Why does't the U.S. Special forces/Navy Seals


PDA






gmh1013
May 6, 2010, 10:01 AM
Carry a Glock? They use 1911's SIG's, Beretta's but I cant find any mention of a Glock. Im not a Glock fan myself and have never owned one but wondered why military units wont use them.:confused:

If you enjoyed reading about "Why does't the U.S. Special forces/Navy Seals" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Arkansas Paul
May 6, 2010, 10:09 AM
Don't know how true this is, but I've heard that those guys have a lot of freedom to carry the weapons of their choice.

LRS_Ranger
May 6, 2010, 10:35 AM
I know this is going to stir the pot some, but maybe they don't like them as much as other designs? Gotta wonder how great they are when the elite don't make them top pick.. *gasp* :evil:

speaksoftly
May 6, 2010, 10:47 AM
I know this is going to stir the pot some, but maybe they don't like them as much as other designs? Gotta wonder how great they are when the elite don't make them top pick.. *gasp*

Haha...it's ok buddy...I'll help to protect you when the masses come with pitchforks!

Gryffydd
May 6, 2010, 10:49 AM
Haha...it's ok buddy...I'll help to protect you when the masses come with pitchforks!
Oh look, here comes REAPER :D

CoRoMo
May 6, 2010, 10:49 AM
They use 1911's SIG's, Beretta's...
1911, P226, 92... metal frame pistols. Is that it?

vaupet
May 6, 2010, 10:53 AM
don't forget HK: mk 23, not metal either

xXxplosive
May 6, 2010, 10:54 AM
1911 best combat platform IMO..........

Mike J
May 6, 2010, 11:02 AM
Unless I'm mistaken doesn't the military require an external safety.

MK11
May 6, 2010, 11:24 AM
Typically the military wants second strike capabilities.

Don't know how much leeway special groups have, at least in combat operations. Special Forces carry Beretta 92s, SEALs carry Sigs. There's all sorts of rumors about Delta carrying G19s or G22s depending on the poster but who knows?

I'm sure they have private weapons in-theater but why carry a 1911 or Glock when you may need a mag from a buddy carrying a Beretta? "Do your own thing" isn't a staple of the military, even for select groups.

Starcheck55
May 6, 2010, 11:24 AM
glock bashing thread check in commencing.

speaksoftly
May 6, 2010, 11:35 AM
Unless I'm mistaken doesn't the military require an external safety.

My Sig P226 (prob the most famous of the current Seal sidearms) doesn't have an external safety.

mothermopar
May 6, 2010, 11:54 AM
Don't know why, but the SEALs are issued Sigs. My pal is on 'The Teams' and that's what he was issued.

I know one thing, my pal LOVES the 1911, despite all the high tech gizmos and black guns he gets issued and trains on. What does that tell you?

Regardless, this question could probably be answered using the same logic as to why the government decided a FMJ 9mm was as good as a FMJ 45ACP. No purely military rationale what so ever. Someone made money and/or came up with the better deal.

Old Fuff
May 6, 2010, 12:00 PM
At one time the military was doing some testing and evaluating of Glock pistols, but one condition was that the company would have to reveal the specifics concerning materials and manufacturing methods used in polymer parts - the frame in particular.

Glock told them absolutely not!! Other then Smith & Wesson in 1940 they are the only major manufacturer I know of that's ever told Uncle Sam to go climb up a rope.

Avenger29
May 6, 2010, 12:22 PM
Why does't the U.S. Special forces/Navy Seals
Carry a Glock? They use 1911's SIG's, Beretta's but I cant find any mention of a Glock. Im not a Glock fan myself and have never owned one but wondered why military units wont use them

Maybe it's because Sigs are in the supply pipeline after trails/contract selection, so the SEALs feel no need to select something different when what they have already works OK? Same thing for the Beretta 92, considering it's already the main service pistol.

Look, it's just a freakin' handgun. That's the way the SEALs think of it, guaranteed. They are smart enough to know it's not extraordinarily special. It has nothing to do with metal vs poly frames, Glock vs Not Glock, etc.

Mags
May 6, 2010, 12:44 PM
Select USAF Pilots use Glock 19s.

Ian111
May 6, 2010, 12:50 PM
CAG or Delta Force have been using the Glock 22 since around the early part of the last decade. Not sure if some still use 1911's.
Referenced from this book Kill Bin Laden written by a former Delta Commander
http://daltonfury.com/

wilkersk
May 6, 2010, 12:58 PM
Mass procurement of weapons systems is BIG politics. Lots of MILSPEC requirements , evaluations, testing and contract bidding.

