Navy SEALs tell top House lawmaker they don't have enough combat rifles

xtry51 said:
One would think that if SEALs are being deployed, the "laws" of where they are being sent would be ignored completely by design. WGAF about foreign laws when you're sending troops into battle?

This is the backwards ass decision making that ruins a country.
Click to expand...

They are not being sent into battle and the mission is on pause while in the territory. There is zero chance of any action needed by them while in the territory. The mission threat has zero chance of entering the territory.
 
xtry51 said:
One would think that if SEALs are being deployed, the "laws" of where they are being sent would be ignored completely by design. WGAF about foreign laws when you're sending troops into battle?

This is the backwards ass decision making that ruins a country.
Click to expand...
And they are not being deployed to that territory, just passing thru.
 
Dan229 said:
Consideration must be given to certain missions that SEALs are assigned to where this rifle exchange is the norm. Without too much detail....The reason being is that they are transiting thru an area that is not U.S. territory. They are not on a battlefield or base, the firearms are forbidden in the territory they are transiting thru and teams transit thru this territory on a frequent schedule to support the mission. Once on station (and out of that territory) they take possession of the outgoing team's firearms who then transit back thru the same territory..unarmed. This scenario could be the safest, simplest and most efficient/quick way to support the mission and not completely disregard the laws of a friendly country. I don't know much but I know the basic details of the mission and when I read the article I immediately suspected what it was and perhaps somebody is trying to make an issue of it.
That is all
Click to expand...

I think it's always been done this way.

Think of of it like this. Say some SEALs are traveling through a place like, say, Bahrain. Bahrain is critically important to our naval operations in the Gulf. Say its government is not enthused about NSW types tooling around with guns, so their STANAG with us (or whatever it's called outside NATO) specifies no weapons.

There's no way the Navy will violate that STANAG; Bahrain really is that important, regardless of what NESers want to believe. I also remember when we were training up for the MFO mission in the Sinai back in the 90s that there were all kinds of funky rules the Egyptians insisted on WRT MOS classifications and heavy weapons/optics.

Individual SMs could violate the STANAG by smuggling something in, but that would likely open them up to prosecution by the host country; who wants to run that risk?

sorry, Rep Hunter; we really do need every friend we've got in that part of the world. So maybe, just maybe, there's nothing to get all that outraged about here.
 
Last edited:
Picton said:
I think it's always been done this way.

Think of of it like this. Say some SEALs are traveling through a place like, say, Bahrain. Bahrain is critically important to our naval operations in the Gulf. Say its government is not enthused about NSW types tooling around with guns, so their STANAG with us (or whatever it's called outside NATO) specifies no weapons.

There's no way the Navy will violate that STANAG; Bahrain really is that important, regardless of what NESers want to believe. I also remember when we were training up for the MFO mission in the Sinai back in the 90s that there were all kinds of funky rules the Egyptians insisted on WRT MOS classifications and heavy weapons/optics.

Individual SMs could violate the STANAG by smuggling something in, but that would likely open them up to prosecution by the host country; who wants to run that risk?

sorry, Rep Hunter; we really do need every friend we've got in that part of the world. So maybe, just maybe, there's nothing to get all that outraged about here.
Click to expand...

Thank You for that explanation. I do believe it is exactly the situation that is being used to create an issue where there is none.
 
Dan229 said:
And they are not being deployed to that territory, just passing thru.
Click to expand...

Again, I don't think this should matter. If we're "passing through" the people can go F themselves. I never understood this whole "playing nice" thing with troops. They're soldiers, yes, they should be carrying firearms, whether they are on a mission or not. The idea we plan our soldier's movements around local civilian gun laws is ridiculous.

- - - Updated - - -

Picton said:
I think it's always been done this way.

Think of of it like this. Say some SEALs are traveling through a place like, say, Bahrain. Bahrain is critically important to our naval operations in the Gulf. Say its government is not enthused about NSW types tooling around with guns, so their STANAG with us (or whatever it's called outside NATO) specifies no weapons.

There's no way the Navy will violate that STANAG; Bahrain really is that important, regardless of what NESers want to believe. I also remember when we were training up for the MFO mission in the Sinai back in the 90s that there were all kinds of funky rules the Egyptians insisted on WRT MOS classifications and heavy weapons/optics.

Individual SMs could violate the STANAG by smuggling something in, but that would likely open them up to prosecution by the host country; who wants to run that risk?

sorry, Rep Hunter; we really do need every friend we've got in that part of the world. So maybe, just maybe, there's nothing to get all that outraged about here.
Click to expand...

