SEALs & the Maersk Alabama: AR15, M-14, or bolt action .308?


PDA






Dr_2_B
April 12, 2009, 07:19 PM
So the good guys took out 3 Somali pirate skinnies. What would the snipers have used in this situation? AR15, M-14, or bolt action .308, or something else?

(By the way, anyone could guess... hoping to hear from someone who has some first-hand knowledge of this kinda thing)

If you enjoyed reading about "SEALs & the Maersk Alabama: AR15, M-14, or bolt action .308?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Retro
April 12, 2009, 07:25 PM
Navy prefers M14, although I am sure the snipers probably used a bolt-action .308.

BlackHand1917
April 12, 2009, 07:28 PM
I heard in the news it was a less than 100 yard shot. A lot of things would have worked.

Dr_2_B
April 12, 2009, 07:48 PM
Yeah, if in fact the boat was being towed 25 meters behind the Bainbridge, it would've been a 30 yard shot at worst. Not too tough for these guys.

Eightball
April 12, 2009, 10:40 PM
I thought the boat was being towed AFTER the shot--it wouldn't make sense for the pirates to have threatened the Americans, and then asked them for a lift? :?:

Since it was guys in the navy, on a boat taking the shot, I would venture to say probably some flavor of M-14. It would make sense, at the very least--you're moving, on a moving shooting platform, at another moving object on a different moving vehicle, on a fluctuating surface; it would seem to make sense to have a semi-auto.

Anyhow. I'm still waiting to hear, as well.

Though, I've heard several stories, some of which say he jumped out a second time; if that was the case, one could hope that the navy used that peashooter on the bow of the destroyer on those pirates--just like the old days :evil:

HorseSoldier
April 12, 2009, 11:25 PM
Since it was guys in the navy, on a boat taking the shot, I would venture to say probably some flavor of M-14.

Not a really safe bet, I'd say. Crane builds the Mark 11 (SR-25) for the SEALs, plus the SPR (Mk 12) 5.56mm sniper rifle, .338 bolt guns and other exotica. Something M14 based may have been involved, but it's hardly guaranteed these days -- maybe a decade ago, but times are a-changing and such :)

H2O MAN
April 12, 2009, 11:40 PM
Chances are real good at least one enhanced M14 was in the mix, but I've
not yet seen any confirmation on what weapons were used to fire the shots.

Regardless of what weapons were used... those were some nice shots!

husker
April 12, 2009, 11:49 PM
i dont care what platform they used. they did what needed to be done. and they got it done 100% PS i never thought i would thank Obama for anything. so hear goes= thanks MR president for giving our guys the green light. THAT WAS HARD!!

Dr_2_B
April 12, 2009, 11:57 PM
it wouldn't make sense for the pirates to have threatened the Americans, and then asked them for a lift? :?:

Eightball, as odd as it sounds, that is precisely what happened:
As soon as the shots were fired, Navy Seals "scurried down" a tow line attached to the lifeboat, and were the first to get to Phillips.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/12/navy-seals-kill-pirates-rescue-american-hostage/

Never said they were the sharpest pirates in the fleet. This is one for the Darwin awards.

MTMilitiaman
April 13, 2009, 01:28 AM
Actually, the SEALs tried the Mk 11 in the 90s and were suitably unimpressed with it that they still had the Mk 14 developed. The two rifles aren't completely oriented to the same use, but of the two the Mk 14 is the more versatile, as well as being more robust and reliable so between the Mk 11 and the Mk 14, my uneducated guess would be that the Mk 14 had more of a chance of being involved.

Regardless, from the sounds of things, I would expect more play at these ranges from SOPMOD M4s and MP5s.

Rmac58
April 13, 2009, 02:18 PM
I also am interested in the rifles used, and agree with H20 MAN, tremendous shots!

Medusa
April 13, 2009, 02:49 PM
One story tells about the marine scout-sniper platoon, also dispatched to the area for counter-piracy role, these guys use Mk.11 and SASR. But as for the SEALs, unless they tell us we have no idea about the weaponry. But I'm sure the sea/airborne action does prefer semi-autos.

