User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/24/2005 1:22:20 PM EDT
[#1]
Only if you provide it yourself and you are allowed to do so.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2005 1:22:32 PM EDT
[#2]
It usually is up to the indiviual unit, if you can put your own stuff on your weapon or not. On my way out of Kuwait I saw a lot of 101st Airborne and 4th Infantry Division guys who were issued Eotechs, 31F ACOGs, surefire weapon lights, Sage EBR stocks for their M-14s and even a few sound suppressors on some M-4s. Most units will let you put your own light / scope on your weapon if they are being issued anyway. I wasnt able to use my Knight's M-5 rail system, surefire light or eotech, because no one was being issued any and, they wanted everyone to be "uniform".
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2005 1:32:40 PM EDT
[#3]
The over-riding rule is NO privately owned weapons...
However, with issue weapons, there is no over-riding policy (eg nothing service-wide) wrt accessories, so each individual unit decides what is/isn't allowed... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2005 1:36:06 PM EDT
[#4]
So, it's not the case that the military offers a Chinese menu of options for soldiers to choose from? As I understand your posts, the G.I. has to bring his own? That doesn't seem right. Sort of reminds me of soldiers having to supply their own Humvee armour.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2005 3:02:58 PM EDT
[#5]
No, they do not. IF they want something other than what is issued to them in terms of optics, then they have to buy their own. AFAIK, the Army issues either the M68 Close Combat Optic (aka Aimpoint M2) or the EOTech 552. If the soldier wants an ACOG, he must provide. The Marine Corps issues the ACOG TA31RCO. If a Marine wants something different, and his unit allows it, he must buy. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2005 4:11:54 PM EDT
[#6]
I wonder if the Marine boys and Army boys ever trade optics with one another. I could see two squads passin by or getting caught up in a fire fight together and one guy saying to another "Man I sure wish I had one of those Eotechs" and the other saying "Yea? How bout you give me your ACOG, I could sure use it doing what Im doing" Would you get into much of a pile if you did that? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2005 4:18:20 PM EDT
[#7]
its considered a sensitive item that you have signed for by serial # and are responsible for. yes you would be in serious trouble, and have to pay for it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2005 4:56:59 PM EDT
[#8]
I carried my issue A2, when I was not posted with an M60, with a Giles Sling from Wilderness Tactical. I also had a nice 3x9 40mm TV view scope on B-Square see-thru mount on post with me at all times. I never had the chance to sight the scope to my A2, but I used it to scan my sector plenty of times when on duty. Faster than a set of bino's at times. I also had my own mag-pulls and a Harris Bi-Pod.
Noone ever said a thing to me, but I was Air Force Reserve, most of the guys in my unit are civilian cops, we even have a few SWAT guys, and almost all of us are hunters/shooters. We had a pretty good idea what worked and what didn't, so we were given a lot of lattitude. Further, at least for me, being a prior Marine grunt, most anything I did out of the norm was simply dismissed as me being a little brain damaged. More than once I heard, "thats Crosser, he used to be a Jarhead, he's crazy." I played that card as often as I could. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2005 6:11:30 PM EDT
[#9]
Its funny, if this were a few years ago, we would not even be discussing this. You carried what Uncle gave you damn little else.
We are learning! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2005 6:18:48 PM EDT
[#10]
Big trouble... You're signed for it, and the guy you signed it out from is signed for it, and so on up the line... Big problems start to pop up when people 'trade' or 'lose' equipment... |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2005 8:38:00 PM EDT
[#11]
Soldiers don't provide their own Humvee armor. Been watching a little too much Michael Moore... Soldiers DO have to install armor on their own Humvees when they arrive- at least a lot of National Guard units do. Come to think of it, I do know a few guys who had their family send them 3/4" thick steel from the local mills so they could "supply their own" armor... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/24/2005 8:53:52 PM EDT
[#12]
I haven't been watching Michael Moore. I live in a relatively small town in the middle of Missouri. I seem to recall that in the early stages of the war a local manufacturer (truck utility boxes) supplied some steel for troops in Iraq to use as supplemental armour. I also recall local news reports of parents and citizens sending steel plating over to family members serving overseas. I assume the Humvee armour situation is resolved now but in the early days of the war I'm pretty sure there was some improvised armour being used. All that being said, my comment wasn't meant to put anybody down. It was more to say that it's a shame that troops should not have to reach into their own pocket to equip their rifles. I realize there's a lot of issues at play when it comes to equipping troops, though . . . |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2005 3:56:24 AM EDT
[#13]
The supply system in the services ain't the quickest but its getting good equipment out to the troops. Granted not everyone will get everything they want. There's plenty of ACOGs, EOTechs, Aimpoints and surefires lights that are supplied to the units.
CD |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2005 4:14:07 AM EDT
[#14]
Special Forces generally issue the ACOG in TA01 NSN form and more and more lately, the Eotech. You have more leeway than standard troops but are still pretty much limited to the M4 as far as small arms. I did observe a number of obviously privately owned handguns in Afghanistan. Most US SF M4s I saw there wore the ACOG, this was mostly in 2002. As a standard infantrymen/soldier you carry what you are issued by your unit, unless they allow you to use a privately purchased sight. I saw alot of different weapons/sights used by coalition troops (G36, M4, AUG) but they were all issue items.