I guess my point is the US military or government should never have agreed to those rules at all.
 
xtry51 said:
Again, I don't think this should matter. If we're "passing through" the people can go F themselves. I never understood this whole "playing nice" thing with troops. They're soldiers, yes, they should be carrying firearms, whether they are on a mission or not. The idea we plan our soldier's movements around local civilian gun laws is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

It's gay but the .gov agrees to stupid shit like that to make life easier WRT logistics... Some countries have flyover rules too which are signed on good faith. For example some countries allow anything, including ordnance. Some only allow small arms, etc. Of course we're all speculating here and this might have little or nothing to do with the actual
problem.

I completely agree with your sentiment though. For example I've heard that the islam types in foreign countries don't like our guys taking booze off the aircraft and into base housing or that kind of BS... but we should have just said "No we're here helping you guys... we realize this is your home but show us some courtesy when we spend billions of dollars to do this shit, it's not like we're getting off the plane and running around town and tearing the burquas off your women and knocking them up." If we can't get people like that show us a little leeway... then... MAYBE... just MAYBE... we shouldn't be there.

-Mike
 
xtry51 said:
Again, I don't think this should matter. If we're "passing through" the people can go F themselves. I never understood this whole "playing nice" thing with troops. They're soldiers, yes, they should be carrying firearms, whether they are on a mission or not. The idea we plan our soldier's movements around local civilian gun laws is ridiculous.

- - - Updated - - -



I guess my point is the US military or government should never have agreed to those rules at all.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but if you want to have naval forces in the Gulf, you're gonna need a modern port. A big one. Bahrain has one; we need it. So we agree to their terms. Where else are our Gulf forces supposed to operate from? Diego freaking Garcia's too far away.

Now you might argue that our navy shouldn't be in the Gulf in the first place, and I might agree; at this point, though, we're there to stay whether this forum likes it or not.

Understand: SEALs in Bahrain are not in a combat zone. They're on a normal, everyday naval base, like San Diego or Newport. But it's not our country, so yes, we play nice with these governments. Who are, after all, our allies.
 
Picton said:
Sorry, but if you want to have naval forces in the Gulf, you're gonna need a modern port. A big one. Bahrain has one; we need it. So we agree to their terms. Where else are our Gulf forces supposed to operate from? Diego freaking Garcia's too far away.

Now you might argue that our navy shouldn't be in the Gulf in the first place, and I might agree; at this point, though, we're there to stay whether this forum likes it or not.

Understand: SEALs in Bahrain are not in a combat zone. They're on a normal, everyday naval base, like San Diego or Newport. But it's not our country, so yes, we play nice with these governments. Who are, after all, our allies.
Click to expand...

The same could be said for Lebanon, and most of us are old enough to remember what happened to the barracks there.
 
gearwhore14 said:
Must be spending too much money on those quad tube NVGs.
Click to expand...

think higher, building 4 of these ****ing things a year so the UAW members who build them (and elect politicians) have jobs is more likely the culprit.

virginiaclass.jpg
 
Last edited:
Darksideblues42 said:
The same could be said for Lebanon, and most of us are old enough to remember what happened to the barracks there.
Click to expand...

I remember Beirut too, but you can't have it both ways. Either we're over there or we're not. I'm in favor of "not," but that's not what we're talking about.

Also, there's a difference between 1970s-80s Lebanon and 2016 Bahrain. The difference involves the strength of its government and the lack of brutal civil war.
 
AllaSnackbah said:
think higher, building 4 of these ****ing things a year so the UAW members who build them (and elect politicians) have jobs is more likely the culprit.

virginiaclass.jpg
Click to expand...
Subs aren't like other hulls - they have very defined lifetimes because of the extreme conditions.

While I can't justify the entire cost, the need to replace aging hulls is real. Unless, of course, you want to spend money recovering bodies from the sea floor somewhere.

Sent from my C6530 using Tapatalk
 
Dan229 said:
Consideration must be given to certain missions that SEALs are assigned to where this rifle exchange is the norm. Without too much detail....The reason being is that they are transiting thru an area that is not U.S. territory. They are not on a battlefield or base, the firearms are forbidden in the territory they are transiting thru and teams transit thru this territory on a frequent schedule to support the mission. Once on station (and out of that territory) they take possession of the outgoing team's firearms who then transit back thru the same territory..unarmed. This scenario could be the safest, simplest and most efficient/quick way to support the mission and not completely disregard the laws of a friendly country. I don't know much but I know the basic details of the mission and when I read the article I immediately suspected what it was and perhaps somebody is trying to make an issue of it.
That is all
Click to expand...

