I'd like to speak up for my former service here. Not defending this, but putting it into context.
Of all the services, the Navy is the most backwards when it comes to small arms. As a service, blue water sailors are still stuck in the 1960s when it comes to training, equipment, and mindset. As a class, the admirals that drive training and equipment at the shipboard operational level are the least informed, least trained people out of all the services. Ships are only allowed to have what equipment they are authorized to have, and this equipment is not decided on by firearm enthusiasts. For example, when I retired in 2014, the armed security sentries were wandering around with M-16A3s, which are standard M-16A2 rifles with a full auto (safe/semi/auto) fire control group installed instead of the A2 fire control group (which is safe/semi/burst), and flat top upper receivers. These poor bastards are required to use the bolt on carry handle iron sights, and are not authorized to use the excellent M68CCO Aimpoint red dot sight that the Army has been issuing by the hundreds of thousands for over a decade.
In the case of this photo, the armorer who put that rifle together is at fault. The person shooting it is the ship's CO, who almost certainly doesn't own his own firearms, and is possibly qualified to shoot it, but is not trained in a proper stance.
The hand on the shoulder is in case the skipper lets the rifle get away from him when he shoots it full auto, which, if you look closely, the selector switch is on. Commercial ranges that rent machine guns do the same thing, they always have a range safety behind the shooter who rents a machine gun, because n00bs who have never fired one before are always surprised how hard they recoil.
As a guy who has hundreds of hours of formal instruction on carbines, and has spent thousands of dollars on training and equipment, let me tell you what else is wrong with that picture that the tweet doesn't describe:
stock is all the way out, which makes it far too long for most people to shoot properly
the railed forend is not on all the way, if you look close it is crooked. The back part of the top half is not fully seated into the D ring. The design of that rail is intended for use with stock issue rifles with the stock handguard mounts on the barrel, and comes in 2 pieces. The top half goes on first, and then the bottom half.
the vertical foregrip is way too far back, and is not intended to be used with a beer can grip like that. Holding a VFG like that gives less vertical and lateral control of the barrel. VFGs are used primarily as a hand stop, so you have a consistent place to put your off hand. Point the thumb of your off hand towards the target and use a C clamp type hold on the forend, this gives you much more control of the rifle for movement between targets, and lets you mitigate recoil.
Stance is bladed, like at a Camp Perry high power shooting match. That is not a fighting stance, it presents the left arm hole of worn body armor to the enemy, and exposes your left lung and heart to enemy fire, negating wearing of armor in the first place. Shoulders should be square to the target, presenting your front armor plate to the target straight on so as to protect the most of your vital organs. That means collapsing the buttstock to one or two clicks out
The mass media specialists that took this photo are even less well trained than the man shooting the rifle. They don't know much of anything about small arms, unless they are gun nuts like I was, and then, if they were, they would have caught this photo and never published it.
In short, this photo doesnt surprise me. I know the general level of training in the fleet, both on the user and armorer level, and to say it is lacking is understating it.
As it should be. Even short dudes can shoot like that - training tells you to keep the stock fully extended and use an L stance when shooting standing, UNTIL you put on armor. When wearing armor you then shorten the stock and use a wider stance. But initial basic rifle training does involve full open stock, and everyone not a midget can actually shoot fine with that. That is what the army trains.
Your training may differ out of convenience for civilians, but the collapsible stock is not for user arm comfort, it is for compensating when wearing armor vests, which prevent normal shouldering. Everyone could shoot fine using a full length stock before the collapsible was introduced - standard service rifles for the hundred+ years before the m4 were issued worked fine.
I run my Magpul MOE one click out from fully collapsed even when I dont have armor on, and I'm 6'5" with long arms. I do that for manipulation reasons, and for movement, especially shooting while moving. Shorter lever to rotate around the shoulder point of contact means the muzzle moves less.
I'm used to it. After walking around interior passageways of aircraft carriers for 20 years. I learned early on to keep my arms retracted as much as possible, otherwise they tend to get caught on metal bits bolted to metal bulkheads.
And then it doesn't line up at all with how you have to use it with armor, when you can't shoulder it properly. You also get an inconsistent sight picture between the two. It matters less with modern optics than it does with irons, but fuckabout tacticool room clearing drills and practical marksmanship are different things.
Shorter lever to rotate around the shoulder point of contact means the muzzle moves less
That entire sentence is word vomit with no effective meaning. You aren't doing long range shooting while standing, and indoors that is a completely irrelevant metric.
Lemme guess, it's some bullshit sbr with no effective use beyond 100 yards, too. The ATF going mad over them is one of their greatest tricks - convinced tens of thousands of retards to intentionally buy shit rifles.