However, some specialized units often get what's called a "Cadillac Chit" to go out and buy small quantities of off-the-shelf items that can fill mission specific needs and not cost the tax-payer a bazillion dollars.

bg226
May 6, 2010, 01:05 PM
Because they want to.

Cosmoline
May 6, 2010, 01:08 PM
Not to throw cold water on this, but when do these guys even use sidearms? How much do they even care what they're issued?

snooperman
May 6, 2010, 01:22 PM
carry anything they want. They may be issued a gun , but not tied to it. Many buy their own. I have a friend who is one of my former Chemistry students who was in Afghanistan and he carries his own 45 1911 and a SIG 9mm. He also carries his own MIAI 308 as well. I am not familiar with the Navy SEALS.

Avenger29
May 6, 2010, 01:30 PM
Most special forces in the Army can...
carry anything they want. They may be issued a gun , but not tied to it. Many buy their own. I have a friend who is one of my former Chemistry students who was in Afghanistan and he carries his own 45 1911 and a SIG 9mm. He also carries his own MIAI 308 as well. I am not familiar with the Navy SEALS.

:scrutiny:

JR47
May 6, 2010, 01:31 PM
Not to throw cold water on this, but when do these guys even use sidearms? How much do they even care what they're issued?

Actually, they use pistols more than one would think. Pistols are concealable, rifles not so much. Infiltration of civilian areas, where Hadji puts his C&C, ammo, explosives, and infrastructure, requires a fair amount of on-the-ground surveillance. Toting a rifle or SMG isn't the best way to remain covert.

There are also times when the pistol is the weapon of choice, such as clearing tunnels, caves, and other confined spaces. A suppressed pistol is much easier to use there than a rifle with a can hanging out the end. Not all of these spaces look like something from an Indiana Jones movie, with cathedral like space.

usmc1371
May 6, 2010, 01:42 PM
This is just going off of what I SAW in Iraq, both times, even the guys with all the fancy crap and unmarked cammies were still packing M92's. Never saw any seals but plenty of Army and Marine SF and looked to me like they all had the same stuff, M4 and an M92. I have never seen or even heard of a "personaly owned weapon" in Iraq, in fact the Order I saw made no bones about the fact that any "personaly owned weapon/ammo" was grounds for punishment under the UCMJ.

Sapper771
May 6, 2010, 01:55 PM
Certain elements of 5th Group (US SF) used Glock 21s at one point.

There are certain "Task Force" groups that issue/allow Glock 17s and Glock 19s. Last word I got was that the Glock 19 was favored by most of the guys in one of the Task Forces. There are others out there that use whatever they want.

I think it was 3rd Group that still used the Beretta. Not sure on that though.

I appologize, I don't have any links because I saw it with my own two eyes in Iraq 2004-2005. I would be more specific, but I am sure those gentlemen would not like their business blown across the web.
No, I am not a member of those organizations, just got to work with them a few times on some higher scale operations.

I think that the beretta is used by the majority of the Army units because of the logistics. As long as they are near an American FOBs/LSAs, then they have access to armorers for repair/replacement , supply for bullets and magazines, and sometimes a civilian contracted gunsmith for tuning.
If they had a Glock or 1911, all that would be harder to accomplish, minus getting the ammo. The exception would be if the unit already had armorer support for the 1911 or Glock.

dstoke
May 6, 2010, 02:23 PM
one of my friend that was in the force recon carried a 1911 in combat. But when he came back home and wanted to buy a new gun for everyday carry he bought a glock 19. Not saying one is better than the other, but he just said that the .45 caliber had more stopping power and he and his team wanted that over a 9mm.

CWL
May 6, 2010, 02:37 PM
I once had a conversation with Jeff Gonzales about this. He told me that the Glock was DQ'd by the SEALs because water can carry sand and small stones into the space between magazine & gun grip and cause the magazine to jam inside the pistol. Not something you want to happen far from home and in the middle of a firefight.

earlthegoat2
May 6, 2010, 02:37 PM
Select USAF Pilots use Glock 19s.

Im not saying you are wrong because I have heard this as well through some unofficial grapevine but....

After many several years in the Air Force working directly with and around a vast number of different pilots I never saw them with a Glock 19 or any Glock for that matter. I saw M9s and Sig 228s.

As to the military Special Ops using or not using Glocks I would bet that most of them have at least tried them at one time or another. There are too many foreign militaries out there who use them.