Realbigo
April 13, 2009, 07:41 PM
The Talking head covering the story for ABC just assured Charlie Gibson that the SeALS "were most likely using Gyroscopicly stabilized rifles". Are there any small arms w/ Gyroscopes to anybodys knowledge?

Rembrandt
April 13, 2009, 07:52 PM
....The Talking head covering the story for ABC just assured Charlie Gibson that the SeALS "were most likely using Gyroscopicly stabilized rifles"

That blows my image of Snipers using elevation and windage calculations.....you're telling me that's taken care of with a gyroscopicly fitted rifle?

CoRoMo
April 13, 2009, 07:52 PM
T'was a 30 yard shot FWIH, but I thought they'd be using the MK14 Mod 0.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/MK14.png

Realbigo
April 13, 2009, 07:56 PM
I don't think there are any Gyroscope rifles. She probably Googled Navy Rifle, and found data on Naval Cannon

rbernie
April 13, 2009, 08:04 PM
Yeah, if in fact the boat was being towed 25 meters behind the Bainbridge, it would've been a 30 yard shot at worst. Not too tough for these guys.'Cept it was in the dark, with both the shooting platform and target bobbing up and down in the chop and with the lifeboat being towed in the wake of the destroyer. Two of the targets were visible from the shoulder up, and the third target was visible thru a windscreen of the lifeboat.

According to the Navy - three shots, three kills.

farmallmta
April 13, 2009, 08:36 PM
Could somebody please explain to me why:

1) ship crews are not fully armed at all times and especially off the coast of Somalia? Wouldn't armed crews be able to repel pirates without an entire national NAVY having to get involved? :scrutiny:

2) What took the Navy so long to git 'er done? Why didn't they just show up and pop the pirates immediately. What's all this "no violence unless the captain's life is in imminent danger" crap? :cuss:

3) ***? That's it? A $500BB defense budget and it's deployed to endlessly sweet talk a bunch of Third World thieves in a skiff smaller than I use for carp fishing on my farm pond? :barf:

I know, I know. We signed the @##%# Law of the Sea Treaty, like a bunch of idiots, and now we only do what the New World Order says we can do. Excuse me, Mr. UN Secretary... but can I pretty please have my cajones back for a few minutes to take care of these pirates? Extra pretty please, Mr. UN Human Rights Secretary? Extra pretty please with a cherry on top, Mr. French Prime Minister?

Jeez. What a crock of Shi'ite. :banghead:

Dr_2_B
April 13, 2009, 08:59 PM
'Cept it was in the dark, with both the shooting platform and target bobbing up and down in the chop and with the lifeboat being towed in the wake of the destroyer.

O sure! Make em out to be heroes whydontcha.

351 WINCHESTER
April 13, 2009, 09:10 PM
They did what they were trained to do. Thank God they were able to take care of the situation without any harm to the Captain.

Slinky
April 13, 2009, 10:33 PM
I did a small amount of Counter-Piracy durring my six years so i'll try to answer your questions.

1) A ship's crew must abide by the laws of any country whos water's they enter. Most of the ships crossing the Horn of Africa are coming from or on thier way to Europe. (via the Suez)

In short It would be illegal for them to be armed.

2) Politics, pure and simple.

3) We spent all that money elsewhere. (Missile Defense, and Presidential Helicopters are expensive)

It may be stupid and bass-ackwords, but thats life.

Gunfighter123
April 14, 2009, 12:35 AM
I would think that because they are Pirates , some kind of hollow points would be used.

jeff-10
April 14, 2009, 12:39 AM
I would think that because they are Pirates , some kind of hollow points would be used.

Somehow I doubt the pirates would have been able to tell the difference.

rfwobbly
April 14, 2009, 12:46 AM
I would think that because they are Pirates , some kind of hollow points would be used.

I'm sure some dufuss White House lawyer is checking right now to see if "the pirates" signed onto any of the pertinent "rules of war" charters.

:D

Beagle-zebub
April 14, 2009, 12:47 AM
Bet they used that fancy new DRT ammo! :D

hotlead
April 14, 2009, 12:48 AM
I think it has to do with liability issues AND the captains choice if he wants to arm people. I rode/protected ships (MSC and USNS) while I was in the USN. The crew had small arms i.e. 12gauge and 9mm. We brought along the bigger guns and mounted them fwd, aft, two Stbd and two port. .50 cals, m16s'(m4 and a2) 40mm grenade launchers and m240s'. The horn of Africa was interesting as was the straits of hormuz. Never a dull moment. Glad we got the bad guys this time. Way to go U.S.N!

