User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/29/2004 1:14:29 PM EDT
It seems like in every pic i see, marines ahve A4's with ACOGS. What's with the thousand dollar scopes, when all we hear is complaints about lack of body armor?
This is a serious question.... I am really looking for an answer. IF there's money for a scope that's 4x in cost over an aimpoint, then why spend it on that and not more armor? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2004 1:15:31 PM EDT
[#1]
?
The best defense is a good offense? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2004 1:16:33 PM EDT
[#2]
I do believe most of those ACOGs are private purchases. Also I think it is now policy that no one goes into that AO with having body armor issued ot them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2004 1:18:09 PM EDT
[#3]
Really? Can somebody please confirm this? Does this apply for the ARMY as well? ETA: Sorry about the hijack, but this is important to me |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2004 1:32:28 PM EDT
[#4]
The USMC currently has ACOG's in their inventory. There aren't enough of them to field to every Marine, so they issue them to their Expert shooters first under what they call the Designated Marksman Program.
That is also correct. In order to avoid the shortages experienced last year, all units leaving theater turn in their SAPI plates in Kuwait where they are subsequently reissued to incoming units. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2004 1:35:49 PM EDT
[#5]
Marines are scarfing up ACOGs
Of course, they are all Army hand me downs. Just like the brand new uniforms Brand new M16A4s etc. And everybody gets body armor. They are trying to get everybody interceptor body armor, but I don't think they have gotten that far yet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2004 1:36:44 PM EDT
[#6]
The Marines purchased 5,000 TA31Fs for OIF I and have since announced plans to purchase an additional 53,000 TA31Fs.
This is one of the reasons ACOGs are so hard to find lately and so expensive. In any case, I am pretty sure the Marines are not paying retail for them and I've yet to see any Marine with an ACOG who didn't also have body armor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2004 1:37:43 PM EDT
[#7]
I was under the impression people in the DMP program were provided with variable power scopes, not simple ACOGs. Perhaps I'm mixing the Army's SDM program up with the Marines'
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2004 1:55:50 PM EDT
[#8]
I thought it was going to be those US Optics SN4's, not ACOG, but I have yet to see a pic of a deployed Marine with a SN4...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2004 3:12:46 PM EDT
[#9]
I think the USMC DMP program is using an accurized M14 with a Mk 4 Leoupold. The Army SDM program will use an accurized 20" M16 upper with 77gr ammo. Not sure about the optics.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2004 3:27:35 PM EDT
[#10]
There's no shortage. Maybe some of the National Guard units have the older flak vests. So what? That's what the ENTIRE military wore during the first Gulf War. Where were the whiners then? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2004 3:41:51 PM EDT
[#11]
The only unit that has the DMR program is 4th MEB AT, the rest of the Marine Corps, starting with the Coast units, began the SAM program. The MWS (M16A4 with RAS) being equipped with the ACOG is part of the rifle combat optics (RCO) fielding. The GCE board stated last Oct that all Marine riflemen will have a MWS with a RCO, because of how long it takes to field RCO and MWS to all riflemen, the priority is to give them to higher shooter first, than to the rest of the Marines as they become available. A recent battalion that went out for OIF 2 had enough for 1 for ever 2.5 Marines Sgt and below. For now the ACOG is the RCO of choice but I have heard rumors that there may be another sight bought in the future.
I think that may only be partially correct and only for SMCR units, but even than SAPIs are CARDF issue items for SMCR unitsd and are sent from the Single Site Storage Facility to the activated SMCR unit prior to deploying. FMF Battalions either maintain SAPI plates on their own property books (East Coast) or draw them from the CIF (West Coast). |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2004 3:44:51 PM EDT
[#12]
Sorry, but that excuse doesn't cut it. That is the equivalent of saying that if '03 Springfields were good enough for the Doughboys in WWI, they're good enough for us to use now. The fact of the matter is that if newer technology is available, especially if its been proven to save lives, then it should be used. I spent two tours over there and came to the simple conclusion that the military's priorities are a disgrace. Just a few months ago we were running around Fallujah in Hi-Backs with absolutely no armor on them while simultaneously watching countless brand new Range Rovers being shipped in by the dozens so that the Officers didn't have to sweat walking to and from the chow hall. Using your own logic if a HMMWV is good enough for a grunt, it sure as hell is good enough for Officers. Just my .02 cents |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2004 3:48:48 PM EDT
[#13]
Find me a pic of a Marine with an ACOG AND outdated body armor. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2004 3:49:29 PM EDT
[#14]
STLRN, You are correct. Apparently I wasn't clear enough in my first post. Regarding the SAPI issue I was referring to the NG and Army Reserve units doing a one-for-one exchange in Kuwait. The USMC units I dealt with all had their SAPI's before they left CONUS...My bad.. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2004 3:53:20 PM EDT
[#15]
DOD policy is that ALL troops deploying to OIF/OEF will have interceptor body armor issued.
