# military attachments?



## ghostman (Dec 11, 2014)

This is a question for the vets here, I sometimes see pictures and videos of marines and soldiers have different optics and attachment on their m4's or m16's Its always driven me crazy how they choose which to put on their weapons, for example one guy could have an acog and another would have an aimpoint, do they have to qualify to get certain things on their rifles?


----------



## ApexPredator (Aug 17, 2013)

Low skilled fighters usually get what ever the unit issues with certain exceptions for leadership and designated marksmen. Higher skilled soldiers may be able to choose from several items and peer pressure is the "regulator" in that case, very few people get attachments based on skill most are assigned weapon systems based on proficiency with them.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Back in my time the M14's and M16A1's had the iron sights they left the factory with. 
You were expected to be proficient with what you had.


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

The ACOG is a fixed 4 power optic and as a rule better serves soldiers/operators who are 100 yards or further out. The basic AIMPOINT and EoTech Holosight is for close in stuff like room clearing and CQB. Neither have magnification without an upgrade or magnifier. They give you better situational/heads up awareness provided you keep both of your eyes open. Iron sights and a light are just fine in my experience too.


----------



## ApexPredator (Aug 17, 2013)

Rice paddy 
Army is no longer requiring soldiers to zero or qualify with iron sights just the M68 Aimpoint heck many uppers nowadays dont even come with a rear or front sight post. We still use front sights for full auto fire/rapid rapid fire.
Yea yea waiting for the kinder gentler speech now.


----------



## James L (Feb 7, 2015)

ApexPredator said:


> Rice paddy
> Army is no longer requiring soldiers to zero or qualify with iron sights just the M68 Aimpoint heck many uppers nowadays dont even come with a rear or front sight post. We still use front sights for full auto fire/rapid rapid fire.
> Yea yea waiting for the kinder gentler speech now.


Whatever equipment makes it easier for OUR troops to survive contact with the enemy and the enemy to lose...then that's what they should have. :armata_PDT_12:


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

ApexPredator said:


> Rice paddy
> Army is no longer requiring soldiers to zero or qualify with iron sights just the M68 Aimpoint heck many uppers nowadays dont even come with a rear or front sight post. We still use front sights for full auto fire/rapid rapid fire.
> Yea yea waiting for the kinder gentler speech now.


That's a shame. Kind of sad, really.
No basic rifleman skills.
Are soldiers still taught The Spirit Of The Bayonet? Or is that gone, too?


----------



## ApexPredator (Aug 17, 2013)

They where trying the last I heard I dont get around basic trainees much though so who knows. Id say its prolly gone from Basic they where watered down when I went 11B might still have it but now that I think about it they where trying to drop it then (2005) too. They where saying it cost the army to much because we were breaking the plastic bits on the M16 all day like 60-75 out of 150.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

ApexPredator said:


> They where trying the last I heard I dont get around basic trainees much though so who knows. Id say its prolly gone from Basic they where watered down when I went 11B might still have it but now that I think about it they where trying to drop it then (2005) too. They where saying it cost the army to much because we were breaking the plastic bits on the M16 all day like 60-75 out of 150.


I understand. I learned on the 10 pound wood and steel M14. I was wondering if the collapsible stocks and all that could handle the abuse.
But actually, for the folks who don't know (I'm sure you do), bayonet training was done often and repetitively in Basic to build an aggressive mindset. Pugil stick competition; the bayonet assault course; attacking the dummies with stabs, slashes, butt stokes, parries, etc; to unarmed defense against an enemy armed with a bayonetted rifle - all this builds aggressiveness.

"What is the Spirit Of The Bayonet?"
"To KILL, Drill Sergeant!!"
"I can't HEAR YOU. What is the Spirit Of The Bayonet?"
TO KILL, DRILL SERGEANT !!!"
Yeah, that used to really get the blood pumping and adrenaline flowing. I can remember it like it was yesterday.

And actually it could come in handy someday. I'm sure that even at my age of 66, I could quickly kill somebody with a 5 foot length of plain 2X4.


----------



## Jakthesoldier (Feb 1, 2015)

As an armorer I can tell you that it's availability. The military had a budget for everything, and the m68 is cheap. So if your unit can afford optics it goes for the most (quantity over quality) bang for its buck. After that, as it needs to spend the last of its budget at the end of the year, it will splurge on "cool guy gear" that's when we get a few acogs and a mysterious shipment of non conductive diving knives for diffusing sea mines. 
Once we have the cool guy optics, the first people to get them are the ones who will never use them (senior NCOs, staff officers, fobbits with connections) then if there are any left they start going to scouts, snipers, and squad designated marksmen. Then the people with brown noses, pubes in their teeth, and those who do favors for the armorer. That is the breakdown. 