RonC133
April 14, 2009, 10:22 AM
I would like to know what kind of weapons were used. I, too, heard gyro stabilized and I said I never heard of such a thing. Maybe jest good ole marksmanship with a touch of Kaintuck windage and a lotta luck (in the sense that luck generally goes to the prepared.)


Concerning armed vessels or armed crew on vessels. It is allowed but involves a lot of bureaucracy at each port of call, read 'delays.' The shippers are in the business to make money and delays hamper that, so, we go unarmed so we can more easily and quickly enter and leave foreign ports.

axeman_g
April 14, 2009, 10:33 AM
In reading Lone Survivor by Marcus Luttrell, he mentions that Seal snipers, as he was, were utilizing the MK12 rifle system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_Mark_12_Mod_X_Special_Purpose_Rifle

It would surpise me if there was at least one of the SEALS, if not all three, were not armed with a MK12.... possibly might have the next version the SEAL Recon Rifle, a more SEAL specified MK12.

But, then again, all three could have been carrying M4s and that would not have been a hard shot, 90-100 ft away, calm waters, lit up interior.

ShakyJake
April 14, 2009, 11:22 AM
Hi All
Ain't it fun to speculate!!!:D Imagine how boring this thread would be if the facts would have come out early. :uhoh:
TaKe CaRe
Ted

Onmilothesameone
April 14, 2009, 11:25 AM
I have to question the validity of these news reports on what really happened out there.
First reports said the good Captain jumped into the ocean a second time and a brief firefight ensued resulting in the death of three of the pirates and the capture of the fourth bad guy.
Following reports began to add the sniper aspect to the drama which then transformed itself into Navy SEAL Snipers doing the shooting which further grew into the fantastical three shots, three kills, through a view portal of a bobbing unpowered lifeboat, those three shots being fired from the fantail of a bobbing Navy warcraft by SEALs, who had parachuted into the ocean and were picked up by the ship while the lifeboat bobbed around three hundred meters away, and all this drama took place at night.
It was added that the fourth bad guy had given himself up to seek medical attention for his hand which was punctured by an ice pick by one of the crew of the hijacked ship.

Given the information provided, here is my take on what really happened.

Navy Divers attached the towrope to the lifeboat effectively capturing the watercraft.
After several days in the boat without medical attention, the wounded bad guy, mad with pain and probable infection was allowed by his compatriots to surrender.
Navy interrogators convinced the captured bad guy to get his bad guy buddies to exit the lifeboat with the good captain and sit on top of it.
When this occurred, somebody on the Navy ship gave a signal to the good captain to exit stage left the lifeboat which he did, by jumping overboard yet again.
When the bad guys pointed their weapons at the good captain, now bobbing like a cork in a bathtub, crewmen on the ship opened up with everything they had.
The bad guys, in all likelyhood, did fire at both the good captain and the ship when they suddenly realized the game was over.

Three shots, three kills, through the hardened glass viewport of a lifeboat, from and at bobbing watercraft, in the dead of night, is simply beyond the possibility of reality, SEAL Snipers or not.

Mind you, it isn't my plan to discredit the SEALs, my intention is to give credit where credit is due.
There is a whole herd of professionals in the Navy who aren't the mighty SEALs and who quietly go about their jobs in a capable manner.
These folks deserve credit too.

Jeremy2171
April 14, 2009, 11:36 AM
More than likely just plain vanilla M4's with PVS-17 night vision on them...not much need for anything else them being that close and all...

highorder
April 14, 2009, 11:36 AM
Three shots, three kills, through the hardened glass viewport of a lifeboat, from and at bobbing watercraft, in the dead of night, is simply beyond the possibility of reality, SEAL Snipers or not.


Thanks for clearing that up. Its nice to get the truth from someone that was actually there...:rolleyes:

Onmilothesameone
April 14, 2009, 11:42 AM
I have seen news reports placing the lifeboat anywhere from 500 meters to 100 feet of the warship.
No competent Captain would place a lifeboat within 100 feet of the propellers of the ship while attached to a towrope.
My bet is that lifeboat was at least three hundred meters from the warship.