As far as other equipment, unfortunately individual equipment has not been a top priority of the "big ticket" administrators that run the defense system. There is lots of good personal gear out there but the military has not officially adopted it. I hope its getting better now in wartime but its long been traditional for soldiers to buy alot of their own personal gear (web, etc), at least in the Special Ops community. Some of the U S Air Force troops I saw in Afghanistan had Vietnam vintage webgear, slicksided M16/M4s, etc. Sort of criminal in my mind, we can spend billions on tanks we dont need but we cant even provide a decent flashlight or webbing to the guys with rifles in their hands... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2005 5:34:23 AM EDT
[#15]
I spent 24 years in the army, half as an 11B half as a 19D. (I decided to ride half the time). During those years I was able to use a lot of stuff from Ranger Joes at Benning, Espirit de Corps at Ft. Ord. The Rod and Gun in Berlin, lots of Mom and Pop shops in Korea. The black Market in Thailand whil in SE Asia. But I could never under any circumstances trade military issued gear that my unit had signed for. Every I G or CMMI inspection saw us put clandestine gear in our car trunks as the inspectors looked at every serial number. Being in a Combat zone is no different. Every morning every squad leader has to make a critical items check and get that report to his upper. I can't remember the exact name but I think it is a Green 2 report. I'm constantly amused at how little knowledge of the actual military civilians have. I had a situation in Berlin in 1961 when we were on patrol in the Grunewald and ran into a Soviet Patrol on the other side of the wire. They were probably innocently inspecting the trip flares and mine fields. We hit the dirt and I dropped a handset which cracked. I turned it in and filed a report. When we got paid I was 15 bucks short because Fuck his troops Fred, the company commander, decided I should pay for it. I guarantee many a young SP4 in Iraq is paying for items he is missing, combat or not.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2005 5:45:45 AM EDT
[#16]
Its been awhile for me, but they used to let you fill out a form for stuff lost downrange, if you were not negligent. They filed it and you were off the hook. There was also a cap on what you could be found liable for dollar wise, iirc it was a months pay. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2005 5:51:17 AM EDT
[#17]
What I have noticed is the Army is much more anal retentive about this than the Marines. When BSing with my friends in the army, they would always brag at how little they had to pay when they gave up command, but all of them had to pay. I have commanded two units so far and have never paid a cent. We also are more willing to write off combat losses, I have seen allot of reports in the Early Bird about troops who had to pay for gear lost, even if it was related to being a causality, the Marine Corps would never do that. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2005 5:52:41 AM EDT
[#18]
There is no real cap, it all revolves around if were negligent or not. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2005 6:35:34 AM EDT
[#19]
originally from threefeathers
I think he fathered a son who became my CO in he 80's who liked to do the same thing.....  from STLRN
Aye,Aye Sir you hit the nail. I never could figure it out. I think it's because were biggger then the Marines and have more officers with a lot of time to kill and a lot of Reports of Survey to investigate. A young Snuffy I work with Lost a Pair of PVS 7's that he ws signed for while deplyoed with his Guard unit. He did not secure them and is paying for them. I think a lot of it is due to having so many Commanders responsible for so much that they want to cover their ass on every little loss. These guys need a Good Plt Sgt to "Help" explain the loss........ Oh yeah....Green 2 report (sensitive items) every 0600hrs and 1800 hrs a day. never miss one of those.... 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2005 7:28:15 AM EDT
[#20]
Just have to add, the ACOG is an issue item in the Army. It's the one with the large light gathering fiber optic on the top. The TA11F I believe.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2005 8:44:42 AM EDT
[#21]
Yes every Change of Command ended in many NCO's biting the bullet on small item losses, the good old statement of damages. We usually ended up paying for hand tools that came up missing.
But we employed the barter system to make up most shortages. ARMY don't ya know |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2005 10:08:41 AM EDT
[#22]
Yes, the TA11 is one of several that do have the light gathering fiber optic on the top. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2005 10:13:23 AM EDT
[#23]
My issued ACOG, as near as I can tell, is a TA01NSN. No fiber optic, just a tritium lighted reticle for low light use, and iron sights cast on top. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2005 10:15:30 AM EDT
[#24]
Just address the hummer thing,
they were never meant to be frontline vehicles, which is why they don't have armor, obviously in this war things are different which require armor. Believe it or not this wasn't an issue of the fed gov screwing over troops as so many think |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2005 4:13:02 PM EDT
[#25]
The TA01NSN is a commonly issued ACOG- one of the most common IIRC. The reticle on that puppy glows Amber.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2005 4:46:59 PM EDT
[#26]
I think USMC gets issued the TA31F. (so I hear, I left the grunts before they were common)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2005 5:02:12 PM EDT
[#27]
The F is the old model, still found in the fleet but eventually they will all be replaces with TA31RCO-M4 or TA31RCO-A4. The plan is every rifle and carbine in the division and limited in the group and wing will have them. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2005 5:06:52 PM EDT
[#28]
Everyone in my infantry platoon was issued M-68s, TA31F ACOGs, for the designated marksman, and MGOs for the M240s and SAWs. We were later issued replacement Eotechs for M-68s that went down. I used my own TA11F because I don't care for the M-68 and I wasn't about to take an optic away from one of my Joes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2005 5:25:33 PM EDT
[#29]
My Army issue ACOG is a TA31F but there are other models too.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2005 5:35:41 PM EDT
[#30]
"F" models aren't necessarily old, just around before the RCOs. Triji still makes them new, don't they?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2005 5:43:18 PM EDT
[#31]
Um some Humvees are combat oriented, and not all of those are armored. As part of the 101st our mission dictated that two trucks combat loaded could be slung underneath a chinook. That meant no armor on our gun trucks. Sure the MP's had up-armors and air conditioning while we cruised Iraq in thin-skins and no doors. The mission dictates what you have- hopefully. yakrat101 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2005 6:02:08 PM EDT
[#32]
In the sense of the Marine Corps than yes, it is old. But yes it is still being made by Trijicon. |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