As for which is really better, all most of them care about is "it has 3x magnification, and you don't have one"


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Mission dictates equipment. At one time only night visions was issued to a team or squad now every member has one. The M68 became standard issue because it works. 
Look at the M16A4 and the M4 it was designed to except any and all of the tools. Everyone one of my soldiers had the tools they needed that did not mean every mission every one of them was on a weapon. Using the PAC-4 in the day time would be dumb.
If your Squad is proving over watch while another is clearing you would be more likely to have your ACOG's mounted than a M68 while the clearing team would have the M68. Not everyone has the same weapon 1. carries the M249 SAW one carries the M4 with m203 mounted. 2 carry M4. Each gunners duties are different the tools they use often very.
The SAW gunner would not likely use the ACOG. He needs a wide view of the area his job is suppression fire . One of the 2 m4's is the SGT weapon he directs control of fire and movement m68 is all he needs in day light. The lone rifleman he is using his M68 up close and fast. At night they would often chose to use the PAC4. as an added tool.
Take that same team and put them in a stationary security and the would chose other options. Say what you want about iron sights 0-300 meters the M68 kicks ass every time when you need to acquire targets fast and hit them now. Nothing beats the M68 type reflex sights for that.
Close range magnification is all but worthless.


----------



## Jakthesoldier (Feb 1, 2015)

Negative. it's supply dependant. Just like I stated. Nobody ever changes optics unless they are going from a 68 to a Eotech, or Eotech to acog. No one cares who has what optic when we plan missions. I sat on many an over watch and SKT with my halo. Has nothing to do with what position you are given.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Jakthesoldier said:


> Negative. it's supply dependant. Just like I stated. Nobody ever changes optics unless they are going from a 68 to a Eotech, or Eotech to acog. No one cares who has what optic when we plan missions. I sat on many an over watch and SKT with my halo. Has nothing to do with what position you are given.


 Ok spent 27 years doing it. We started out with none of the fancy toys, then one latter enough for everyone. We had any tool we wanted most of the time.
Supply did not keep our gear it was with each soldier. What was not is use was secured.
We had so many option it was confusing at times. Even the MARS with IR.


----------



## Jakthesoldier (Feb 1, 2015)

So you kept all your weapons with you at all times? Or did you store then in the arms room? Did your platoon SGT or PL order gear for your platoon? Or was it ordered by your company XO according to the budget he was given by the company commander? Did your higher ups have all the gear they wanted long before the soldiers? Was gear issued through supply and the arms room and distributed by your seniors? Or was your unit different from every other military unit in the US Armed Forces? Long before my time, things were different, but in the last 15 years that's how things have been done.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Jakthesoldier said:


> So you kept all your weapons with you at all times? Or did you store then in the arms room? Did your platoon SGT or PL order gear for your platoon? Or was it ordered by your company XO according to the budget he was given by the company commander? Did your higher ups have all the gear they wanted long before the soldiers? Was gear issued through supply and the arms room and distributed by your seniors? Or was your unit different from every other military unit in the US Armed Forces? Long before my time, things were different, but in the last 15 years that's how things have been done.


In the combat zone, yes, our rifles and ammo were with us at all times even inside the wire. However, inside the wire we were not allowed grenades or other explosives.
And yes, this was back in the Stone Age, when Moses was a Corporal.
In modern times, I will trust what Top (aka Smitty) has to say. With all due respect, Jak, Top has more time in the chow line than you do in the Army.


----------



## Jakthesoldier (Feb 1, 2015)

no disrespect to a 1SG, but 2 things, 1 I am currently active duty and an armorer. 2 supply and armorers work directly for the XO/CO. I may only have 9 years in so far, but I am the SME.


----------



## Jakthesoldier (Feb 1, 2015)

And yea, combat zones are different. We all carry our weapons everywhere and at least 1 mag. Everywhere but the toilet. (Porta potty suicides)


----------



## E.H. (Dec 21, 2014)

I was also the unit amourer for my infantry company. I can only speak for my experience. My experience is the same as jakthesoldier. To put it in perspective my arms room had 115 M4, 21 M249 SAW, 9 M240L, 2 M9, 42 ACOG, 5 Eotech, 168 Aimpoint CCO. Needless to say not every hard charging infantry solider can have an ACOG. Generally officers and NCOs or personnel in leadership positions are issued an ACOG. The rest where decided up and given to the platoons to issue at their discretion. Every one else issued rifles had aimpoints. I could never keep the eotechs running and the unit didn't want to pay to repair them. In my opinion the ACOG is overrated. The aimpoint is more then adequate and better suited for actual combat range the average infantry man will find himself in. Something to consider, the army only requires about an 6.3 MOA (20 inch target at 300m) to qualify expert. The marines require 4 MOA (20 inch target at 500m), and while both are achievable with quality training when firing at static targets from a good prone firing position this is not the way combat works. That doesn't mean that soldiers shouldn't be taught the fundamentals, this is still important and adds flexibility to a soldiers ability to engage targets under various conditions but rather after considering the level of required accuracy to be effective in combat the aimpoint with its 4 MOA dot is more the adequate if not superior to the acog under most circumstances.