And if you believe in magic space dust, go ahead and get the material and duplicate the fabled feat.

JR47
April 14, 2009, 03:13 PM
Then again, you weren't there, nor was your crystal ball. If I were you, I'd just wait until the actual facts are released, then make assertions. There will be an official after-action report made, and it will be public to the media, if only under FIA.

As for the distances involved, both vessels were sea-keeping in mild seas, so the props weren't in very much danger at all. I would also imagine, given the latitude, that the heat of day had warmed the small vessel to the point that the pirates were quite willing to expose themselves, after dark, to the cooler air.

The "maddened with pain" pirate had a stab wound in his hand, from the original assault. Even infected, that was hardly worthy of that description. These weren't disciplined military veterans, they were pirates, and amateurs. It's entirely possible to find Americans who believe that they are safe exposing themselves at night, and are unaware of the modern NVDs available. Much less Somalis.

The shots were difficult, but hardly impossible from the accepted 25-30 meters given. Yes, there was motion on both vessels, but not like in high seas. The velocity of the rounds would have prevented any gross motion on the part of the vessels, at such close ranges.

It requires a less convoluted effort to believe that the shots, while not like target practice, were well within the ability of a competent marksman. Why it is necessary to create an entire scenario, not in evidence, and use that to justify a personal opinion, is curious.

Eric F
April 14, 2009, 03:24 PM
Well folks back to the op question of what did they use?

I have worked in on and around a navy seal base as a firefighter. Up to 2 years ago when I took a transfer I saw many many calibers and guns for sniping. From 223/5.56 on up to 50 bmg. And in stuff you wouldnt think of like 7.62x54 7mm mag 300 mag 338 mag this one guy even has a supressed 22 mag, I think that was a for fun gun though. In all sorts of auto loaders and bolt guns. Truth is we may never know but at that range I will put my money on some sort od ar type.

45B@cav
April 14, 2009, 03:48 PM
I have a cousin who is retired Naval Intel, and according to him the SEALs pretty much pick what they want mission specific. So there is no telling what the weapon was

Jeremy2171
April 14, 2009, 04:28 PM
Jeremy2171
More than likely just plain vanilla M4's with PVS-17 night vision on them...not much need for anything else them being that close and all...

Course now that I had a cup of coffee and thought about it... all they needed was the M4, PEQ-15 (or 16) IR Illuminator and NVG's. That is pretty much your standard setup for your M4 and no need for anything else (Mk11/18, M14 etc.) at 30yds or less when they took the shots.

Eric F
April 14, 2009, 04:29 PM
the SEALs pretty much pick what they want mission specific. So there is no telling what the weapon was
That is a very close truth. Some times they dont get a choice though, its whats on hand at the time they go on a job.

lesterg3
April 14, 2009, 04:54 PM
CNN reports,
Seas in the area were getting rough at the time of the rescue, Gortney said, and the Bainbridge was towing the lifeboat presumably to calmer waters with a towline about 82 feet long.


TopNews.in reports,
It took only three remarkable shots — one each by snipers firing from a distance at dusk, using night-vision scopes, the officials said. Within minutes, members of the Special Forces slid down ropes from the Bainbridge, climbed aboard the lifeboat and found the three pirates dead. They then untied Captain Phillips, ending the contretemps at sea that had riveted much of the world’s attention. A fourth pirate had surrendered earlier.

61chalk
April 14, 2009, 06:02 PM
Lots of news reports...?...A formal seal on a show I watched said the 3 that were shot, had stuck their heads outside the lifeboat to get some fresh air...that was a great idea, glad they did that. I would say the Seals always have their choice of weapons, always. They could of used a 5.56 version, or at that close range a 10/22 LR would of done the head job...but doubt they used the .22....

rcmodel
April 14, 2009, 06:14 PM
Could somebody please explain to me why:I have read several reliable sources who say the major maritime shipping insurers, Lloyd's of London, etc. will not cover arming the crew.

http://threatswatch.org/rapidrecon/2009/04/insuring-armed-security-more-e/

They feel it is better to lay down and give up then risk shooting someone defending the ship.