Nope, 14'5" with a pinned Battlecomp 2.0. I'm not a believer in shorty ARs, because I want my fragmentation range to be as long as possible. I use a clone of Black Hills Mk 262 Mod 1 for my "social" ammo, so out of a 14.5" that keeps me reasonable close to 200m fragmentation range. I just built a modernized 20 inch musket, too, complete with A2 fixed sights. Just because. ;)
20" barrel like god intended. Now get it in a real caliber, because 5.56 is good for platoons with autos in cities but most SHTF scenarios will have you alone or in small groups, and having a .308 is magnitudes more versatile.
Realistically even the m4 length barrel is wasteful outside of cqb - it drastically reduces effective range. The difference between 14.5 and 20 is the difference between being able to effectively hit at 300 vs 500 yards. Afghanistan really made clear how shit that is, because average engagement ranges were about 800, so only the m240 gunners and the radio operators had much use without spending several minutes bounding towards shit.
Yeah, I don't think when my brother was in the Air Force was he ever actually issued a firearm at any point including multiple "combat zone" deployments. The nature of his job and the chance of ever actually needing to fire at the enemy, it would just be something that's a pain in the ass to carry around. I imagine the Navy is quite the same, I mean really how often does a Captain need to be firing at the enemy?
I do wonder if that optic is really backwards, I suppose it doesn't matter if the caps are on. Oh and I always shoot with sunglasses if I'm outside. Don't really give a shit what someone says, I can see and I wear glasses anyway.
It still looks really awkward to my less trained eye but I have still shot a decent handful of guns. Probably for the reasons you state. He just looks uncomfortable. I'd guess because he's not a gun guy, hasn't shot much or at all, and they wanted him for a photo op. What's the point of showing a Captain shooting a rifle anyway? Shouldn't I really be interested at his competence at his actual job? I mean "hey this guy hasn't ever crashed into a bridge" would be more relevant than whether or not he can fire a rifle.
Commercial ranges that rent machine guns do the same thing, they always have a range safety behind the shooter who rents a machine gun
This has not been my experience, but I also rent from that range off my VA ID.
The person shooting it is the ship's CO, who almost certainly doesn't own his own firearms, and is possibly qualified to shoot it, but is not trained
I'm just going to stop that sentence right there and add that most people don't realize that higher ranking commissioned officers generally don't know how to operate small arms anymore.
At the really high levels they stop being military and become politicians.
I see this as nothing but an absolute win. The modern US military is most likely to be turned on us, the American people. Having my suspicions about them being retarded be vindicated is quite the relief.
What's funny is I was watching the lotus eaters and they were discussing this about South Africa as well. They've got the whole situation going on with the white South Africans being targeted by the government but there's a problem. The government is so retarded that they don't even have enough ammunition to train with. Meanwhile because the other side is private security forces and they've got all the resources they need.
Which does make me think maybe we're better off waiting through the collapse because it's going to be hilarious seeing these pricks try anything with the total lack of resources thanks to the politicians utterly robbing the treasury of all funds. What I want to know will the normies still try to defend the governments? Or will they step aside and let people have at it? That's the big question for me going into 2025.
My other primary concern being the nerd I am is how infrastructure and servers are going to keep operating in such a clusterfuck scenario. Given what the elites are like, I wouldn't put it past them to commit a massive sabotage out of spite.
Meanwhile because the other side is private security forces and they've got all the resources they need.
The other side is the children of Executive Outcomes. (For everyone who doesn't know the name, every South African mercenary group in movies is an expy of Executive Outcomes.) Some of the guys who worked for EO now own their own security firms, and they remember what SA did to their bosses, and there's definitely a grudge there.
The butt of the weapon sitting higher on the shoulder is fine for the 5.56. The AR15 has almost zero kick so it can be comfortably shot in that position for a long while, and it provides better ergonomics so you don't have to lower your head to the sights. You'd want better shoulder positioning for higher caliber rifles, though, as some kick so hard even a well positioned rifle hurts like hell.
In any case, I'd like to draw attention to the dude's nose.
This can't be true. The media and politicians tell me that an AR-15 will literally explode a deer, so they are usless for hunting.
/I actually agree that they aren't good for hunting, but just because I wouldn't shoot anything larger than a coyote with one. An AR-10 would be much better.
I remember a "news" article coming out a few years ago after a mass shooting. I believe it was from the NYT. The writer claimed he shot an AR15, and described the experience like he went through the worst hells of WW1 and WW2 combined, got PTSD and disoriented from the explosions, and injured his shoulder. He was thoroughly mocked all across the internet, and several Youtubers demonstrated how low the AR15 kicked. One guy even shot it off of his nose.
That's gotta be the perfect stereotypical Jew nose. I never peddle the muh juice narrative. I just thought it funny once you pointed that out, the first thing I thought of was a goblin, which leads right there.
I'd like to speak up for my former service here. Not defending this, but putting it into context.