As to that unofficial grapevine: I think the rumors started back in the Gulf War when apparently an entire squadron of pilots were either issued or bought their own Glocks for deployment. This is the earliest I have ever heard of Americans having Glocks in a combat zone.

REAPER4206969
May 6, 2010, 08:07 PM
Oh look, here comes REAPER
CAG, amongst others, are using 22's.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2740/4446974144_a76cc35de1_b.jpg
More pics of Glocks in the hands of US Military, especially SF - Glock Talk
http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1199301

Also:

KANDAHAR PROVINCE, Afghanistan (April 28, 2010) Army Chief Warrant Officer Shawn Lowry sits in the shade of a mine resistant ambush protected vehicle while waiting for further orders. (U.S. Navy photo by Petty Officer 1st Class Mark O'Donald/Released)
http://i40.tinypic.com/mt5v5x.jpg

Cosmoline
May 6, 2010, 08:21 PM
I've never heard of an actual "operator" who gives a flying fig about these topics. The fixation on special forces gear and weapons seems to be more of a marketing or recruitment ploy than any real point of interest from the men themselves. You're more likely to encounter these guys talking about cross training and fitness issues than gun stuff.

KodiakBeer
May 6, 2010, 08:26 PM
Im not a Glock fan myself and have never owned one but wondered why military units wont use them

Because they're experts and have a choice?

Echo9
May 6, 2010, 08:38 PM
Well, I've never been in combat (yet), but just my .02......

As I understand it, if you're using a pistol in combat instead of a rifle, that probably means you're already in deep ****. If you're wounded and bleeding out, running on little to no sleep, I wouldn't want a pistol that's easy (or even easyish) to limpwrist.

Also, If I've been trained to use an M9, a 1911, or a Sig, I'd be nice not to have to switch to a different grip angle.

Strahley
May 6, 2010, 09:12 PM
If I had to go to war tomorrow, the only handgun I'd take with me would be a Glock. The rest of my weapon weight would be focused on long guns

danez71
May 6, 2010, 09:42 PM
CAG, amongst others, are using 22's.
[QUOTE]

(edited out pics to save band width)

I clicked on the link you provided. I think you forgot to include this post:

[QUOTE]The reason they have Glock 19's is because that is what the Iraqis are issued. SF spends most of its time co-located with indigenous forces which has always been their mission. Delta and SF are not the same thing. The majority of SF still has Beretta's. Delta has had the same issues with Glock 22's and lights that many police units have had.

and this which is the reply to the quote above

Oh yes, most SF pics still show guys with Berettas, no doubt. I posted these pics as they are the exception, not the rule.


So I guess they do use Glocks but are the minority due to reliability issues and geographic locations as evident by the link REAPER so graciously provided. :neener:

Mags
May 6, 2010, 09:45 PM
Select USAF Pilots use Glock 19s.

Im not saying you are wrong because I have heard this as well through some unofficial grapevine but....
Here is the source (http://www.glock.com/english/glock19.htm). BTW I am an active duty Airmen with a decade under my belt myself and I have seen a Pararescue armory with Glock 17s but no Glock 19s anywhere.

snooperman
May 6, 2010, 09:46 PM
who had their pump shotguns sent to them to fight with as well as small caliber 22 revolvers that they used as tunnel rats. Have you ever tried to shoot a 1911 issued 45 in a tunnel. This is done. Several of this Army special forces staff seargent's friends came to shoot at a range on the farm and they all had their own weapons that they were using before they were to ship out from Iraq to Afghanistan. They ride around on Donkeys and dress like the nomads that live there and speak that language fluently. I have seen the pictures. Not every soldier carries issue weapons in this elite group.

jaysouth
May 6, 2010, 09:48 PM
carry anything they want. They may be issued a gun , but not tied to it. Many buy their own. I have a friend who is one of my former Chemistry students who was in Afghanistan and he carries his own 45 1911 and a SIG 9mm. He also carries his own MIAI 308 as well. I am not familiar with the Navy SEALS.

Most Special Forces??

ALL Special Forces are members of the United States Army subject to the Uniform code of military justice. They keep their stripes, long tabs, and security clearances by carrying what their unit issues them and nothing else. They do not buy their own weapons. The vast majority of SF units are still issued Berettas. Not to say some units don't buy others, just most do not. A handgun is not a hot priority with commanders. The only reason they would switch is; all their berettas were worn out, and they could get something better cheaper than new berettas.

Navy seals and Delta(if it exists) are not member of Special Forces.