All mob orders I have seen had that on them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2004 3:56:59 PM EDT
[#16]
What's on paper and what happens in the real world are two different things. Although I saw no Marines without body armor, there were quite a few NG units and SeaBees without Interceptor body armor... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2004 4:01:17 PM EDT
[#17]
It was a problem, but any units rotating in from here on out will have it. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2004 4:05:47 PM EDT
[#18]
I know they're working on it, but as of two months ago (when I was there) it was still an issue. One can only hope that they can rectify the issue because SAPI's work. There are a few Marines that got to go home because of their SAPI plates.... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2004 4:08:31 PM EDT
[#19]
From what I have seen between new purchases and a smarter redistribution of what we already had they have more than enough for the upcoming rotations now.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2004 4:17:41 PM EDT
[#20]
You do understand that the USMC buying ACOGs have absolutely NOTHING to do with Army, NG, or Seabee body armor don't you? You realize that each service gets their own budget and decides how they will spend it. If the Navy treats the Seabees like bastard children then it is the Navy's fault. If the Army decided to spend money on a howitzer system that was too heavy and a helo designed to fight the Russians then that is the Army's fault for not taking care of their troops. The USMC seems to be doing a good job of getting the right tools to their poeple.
When I left there in July it was policy, for several months before, that anyone actually going into Iraq have IBA with plates. Policy doesn't always happen, but there was a big push to get the IBA in country. I also know the makers of the IBA were swamped with orders and couldn't produce it fast enough. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2004 4:26:46 PM EDT
[#21]
During the first rotation of OIF, everyone from IMEF that I served with (at least from the USMC) wore at least Interceptor vests, and over half also had SAPI plates. Personally, my unit's supply OIC royally fucked up our gear inventory, so most of our shit was still in Kuwait in quads, while we were in Iraq- (major shit-storm over this later, people relieved, feelings hurt, etc.). Our gear never did catch up to us, until the retrograde back into Kuwait.
That being said, I personally had absolutely no problem procurring SAPI plates from 1/4 Charlie Company, once I crossed the LOD. Did I mention that I hate my unit's lazy ass supply personnel? From what my brother Marines write me, the SAPI issue is 100% resolved on the USMC side. Vehicle armor upgrades on HMMV's and 7-ton's has also reportedly been going very well. Semper Fi and God bless to my brothers still fighting in the box. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2004 5:10:42 PM EDT
[#22]
In agreement with dissipator, the USMC being much smaller than the Army has had little to no problems getting every Marine an Interceptor vest. SAPI plates were only enough for line companies and those who directly needed them. The situation now with SAPI plates is probably resolved. During OIF 3/7 only had around 28 M-16A4s and 28 ACOG TA-31F to go with them. It doubled right before we left and I was lucky enough to supervise their zeroing for my devildogs. Thus the Marine Corps is doing well in terms of the individual equipment of each infantry Marine.
I have pics from our BZO event outside of Karbala, Iraq, email me for pics. [email protected] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2004 5:23:01 PM EDT
[#23]
The major threat to our personnal over there is not direct rifle fire. Direct rifle fire protection is really the only advantage to the SAPI plates / interceptors. The old school PASGT flack jackets do just fine to protect the victim of an RPG or IED attack. It will take a while to get every unit outfitted with interceptors. It is being attacked aggressivekly, but the Kerry supporters in the media are blowing things out of proportion.
Before this latest Iraq fight, only combat arms units had enough to issue them to each soldier, and support units were authorized half - if they had any at all. It wasn't THAT long ago (a 2002 thread comes to mind) that folks on this very board were referring to it as "Ranger Body Armor" or "Marine Body Armor." If Kerry had his way, the interceptors would have never been developed and nobody would realize they were being so "short-changed." |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2004 5:30:21 PM EDT
[#24]
They bought both body armor and ACOGs, but the body armor takes longer to make, perhaps?