Really regard for law?
1. Do these seals not check their zero before they go out?
2. Would be nice to know what "weapon" If it's a M4 or sub gun or standard pistol it's GI right. Now for snipers I really would not want to "share" a gun.
3. Now when the gun is rotated does the soldier get the same weapon. If so he should have his zero's right.

Then again it's US GOV doing what they do and soldiers signed on to do what they say.

Do the special groups get to submit request for gear?
 
pastera said:
Subs aren't like other hulls - they have very defined lifetimes because of the extreme conditions.

While I can't justify the entire cost, the need to replace aging hulls is real. Unless, of course, you want to spend money recovering bodies from the sea floor somewhere.

Sent from my C6530 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

i must say i did not know that. still i think my point salient, far too much money is spent on military technology in the form of planes, ships, helicopters, etc because of the economic effect it has on the people who get politicians. meanwhile theres guys out there carrying rifles that are older than they are.
 
AllaSnackbah said:
i must say i did not know that. still i think my point salient, far too much money is spent on military technology in the form of planes, ships, helicopters, etc because of the economic effect it has on the people who get politicians. meanwhile theres guys out there carrying rifles that are older than they are.
Click to expand...
You are right about the keep work jobs but there is the niche factor - how many companies can build a periscope?
Technology moves fast, keeping up costs money and it's a small world when you consider the number of companies that can actually do the work.

Sent from my C6530 using Tapatalk
 
pastera said:
You are right about the keep work jobs but there is the niche factor - how many companies can build a periscope?
Technology moves fast, keeping up costs money and it's a small world when you consider the number of companies that can actually do the work.

Sent from my C6530 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

absolutely. more so about keeping the votes than keeping the jobs though, but they go hand in hand haha
 
mac1911 said:
Really regard for law?
1. Do these seals not check their zero before they go out?
2. Would be nice to know what "weapon" If it's a M4 or sub gun or standard pistol it's GI right. Now for snipers I really would not want to "share" a gun.
3. Now when the gun is rotated does the soldier get the same weapon. If so he should have his zero's right.

Then again it's US GOV doing what they do and soldiers signed on to do what they say.

Do the special groups get to submit request for gear?
Click to expand...
Once out of the territory they do zero the firearms that they are given. Would be nice to know all the what's but I don't. It certainly includes specialty stuff that normally would not be shared.
 
Just track down all those helicopter shooting .50s and "assault weapons" we sent into mexico
 
Dan229 said:
Once out of the territory they do zero the firearms that they are given. Would be nice to know all the what's but I don't. It certainly includes specialty stuff that normally would not be shared.
Click to expand...

I would imagine its like this soldier share your skivvies the reply would be sir yes sir.
its crazy world. I looked at the gear my great uncle carried into Italy as 10th mountain and said..... holy shit how did you make it a few days.
 
Coyote33 said:
Wait, I thought there were "standard issue" um, standards; for this VERY reason. Shouldn't everything all be the same? Is a desk job at the Pentagon now a given? Wait, is this for duty use, or personal use?
Click to expand...

Special Ops Forces do not use the standard M16/M4 rifles/carbines. The use a variety of upscale rifles including the SCAR which are heavily customized and accessorized.
 
mark056 said:
Special Ops Forces do not use the standard M16/M4 rifles/carbines. The use a variety of upscale rifles including the SCAR which are heavily customized and accessorized.
Click to expand...

Not totally accurate. Most SOF use Colt M4A1 carbines with SOPMOD accessories. They may look fancy, but deep down, they're still just Colts, except with a happy switch instead of the 3 round burst, and a thicker barrel than the Colt M4.

Yes, SCARS exist in inventory, as well as various other specialty small arms. But the average, most common are still Colt M4A1s.
 
Last edited:
PappyM3 said:
Not totally accurate. Most SOF use Colt M4A1 carbines with SOPMOD accessories. They may look fancy, but deep down, they're still just Colts, except with a happy switch instead of the 3 round burst, and a thicker barrel than the Colt M4.

Yes, SCARS exist in inventory, as well as various other specialty small arms. But the average, most common are still Colt M4A1s.
Click to expand...

Exactly, M4A1's and few Hk's, Sig 226 for secondary, I have also seen a BCM upper, don't know how it made it there.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

3 House Democrats file bill to ban 50 caliber rifles
2
Replies
33
Views
780
40 Creedmoor fan
4
Navy "intelligence"
2 3
Replies
77
Views
2K
MisterHappy
MisterHappy
When 17 rounds aren’t enough
Replies
9
Views
596
Dench
Dench
Is this a good enough reason to get a .45 GAP?
2
Replies
56
Views
694
T-Unit
T
You think you have enough ammo in your basement?
2 3 4
Replies
94
Views
4K
Fixxah
Fixxah
Back
Top Bottom