There is also the issue of territorial waters in many countries where arms of any kind are prohibited.

Still, it seems it would be pretty hard to scale a 50' - 75' high, slick steel hull.
You could dump a pot of boiling ham & beens on them and repel borders it seems.

Or hang a few live steam hoses over the sides.

rc

skinewmexico
April 14, 2009, 06:15 PM
No competent Captain would place a lifeboat within 100 feet of the propellers of the ship while attached to a towrope.


He would if he was trying to help shoot the occupants.

Eric F
April 14, 2009, 08:28 PM
Folks it boils down to this, Seals do what they do for the average joe. It is at this time I would like to thank the ones that have done their job for the country and its citizens. Good guys like my Uncle Hughey, Timmy, Steve, Mike, Rudy, and this really nice old guy every one called spike horn. I with hold their last names because some of them just recently got out through retirement or injury, others are long gone and burried. Its not the easiest life style in the world. And thats exactly what it is a life style, if it were a job they wouldnt be doing it.
So Thanks guys.

J&J
April 14, 2009, 10:08 PM
Anyway you slice it, this was a fine piece of marksmanship and coordination between true professionals. Wow. The level of expertise is amazing and I think sends a good message to these pirates.

Assuming the President is really the one who gave the OK to engage if the ship's captain was in danger... I say bravo to him getting out of the way and letting these fine professionals do their job.

Semper Fi to my seaborne brothers in arms.

John

TheVirginian
April 14, 2009, 10:47 PM
Yep, That's a soldier's fairytale ending. Just the way that pirates should be handled - never paid and always killed. If paid, the money would likely go to Al Quaida or some other scumbag outfit in Somalia. If not killed, some more of those ragged lot would have taken to the idea. Now they have reason to stay home and act civilized.
-Bill

Jmark58
April 14, 2009, 10:55 PM
I say congratulations to whomever shot those 3 BGs, whether they were seals (which is what I would prefer to think), cooks with some good aim, or the captain -- way to go. IMHO, I think that pulling the boat in close to the ship was a damn smart idea. Anybody who has ever been on a boat and looked out the back, has seen that the boat smooths out the random waves after it has ridden over it, and even though the water may not be smooth, it is predictable, and essentially pulling the BGs boat in close to that big ship would put them essentially on the same plane, so to speak. It should make taking that shot a lot easier I would think.

loosehorse
April 15, 2009, 12:25 AM
I too was dying for more info...check out this site
<http://www.defensetech.org/>
they have more info than I had heard up to now...and a couple of links
for even more.
Anyway a great job and its about time.
Loosehorse

Dr_2_B
April 15, 2009, 11:11 PM
Great info loosehorse. thanks

Hammerhead6814
April 16, 2009, 02:22 AM
At 25 yards there is little they couldn't use. But my guess would be something in .308 or better. On a rolling ocean, a headshot seems out of the question (Even though it was 25 yards!).

In all likelihood, the SEALS probably have their own custom gear for this kind of thing. Doubtful they used something we have the complete specs on.

jbech123
April 16, 2009, 04:55 PM
Given the information provided, here is my take on what really happened.

Navy Divers attached the towrope to the lifeboat effectively capturing the watercraft.
After several days in the boat without medical attention, the wounded bad guy, mad with pain and probable infection was allowed by his compatriots to surrender.
Navy interrogators convinced the captured bad guy to get his bad guy buddies to exit the lifeboat with the good captain and sit on top of it.
When this occurred, somebody on the Navy ship gave a signal to the good captain to exit stage left the lifeboat which he did, by jumping overboard yet again.
When the bad guys pointed their weapons at the good captain, now bobbing like a cork in a bathtub, crewmen on the ship opened up with everything they had.
The bad guys, in all likelyhood, did fire at both the good captain and the ship when they suddenly realized the game was over.

Three shots, three kills, through the hardened glass viewport of a lifeboat, from and at bobbing watercraft, in the dead of night, is simply beyond the possibility of reality, SEAL Snipers or not.
To say that is conjecture would be the understatement of the year. You have quite an imagination, if nothing else!

rcmodel
April 16, 2009, 05:04 PM
Three shots, three kills, through the hardened glass viewport of a lifeboat, from and at bobbing watercraft, in the dead of night, is simply beyond the possibility of reality, SEAL Snipers or not. I never knew any SEAL Snipers.