They bought the ACOGs before the body armor was available? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2004 5:57:00 PM EDT
[#25]
The Marine Corps started issuing IBA-OTVs in 1999.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2004 7:59:49 PM EDT
[#26]
i got my IBA in 2001, ive yet to see a unit provided ACOG. im willing to bet most of the ones youre seeing were paid for by the SNM*
*said named Marine |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2004 8:12:19 PM EDT
[#27]
You seriously believe that individual marines have wiped out the TA31F market at $800-1000 a piece? USMC.mil article on the TA31F And from Trijicons website: www.trijicon-inc.com/whats_new.cfm Marines Name Trijicon ACOG Official Rifle Combat Optic The Trijicon ACOG riflescope (Advanced Combat Optical Gunsight) has earned the singular distinction of being named the first-ever Rifle Combat Optic (RCO) of the United States Marine Corps. A multi-year contract was awarded to the Michigan-based optics manufacturer in August, 2004. The RCO will be mounted to the M16A2, M16A4, and the M4A1 carbine to enhance the Marines’ ability to identify and accurately fire upon targets from muzzle to 800 meters. The TA31RCO will be a slightly modified version of the TA31F 4x ACOG. The Corps currently has approximately 6,000 of those models in service. The new model will incorporate Trijicon’s exclusive dual-illuminated red chevron-shaped reticle and bullet drop compensator. In low light or at night, the chevron is brightly illuminated by tritium; in daylight, a fiber optic system collects ambient light and helps ensure daytime brightness and controlled contrast. The system is totally battery-free. A new Target Reference System will allow a rifleman to quickly and accurately reference the location of a target and communicate that location to fellow Marines. The TA31RCO will also feature Trijicon’s highly advanced Bindon Aiming Concept (BAC), an optical breakthrough that permits a both-eyes-open shooting method that greatly increases hit ratios in fast moving Close Quarter Battle (CQB) scenarios. The TA31RCO will be available for civilian sales at a later date. According to Major General J.N. Mattis, Commanding General of the 1st Marine Division during Operation Iraqi Freedom: “The ACOG mounted on the M16 service rifle has proven to be the biggest improvement in lethality for the Marine infantryman since the introduction of the M1 Garand in WWII.” |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2004 11:36:55 PM EDT
[#28]
 A U.S. Marine from the 2nd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment watches the area through his rifle scope during a raid in a residential section of Ramadi, Iraq, Thursday Oct. 28, 2004. Marines raided dozens of buildings, detained six Iraqis and recovered small arms and ammunition, while insurgents attacked the area with mortars and detonated a roadside bomb as the Marines returned to their base. There were no casualties. (AP Photo/Jim MacMillan) |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2004 11:38:00 PM EDT
[#29]
 U.S. Marine Cpl. Jose Vazquez, Jr. of Los Angeles, CA, from the 2nd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment looks back during a battle with insurgents who launched an attack with mortars and rocket-propelled grenades in Ramadi, Iraq, Friday Oct. 29, 2004. Sporadic fighting could be heard across central Ramadi through much of the morning. (AP Photo/Jim MacMillan) |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2004 11:39:14 PM EDT
[#30]
  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2004 4:36:49 AM EDT
[#31]
All troops coming into Iraq have body armor. My unit would not have been allowed to deploy without body armor. We got here in January, and we brought our Interceptors with SAPI plates with us (we got the vests at our mobilization station -- Fort Stewart -- and picked up the SAPI plates in Kuwait). Every Soldier I have seen here in Baghdad has the new Interceptor vest. The Marine sergeant who works for me (he was deployed alone) came with his vest and plates when he reported in August. He does not have an ACOG, BTW. The Air Force staff sergeant who works for me (also deployed alone) came with an Interceptor vest and plates when she came last month. The senior airman the staff sergeant replaced had the older-style flak vest, but we got her an Interceptor right away (she reported in June). But another senior airman who worked for me in the job I had before the one I have now had an Interceptor without the plates upon arrival in March (we fixed the plate issue right away; that troop did come without a weapon, but that is another story). I have not seen a Marine with the old-style flak vest. Regards, Chris Baghdad Edited for a typo |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2004 5:54:27 AM EDT
[#32]
+1 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2004 6:05:08 AM EDT
[#33]
The Marine Corps has been issuing Interceptor vests since before 9-11. I know only one Marine who deployed without one, and it was because he was too lazy to drive down to the CIF to get exchange his old vest.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2004 6:07:56 AM EDT
[#34]
DOD has just ordered 70K more CCO (M-68/Comp ML2) for USGI and USMC. That is in addition to the 50K already in-service throughout DOD.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2004 6:37:55 AM EDT
[#35]
The first thing you have understand about military procurement is that there are allot of sources or accounts out there for buying specific things. As a good friend of mine refers to them they are the pots of money. Those pots exist because in many cases Congress has imposed them on us. So one cannot honestly or make an informed statement if one attempts correlate one item with another. Needed or not, most items has anything to do with the other when it comes to procurement. You only use certain pots of money for certain function or equipment.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2004 7:04:35 AM EDT
[#36]
Very true. However, the service chiefs do submit their plans for procurement. So if the Army service chiefs promotes the Comanche and lobbies Congress for it then that is what he will be forced to spend it on. If he lobbied for IBA instead and made it a priority then Congress would force him to spend the money on that. The problem then would be with the supplier. They can only produce so much and can only increase production in a given period of time while maintaining quality. This body armor has been around for a while now (10+ years in various configurations) and the service chiefs, well most anyway, put off buying this stuff because they wanted their shiney new weapons systems and they didn't think we would be involved in military operations in two seperate countries. That's one hell of a gamble, and they lost it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2004 7:16:16 AM EDT
[#37]
Yes, but that goes back to decisions made almost a decade ago and in some case longer than that. The service chiefs years ago made decisions we have to live with today. Since Congress in effect votes on what we buy many years before we buy it there are only limited cases in which the services have the discretions to transfer money about for item needed today. The current army RFI program being one those times and the RCO fielding in the Marine Corps being another.
