join the Community
Your next conversation starts here.
Create your free account to join discussions, share your experience, save topics, and connect with the AR15.COM community.
- Join discussions
- Follow topics and replies
- Connect with fellow enthusiasts
Already a member? Sign in
Stay informed by subscribing to our Newsletter