SEAL shooters: What did they use?

What hardware do you believe may have been used to rescue Capt. Phillips?

  • M40A3

    Votes: 23 14.3%
  • M16-based Special Purpose Rifle (SPR)

    Votes: 27 16.8%
  • Accurized M14

    Votes: 61 37.9%
  • Barret .50 cal. or other make/model

    Votes: 28 17.4%
  • Other

    Votes: 22 13.7%

  • Total voters
    161
  • Poll closed .
I'm glad I'm not the only confused one. [wink]

B

EDIT: The idea sounds interesting though. I'd like to learn more if the poster can get some more info.

The rifle was stabilized, not the optics! I'm still waiting to hear back from my friend that worked on this project.
 
The rifle was stabilized, not the optics! I'm still waiting to hear back from my friend that worked on this project.

I think you, terraformer and I all get that, but there were a few confused people. It sounds like quite an engineering feat, and that's why I'm interested in it. Looking forward to learning more.

B
 
I think you, terraformer and I all get that, but there were a few confused people. It sounds like quite an engineering feat, and that's why I'm interested in it. Looking forward to learning more.

B

Very correct. Stabilizing optics is easy, stabilizing a whole rifle is much more difficult and expensive. I can imagine the army saying, why outfit our top shooters with this when they don't need it and why outfit our worst shooters with this when we would never spend that kind of money on putting kick ass arms in the hands of people who are more suited for non combat roles. There is little upside in a rifle like colt fan described.
 
The interesting engineering problem would be separating the inputs the shooter made to the rifle (the act of aiming), from that of the inputs caused by the rocking of the boat or the bouncing hummer. Sounds like a Rube Golderg contraption but I'm sure DARPA would be willing to throw money at it.

Me thinks it's just better to teach people how to shoot and break a clean shot. A well exercised trigger finger is probably more reliable and cheaper.

B
 
Not to drag this up again, but from someone I know who knows for sure, it was SR-25s. He wasn't there, but his background is such that he would be in a position to know. I don't know any more, but since he posted this in a public venue, I'm not betraying a confidence.

Take if for what you think it might be worth.
 
Why bother with the suppression? And for what it is worth, this is how I thought they did it before the story came out with the snipers. But I am not as paranoid as you so I am inclined to believe, with some reservation, the sniper story. Although I do call BS that they weren't looking for an excuse to shoot. [wink]

Why bother with supression when taking out hostiles in a hostage situation ?

I'm guessing that is a rhetorical question.

Personally,I think the 3 snipers were cover for the SEALS in the water.
 
Why bother with supression when taking out hostiles in a hostage situation ?

I'm guessing that is a rhetorical question.

Personally,I think the 3 snipers were cover for the SEALS in the water.

No, it wasn't. They were in the middle of the ocean and the only three bad guys not in custody within 10 miles were sitting next to each other. A suppressed pistol is not quiet enough (you can't suppress the action and a MK 23 action is loud) to be undetectable within 24 ft under those conditions, forget about the 24 inches they were apart from each other. What does suppression get you in this situation?

I assume you didn't think I meant that statement in general and was talking about the OP's scenario. If you thought I meant it in general than you thought wrong.
 
Rifle mounts with gyro control

It is quite likely that they used a Kenyon gyroscopic stabilizer to assist in their aim.

We have been working with a few folks who are working on mounts for military use as well as sport use.

One of the folks we are working with produces high end (hand-made) pellet gun mounts.

Oh, and by the way, the Kenyon gyros are hand built with American products right in Connecticut!
 
Last edited:
Anyone else watch this last night on Discovery?

Somali Pirate Takedown The Real Story


Find out the very real story behind the heroic Navy SEAL kill shots that finally freed Captain Richard Phillips after a dramatic 4-day Somali pirate siege.


They had actual US Navy video of the lifeboat shooting, measures to thwart the pirates from reaching Somalia, etc.

Very interesting.
 
Lots of good stuff on the show, well done, lots of good info on how they "tricked" the F*&$#@s as well.

Hope they didn't get to much gooey pink grey matter on the captain.
 
Am I the only one who thinks this whole thing should have been omitted from the news cycle?

Next time they take over a ship, they will now know a little more about how the guys on the ships can screw with thier plans, ie: taking down lights and generators, controlling the ship from a secondary position, etc.

They obviously didn't know this stuff before, but now they have access to a HD version from Discovery to take notes from.

I'm thinking if news gets out about a US ship hijacked have it end with a 'negotiated settlement' (3 chunks of lead at the spot price for return of the Captain).
 
Last edited:
I am pleading ignorance, but why the hell doesn't the crew's on these ships arm themselves? A couple of M249s, some AR's, and some frag grenades would pretty much foil any attempt at hijacking, they could even wait til the pirates are directly under the ship trying to board and just drop grenades and or open fire with AR's etc.. I mean, once they are next to the ship directly under the rail, they are SO VULNERABLE (AND) their RPG's would be useless.
 
I am pleading ignorance, but why the hell doesn't the crew's on these ships arm themselves? A couple of M249s, some AR's, and some frag grenades would pretty much foil any attempt at hijacking, they could even wait til the pirates are directly under the ship trying to board and just drop grenades and or open fire with AR's etc.. I mean, once they are next to the ship directly under the rail, they are SO VULNERABLE (AND) their RPG's would be useless.


Most ports won't allow armed ships, unless it's a military ship flying a friendly flag.
 
even at 100 meters or so
The US could change that instantly if our govt simply said that no ship may enter the US if any stop on its port of call list denies American vessels the ability to be armed.

Even England allows US flights to arrive with air marshals on board.
 
Back
Top Bottom