The problem with the army and body reflects army training practices of not wearing body armor in normal training. If they had, they would have IDed that they needed more of the new vests years ago, but since they made a habit of wearing helmets only, only a few almost forward thinkers in the army even thought of body armor as a necessity. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2004 7:51:25 AM EDT
[#38]
What's up with"marines" not being capitalized?
...just bustin' your balls! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2004 3:25:32 PM EDT
[#39]
The reality on the ground is better than those who have this issue at the top of their talking points would have us believe. War is hell, AND it is imperfect. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2004 3:31:21 PM EDT
[#40]
Unit funds are used to buy non standard issue item all the time. when i deployed to Desert Storm the Bn used unit funds to buy every Marine a leatherman and gargoyles. Other units have used the funds to buy Wiggy's sleeping bags, Acogs, or off the shelf weapons (some Army units purchased M1A's) |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2004 3:36:21 PM EDT
[#41]
I regularly speak to Marines who have just returned from Iraq, or are deploying to Iraq. you would be amazed at what they buy themselves. SOE is just down the street from the main gate at Camp Pendelton. Their stuff is so expensive it makes Eagle look like Leapers, yet the Marines use their own beer money to buy it. That said, it appears that the majority of Marine ACOG were purchased by USMC at this point. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2004 3:42:51 PM EDT
[#42]
I've had my ACOG since early 2001 and I love the damn thing. It is the best damn combat sight I've ever used. I spoke with the Trijicon district manager a few weeks ago. He told me that Trijicon has doubled their factory space and is working three shifts to fulfill the demands of the grunts in the field. That is why we must wait so long. The sights are going to all of the combat infantry troops in the services. The grunts are finding them very popular...once they learn the Bindon Aiming Concept. Took me a while...without the gentle prodding of a range drill instructor. Certainly easy now to pick up a target and engage it quickly while still maintaining a good awareness picture around you.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2004 3:47:11 PM EDT
[#43]
Hope there's plenty of ACOG to go around by the time I get there
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2004 3:52:55 PM EDT
[#44]
True, but the process has to be reapproved in each FY budget and the money can be allocated then. And the Crusader was fairly new, even though it was too heavy from the beginning. The Kosovo deployment proved the point about heavy weapons systems. I'll give the Army credit for the Stryker, as flawed as it may be, it actually tried to address the needs of a modern mobile force. The Commanche could be argued as being useful until recently. Personally, I think the Army couldn't stand the USMC developing the AAAV and the MV-22 and not fielding something new themselves. However, you would think over a decade body armor would have been addressed...
I think you hit the nail on the head as to why it wasn't. Same reason it didn't occur to the Seabees, when you "deploy" to US bases overseas for construction projects you don't think about the fighting part. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2004 3:57:48 PM EDT
[#45]
I guess those 6000 TA31Fs Trijicon has sold TO the USMC never made it to Iraq and Afghanistan....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2004 4:35:32 PM EDT
[#46]
I'm Navy Reserves and I was issued a Interceptor prior to heading to Kuwait. However since we didn't go into Iraq we didn't get any plates. They do collect all plates when a unit get's to whatever camp they go to in Kuwait, as long as they are heading home. Out of 200 sailors on the ground in Kuwait we had 8 plates for a few of the watch standers. Those stayed on station and were turned over to the next guy. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2004 4:39:12 PM EDT
[#47]
this armor topic is interesting, more interesting than i thought it would be. seems prudent that those 'in country' should get it and leave it there - smart idea. But what of the acogs? Anyone know marines pay-per-unit cost? And when are they ognna hit the surplus market so we can get donuts cheap?!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2004 4:49:03 PM EDT
[#48]
I'm going to need some proof of that. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2004 6:33:43 PM EDT
[#49]
The old PASGT vests provided very little protection when compared to the IBA--relatively speaking. The PASGT is made of of 16 layers of Kevlar 29 (this is early 80's technology). The IBA has 22 layers of Kevlar KM2 and is lighter, more flexible and is much stonger than the Kevlar 29. Fragments that would penetrate the PASGT will be stoppped by the IBA. If we are talking about bullet protection, the PASGT would fall between Level IIA and II while is IBA is the equivalent of Level IIIA.
Also, the reason that we were short of IBA at the beginning of the war is because it was put on a 10 procurement cycle way back when Clinton was pres. and production had to be kicked up.
|
|
|
|
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.