Of all the services, the Navy is the most backwards when it comes to small arms. As a service, blue water sailors are still stuck in the 1960s when it comes to training, equipment, and mindset. As a class, the admirals that drive training and equipment at the shipboard operational level are the least informed, least trained people out of all the services. Ships are only allowed to have what equipment they are authorized to have, and this equipment is not decided on by firearm enthusiasts. For example, when I retired in 2014, the armed security sentries were wandering around with M-16A3s, which are standard M-16A2 rifles with a full auto (safe/semi/auto) fire control group installed instead of the A2 fire control group (which is safe/semi/burst), and flat top upper receivers. These poor bastards are required to use the bolt on carry handle iron sights, and are not authorized to use the excellent M68CCO Aimpoint red dot sight that the Army has been issuing by the hundreds of thousands for over a decade.
In the case of this photo, the armorer who put that rifle together is at fault. The person shooting it is the ship's CO, who almost certainly doesn't own his own firearms, and is possibly qualified to shoot it, but is not trained in a proper stance.
The hand on the shoulder is in case the skipper lets the rifle get away from him when he shoots it full auto, which, if you look closely, the selector switch is on. Commercial ranges that rent machine guns do the same thing, they always have a range safety behind the shooter who rents a machine gun, because n00bs who have never fired one before are always surprised how hard they recoil.
As a guy who has hundreds of hours of formal instruction on carbines, and has spent thousands of dollars on training and equipment, let me tell you what else is wrong with that picture that the tweet doesn't describe:
stock is all the way out, which makes it far too long for most people to shoot properly
the railed forend is not on all the way, if you look close it is crooked. The back part of the top half is not fully seated into the D ring. The design of that rail is intended for use with stock issue rifles with the stock handguard mounts on the barrel, and comes in 2 pieces. The top half goes on first, and then the bottom half.
the vertical foregrip is way too far back, and is not intended to be used with a beer can grip like that. Holding a VFG like that gives less vertical and lateral control of the barrel. VFGs are used primarily as a hand stop, so you have a consistent place to put your off hand. Point the thumb of your off hand towards the target and use a C clamp type hold on the forend, this gives you much more control of the rifle for movement between targets, and lets you mitigate recoil.
Stance is bladed, like at a Camp Perry high power shooting match. That is not a fighting stance, it presents the left arm hole of worn body armor to the enemy, and exposes your left lung and heart to enemy fire, negating wearing of armor in the first place. Shoulders should be square to the target, presenting your front armor plate to the target straight on so as to protect the most of your vital organs. That means collapsing the buttstock to one or two clicks out
The mass media specialists that took this photo are even less well trained than the man shooting the rifle. They don't know much of anything about small arms, unless they are gun nuts like I was, and then, if they were, they would have caught this photo and never published it.
In short, this photo doesnt surprise me. I know the general level of training in the fleet, both on the user and armorer level, and to say it is lacking is understating it.
Waaaaaaaay too far back.
It's amazing how this picture just get's more and more wrong, the more you look at it. I feel a little queasy, and want off Mr. Bones' Wild Ride.
As it should be. Even short dudes can shoot like that - training tells you to keep the stock fully extended and use an L stance when shooting standing, UNTIL you put on armor. When wearing armor you then shorten the stock and use a wider stance. But initial basic rifle training does involve full open stock, and everyone not a midget can actually shoot fine with that. That is what the army trains.
Your training may differ out of convenience for civilians, but the collapsible stock is not for user arm comfort, it is for compensating when wearing armor vests, which prevent normal shouldering. Everyone could shoot fine using a full length stock before the collapsible was introduced - standard service rifles for the hundred+ years before the m4 were issued worked fine.
I run my Magpul MOE one click out from fully collapsed even when I dont have armor on, and I'm 6'5" with long arms. I do that for manipulation reasons, and for movement, especially shooting while moving. Shorter lever to rotate around the shoulder point of contact means the muzzle moves less.
How do you move about with your arms all scrunched up? I find that exceptionally uncomfortable, and I'm, about your size.
I'm used to it. After walking around interior passageways of aircraft carriers for 20 years. I learned early on to keep my arms retracted as much as possible, otherwise they tend to get caught on metal bits bolted to metal bulkheads.
And then it doesn't line up at all with how you have to use it with armor, when you can't shoulder it properly. You also get an inconsistent sight picture between the two. It matters less with modern optics than it does with irons, but fuckabout tacticool room clearing drills and practical marksmanship are different things.
That entire sentence is word vomit with no effective meaning. You aren't doing long range shooting while standing, and indoors that is a completely irrelevant metric.
Lemme guess, it's some bullshit sbr with no effective use beyond 100 yards, too. The ATF going mad over them is one of their greatest tricks - convinced tens of thousands of retards to intentionally buy shit rifles.