But I did know a bunch of Army Snipers. And shot competition with & against them.

Also Marine, and Air Force AMU shooters, which are close to the same thing.

I can assure you sir, that any one of them could have made those shots with one arm tied behind his back.

As for the hardened glass lifeboat port?
I doubt it would stand up against a .50 Barrett at 30 yards. Or even an M-14.

rc

MisterMike
April 16, 2009, 05:21 PM
Assuming the President is really the one who gave the OK to engage if the ship's captain was in danger... I say bravo to him getting out of the way and letting these fine professionals do their job.


Roger that. We bash him quite a bit here, but he made the right call in giving the military the latitude to act decisively. I hope this is indicative of how he will will act when confronted with similar issues in th future.

doorman
April 16, 2009, 06:32 PM
Are'nt there contractors, something like Blackwater, that could board the ship and provide protection while in the danger zone and then disembark before the ship enters a port. I realize that this is a huge area to protect but shipping companies could just contract the protection out.

sarduy
April 16, 2009, 10:41 PM
so.. what weapon they use?

HorseSoldier
April 16, 2009, 11:51 PM
Are'nt there contractors, something like Blackwater, that could board the ship and provide protection while in the danger zone and then disembark before the ship enters a port. I realize that this is a huge area to protect but shipping companies could just contract the protection out.

That would be pretty simple, I agree -- but it would cost pretty serious $$$, and so . . .

lipadj46
April 17, 2009, 12:00 AM
That would be pretty simple, I agree -- but it would cost pretty serious $$$, and so . . .

That would be a logistical nightmare and also expensive. As long as Somalia is a lawless, war mongering, dirt poor, cesspool with no hope of any kind of economic stability this stuff will continue. Just wait until terrorists get in on the action (just a matter of time). We should be doing what we do best sending in a drone and bombing targets of opportunity.

ants
April 17, 2009, 12:43 AM
They used Assault Weapons.

And Cop Killer bullets.

With thingies that go over the shoulder.

That they got in Mexico, smuggled across the border by straw purchasers.




Because we all know that those are the most dangerous and deadly things every made by man.
This proves they oughta be banned.









:neener:

yokel
April 17, 2009, 12:52 AM
The real question is...what would the uber elite THR Spec Ops Command use in this instance?

8mm Mauser really can ruin a pirate's day:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-297-1728-37%2C_Im_Westen%2C_Scharfsch%C3%BCtze.jpg

earplug
April 17, 2009, 01:01 AM
Cool use of the intrenching tool to support the raised knee.
Is that just my thought on the picture or was this somthing learned or trained?

rswartsell
April 17, 2009, 01:07 AM
doorman is onto something.

In the golden age of piracy in the western hemisphere and off the west coast of Africa, privateers with letters of marque for pirate hunting were most effective in eliminating the rampant pirate threat, along with the Royal Navy. The Royal Navy was stretched thin and enlisted "for profit " help.

Lt. Robert Maynard, (Royal Navy with mercenary help)who beat Blackbeard at his own game, and Capt. Chaloner Ogle, who bested Bartholomew "Black Bart" Roberts. The privateer Governor of Port Royal whose name escapes me.

Most of us here believe that "you are safe in your beds because rough men lie awake ready to do violence on your behalf". The profit motive is an accelerant and a corrupting influence both. When the disruption of shipping becomes more expensive than the "privateers" then this will become very practical. I'd say that we already could see handsome bounties that would be attractive.

When the militaries (naval) were overextended by revolution and foreign wars privateers solved this problem once in human history. Perhaps it will repeat, if so then they will be put away as dangerous and no longer useful dogs would be, many to be hanged themselves.:evil:

kd7nqb
April 17, 2009, 02:44 AM
So I know its a little off the mark of the thread but think about this.