----------



## Jakthesoldier (Feb 1, 2015)

There you have it, from those who would know.


----------



## E.H. (Dec 21, 2014)

One thing you have to understand is that big army (a term used in reference to the conventional combat units as opposed to specialized units) is made up of a lot of different types of people. Even in infantry units most people are not "gun guys". Ya most can shoot well, but they have a lot of misconceptions about firearms. This is through out the ranks. I remember an NCO telling me to take the springs out if my magazines and stretch them so they work better (note this is the opposite of a good idea don't do this). Most soldiers couldn't tell you the different types of operating systems or how to tell the difference. But they don't need to for the most part. However you do have a problem of personnel thinking of being issued equipment that is perceived as better as a perk of promotion rather then issuing equipment to those who may use it best. An example of this is the M9. There is no great need for sidearms in an infantry company except for machine gunners who need it for personal defense if his position is overrun (machine guns are hard to maneuver that close). However you almost always see the CO, XO, 1SGT, and PL walking around like Billy bad a$$ with his M9 because they don't want to carry their rifles, after all being in charge has its perks right.


----------



## Jakthesoldier (Feb 1, 2015)

Unless, of course your magazines have been sitting loaded for a year, or used for years without maintenance. Even then, not optimal, but better than a magazine that doesn't feed because of a compressed spring.


----------



## E.H. (Dec 21, 2014)

Compression does not wear out quality springs


----------



## Jakthesoldier (Feb 1, 2015)

Military gets its mags from the lowest bidder. There were two recalls on the followers during my year in Iraq and another while I was at ft lewis. Quality is not a word I would use to describe any military equipment that has moving parts or takes batteries.


----------



## E.H. (Dec 21, 2014)

Followers and springs are not the same, if you doubt your springs and are considering stretching them replace them. Quality is subjective, the army buys a lot of junk but it invests in an equal amount of good quality equipment. Follower recalls have been going on since the army switched to M16. Stretching springs has never been part of the maintenance.


----------



## Jakthesoldier (Feb 1, 2015)

Correct. However, if a replacement is not available, what option is there? I agree it's bad practice, but we work with what we have.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Had a few issue with the old green followers, never had a problem with the Orange or black ones. Many of us had our own Magpul gen 2's


----------



## ApexPredator (Aug 17, 2013)

Good springs may last 20 years but time like compression will take its toll add other elements like rust acidic soils etc and youll speed the process. Anyways smitty is doctrinally correct the average infantry unit should have a mix of items to cover their array of missions but it would not make sense for all of them to be equipped with Acogs or M68s. Smitty was right because doctrine>personal preference and youll not get one more item than you are MTOEd for . .


----------



## E.H. (Dec 21, 2014)

My experience is the MTOE is more of a suggestion then something that is followed closely. I believe the hi op tempo amongst other things is to blame for this. My arms room ended up with lots of "extras" and was missing several things we where supposed to have according to the MTOE. I've never met an XO who was willing to go through the paper work to turn in their "extra" equipment, a lot of less critical equipment that is on the MTOE that might be missing is not sought out. An example, 164 Aimpoint CCOs that's a lot more then allowed via MTOE but we kept them all, meanwhile the the open bolt full auto ar sub gun that screws into the back of the Bradley and is used to clear the area directly behind the vehicle before lowering the ramp has fallen out of use so while we where MTOEed that we didn't have them for years. Now that op tempo has slowed we will see if big army forces units to come back in line with the MTOE.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

I just spent the last 20 minutes or so extracting XM855 rounds from 10 Magpul 30 rounders and repackaging the rounds safely under lock and key. I replaced them with some 55 grain XM193's. The magazine springs were firm and in good working condition. 

Side note, price on the boxes of XM193 was $4.99/box of 20. DAMNIT!


----------



## E.H. (Dec 21, 2014)

Honestly I imagine most military AR15 type magazines suffer from damaged feed lips and bottom plates long before the springs wear out


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

E.H. said:


> Honestly I imagine most military AR15 type magazines suffer from damaged feed lips and bottom plates long before the springs wear out


 The Saw 249(belt fed) will also take a mag if needed but after you run a mag through a SAW it is unlikely to work well in an M4.


----------