Nope, 14'5" with a pinned Battlecomp 2.0. I'm not a believer in shorty ARs, because I want my fragmentation range to be as long as possible. I use a clone of Black Hills Mk 262 Mod 1 for my "social" ammo, so out of a 14.5" that keeps me reasonable close to 200m fragmentation range. I just built a modernized 20 inch musket, too, complete with A2 fixed sights. Just because. ;)
20" barrel like god intended. Now get it in a real caliber, because 5.56 is good for platoons with autos in cities but most SHTF scenarios will have you alone or in small groups, and having a .308 is magnitudes more versatile.
Realistically even the m4 length barrel is wasteful outside of cqb - it drastically reduces effective range. The difference between 14.5 and 20 is the difference between being able to effectively hit at 300 vs 500 yards. Afghanistan really made clear how shit that is, because average engagement ranges were about 800, so only the m240 gunners and the radio operators had much use without spending several minutes bounding towards shit.
True, hence the likely adoption of the 6.8×51mm SIG Fury
Yeah, I don't think when my brother was in the Air Force was he ever actually issued a firearm at any point including multiple "combat zone" deployments. The nature of his job and the chance of ever actually needing to fire at the enemy, it would just be something that's a pain in the ass to carry around. I imagine the Navy is quite the same, I mean really how often does a Captain need to be firing at the enemy?
I do wonder if that optic is really backwards, I suppose it doesn't matter if the caps are on. Oh and I always shoot with sunglasses if I'm outside. Don't really give a shit what someone says, I can see and I wear glasses anyway.
It still looks really awkward to my less trained eye but I have still shot a decent handful of guns. Probably for the reasons you state. He just looks uncomfortable. I'd guess because he's not a gun guy, hasn't shot much or at all, and they wanted him for a photo op. What's the point of showing a Captain shooting a rifle anyway? Shouldn't I really be interested at his competence at his actual job? I mean "hey this guy hasn't ever crashed into a bridge" would be more relevant than whether or not he can fire a rifle.
The digital camo was hilarious. The only way it would work is if you fell off the boat...
This has not been my experience, but I also rent from that range off my VA ID.
I'm just going to stop that sentence right there and add that most people don't realize that higher ranking commissioned officers generally don't know how to operate small arms anymore.
At the really high levels they stop being military and become politicians.
Lmao the fucking scope is backwards
How do they manage to fuck up this bad??
I see this as nothing but an absolute win. The modern US military is most likely to be turned on us, the American people. Having my suspicions about them being retarded be vindicated is quite the relief.
What's funny is I was watching the lotus eaters and they were discussing this about South Africa as well. They've got the whole situation going on with the white South Africans being targeted by the government but there's a problem. The government is so retarded that they don't even have enough ammunition to train with. Meanwhile because the other side is private security forces and they've got all the resources they need.
Which does make me think maybe we're better off waiting through the collapse because it's going to be hilarious seeing these pricks try anything with the total lack of resources thanks to the politicians utterly robbing the treasury of all funds. What I want to know will the normies still try to defend the governments? Or will they step aside and let people have at it? That's the big question for me going into 2025.
My other primary concern being the nerd I am is how infrastructure and servers are going to keep operating in such a clusterfuck scenario. Given what the elites are like, I wouldn't put it past them to commit a massive sabotage out of spite.
The other side is the children of Executive Outcomes. (For everyone who doesn't know the name, every South African mercenary group in movies is an expy of Executive Outcomes.) Some of the guys who worked for EO now own their own security firms, and they remember what SA did to their bosses, and there's definitely a grudge there.
The butt of the weapon sitting higher on the shoulder is fine for the 5.56. The AR15 has almost zero kick so it can be comfortably shot in that position for a long while, and it provides better ergonomics so you don't have to lower your head to the sights. You'd want better shoulder positioning for higher caliber rifles, though, as some kick so hard even a well positioned rifle hurts like hell.
In any case, I'd like to draw attention to the dude's nose.
This can't be true. The media and politicians tell me that an AR-15 will literally explode a deer, so they are usless for hunting.
/I actually agree that they aren't good for hunting, but just because I wouldn't shoot anything larger than a coyote with one. An AR-10 would be much better.
I remember a "news" article coming out a few years ago after a mass shooting. I believe it was from the NYT. The writer claimed he shot an AR15, and described the experience like he went through the worst hells of WW1 and WW2 combined, got PTSD and disoriented from the explosions, and injured his shoulder. He was thoroughly mocked all across the internet, and several Youtubers demonstrated how low the AR15 kicked. One guy even shot it off of his nose.
That's gotta be the perfect stereotypical Jew nose. I never peddle the muh juice narrative. I just thought it funny once you pointed that out, the first thing I thought of was a goblin, which leads right there.
I find the random black hand on the dude's shoulder just as hilarious as the other retarded shit in this image.
I just find the term "practice gun shoots" hilarious.
Has it been community noted yet?