How long until we see this scenario show up at one of the cooler competitions as a "fun stage"

50yrd shot on a platform that moves a little shooting at 3 steel poppers on another moving platform.

drjoker
April 17, 2009, 03:04 AM
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6474593.html
http://starfury.blogspot.com/2008/12/pentagon-researching-guided-bullet-tech.html

Shooting a moving target from a moving vehicle on an unstable surface from 100 yards away? The Pentagon used their new toy, the guided bullet, for this mission. The guided bullet has recently been declassified. Think about it, any time in history that something has been declassified, then it has already been accomplished. They've declassified an older project that has already been accomplished to secure funding for another classified project. The Pentagon's declassifiying the guided bullet to secure funding for it means that we already have a guided bullet and the Pentagon is trying to secure funding for another covert project that has not been declassified yet using the guided bullet's funding as a cover to seek funding for another covert project.

The platform is a 50 BMG Barrett firing a guided bullet.

jackdanson
April 17, 2009, 03:06 AM
With thingies that go over the shoulder.

hah... You mean barrel shrouds?

nitetrane98
April 17, 2009, 03:10 AM
All I want to know is how they co-ordinated their shots to fire simultaneously. One, two, three FIRE? Anything less could have dire circumstances. I guess they weren't exactly bobbing their heads up and down like a Whack-a-Mole.

sarduy
April 17, 2009, 03:23 AM
something like

sniper 1-0-1.

-commander :hold scope on target, fire only on my two.!

-sniper1: rgr that.
-sniper2: copy
-sniper3: copy that

-commander: five...four...three...two..(one never happen)
-snipers: ................................ BANG

Myles
April 17, 2009, 09:19 AM
Gyroscopic mounts are hardly new technology, they have been in use for cameras for years. Hand-held, vehicle mounted, helicopter mounted, you name it.

They are just being used in new ways. I'd be surprised if the USN didn't have some rifle-mount application for snipers and other applications. We know it's in use for the big guns.

To have a stable weapons platform, regardless of the motions of the water and weather would be a fine thing.

Jeremy2171
April 17, 2009, 10:15 AM
earplug
Cool use of the intrenching tool to support the raised knee.
Is that just my thought on the picture or was this somthing learned or trained?

Optical illusion....the combat spade is in it's carrier with the bayonet on top.. it's just the way he sat that the spade and carrier fell that way.

MisterMike
April 17, 2009, 10:16 AM
Gyroscopic mounts are hardly new technology, they have been in use for cameras for years. Hand-held, vehicle mounted, helicopter mounted, you name it.

But wouldn't that only solve half the problem? While a gyro mount would compensate for movement on the platform where the shooters were located, they'd still have to deal with movement on the target vessel. Not claiming that I know . . . just asking the question.

Regardless, this seems like a shot will within the capabilities of our SF types, barring exceptional circumstances.

X-Rap
April 17, 2009, 10:50 AM
Three shots, three kills, through the hardened glass viewport of a lifeboat, from and at bobbing watercraft, in the dead of night, is simply beyond the possibility of reality, SEAL Snipers or not.

At the distance reported there is little doubt that they have equipment well within that capability. IR Lasers invisable to the pirates if they were in the open or thermal if they were under cover of the boat deck. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a shot up life boat somewhere that might have been used for a little target practice prior to them getting to the Brainbridge.

RodanVsSCT
April 17, 2009, 03:06 PM
I doubt the life boat was bobbing a lot as it was being towed from what i understand. Think of a water skiier. It was probably a trick offering to tow it as it probably steadied it some.

feedthehogs
April 17, 2009, 03:34 PM
something like

sniper 1-0-1.

-commander :hold scope on target, fire only on my two.!

-sniper1: rgr that.
-sniper2: copy
-sniper3: copy that

-commander: five...four...three...two..(one never happen)
-snipers: ................................ BANG



This is better than a 1-900 number. Hold off till I go have a cigarette.:eek:

Owen
April 17, 2009, 04:05 PM
Most likely MK11's.

The MK14 isn't a sniper rifle, and wasn't adopted to replace the MK11.

The purpose of the MK14 was to modernize the M14, so all the little froggies could shoot a 7.62 in CQB, with the SOPMOD goodies and a can.

That's not to say that the MK11 didn't have teething problems...

If you enjoyed reading about "SEALs & the Maersk Alabama: AR15, M-14, or bolt action .308?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!