The oldest 'quite professional' that I know has 18 years on an SFODA team and has never seen a MK 23 on a hip or in the arms room in his battalion at Smoke Bomb Hill.

APIT50
May 6, 2010, 09:50 PM
Group 6 guys I talked to carried an assortment. They were told to blend with civilian contractors and carried in various semiconcealed rigs. I saw Sig, Glock, and yes M9's

rbohm
May 6, 2010, 09:50 PM
glocks at first were rejected by the military because the austrian army didnt want the magazines to fall out when the release was pushed, but the US military did want the magazines to fall away. glock had to redesign the pistol, and actually set up a plant in the US to manufacture the weapons to get military contracts. and no they did not have to manufacture the guns here, they did it to prevent austrian spec guns being sent to the US military and vice versa.

mljdeckard
May 6, 2010, 09:55 PM
The 19th Group guys I know, who were allowed to carry what they wanted in-country, preferred 1911s.

earlthegoat2
May 6, 2010, 09:56 PM
Here is the source. BTW I am an active duty Airmen with a decade under my belt myself and I have seen a Pararescue armory with Glock 17s but no Glock 19s anywhere.

Yes, I have seen that source as well and I have also seen the 17s in armory. Just not in the possession of pilots. I dont really know where Glock got that info but if some USAF pilots had them I suppose they would have heard about it. It seems like a strange claim otherwise. One of those things that is outrageous enough to be true.

If you tromped around Lackland, Pope, and Fairchild enough maybe we crossed paths.

REAPER4206969
May 6, 2010, 09:56 PM
So I guess they do use Glocks but are the minority due to reliability issues and geographic locations as evident by the link REAPER so graciously provided.
Where did I claim anything more? The light "problem" has been fixed with updated magazines.

Mags
May 6, 2010, 09:57 PM
Yes, I have seen that source as well and I have also seen the 17s in armory. Just not in the possession of pilots.
^^^
Agreed Earl, granted my time around pilots is only limited to loading/unloading activities.

WC145
May 6, 2010, 10:54 PM
My son is a USAF TACP (AFSOC) in Afghanistan (again), he carries a Beretta M9 because that's what they give him.

Nobody carries personally owned weapons. Those days are loooong gone.

Drail
May 6, 2010, 11:08 PM
Because they don't let gangbangers into the Seal program. They have standards you know.

IMTHDUKE
May 6, 2010, 11:20 PM
when I put two rounds through your heart and one through you head...you wont know the difference.":D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQzkjXBYrqs

IMTHDUKE
May 6, 2010, 11:32 PM
Back in the dark ages in Vietnam in the summers of 67,68....as a young Marine LT platoon commander....I got me a grease gun...45 type...we were in the bush embedded with the South Vietnam troops and ROK Marines...HQ found out about all the "unauthorized weapons" we were sporting and word came down .....loose them. I was back to the jamamatic M16s. Those were the good ole days when...the rules of engagment we made up on the way to a search and destroy mission.

leadcounsel
May 6, 2010, 11:48 PM
They do - rather they can.

mljdeckard
May 6, 2010, 11:58 PM
WC145-

The question wasn't about personally owned weapons.

WC145
May 7, 2010, 06:09 AM
WC145-

The question wasn't about personally owned weapons.

No, it wasn't, but after reading ALL of the posts I also wanted to comment on the statements below. I hope that's okay with you.:scrutiny:


I'm sure they have private weapons in-theater but why carry a 1911 or Glock when you may need a mag from a buddy carrying a Beretta? "Do your own thing" isn't a staple of the military, even for select groups.

carry anything they want. They may be issued a gun , but not tied to it. Many buy their own. I have a friend who is one of my former Chemistry students who was in Afghanistan and he carries his own 45 1911 and a SIG 9mm. He also carries his own MIAI 308 as well. I am not familiar with the Navy SEALS.

This is just going off of what I SAW in Iraq, both times, even the guys with all the fancy crap and unmarked cammies were still packing M92's. Never saw any seals but plenty of Army and Marine SF and looked to me like they all had the same stuff, M4 and an M92. I have never seen or even heard of a "personaly owned weapon" in Iraq, in fact the Order I saw made no bones about the fact that any "personaly owned weapon/ammo" was grounds for punishment under the UCMJ.

As to that unofficial grapevine: I think the rumors started back in the Gulf War when apparently an entire squadron of pilots were either issued or bought their own Glocks for deployment. This is the earliest I have ever heard of Americans having Glocks in a combat zone.

who had their pump shotguns sent to them to fight with as well as small caliber 22 revolvers that they used as tunnel rats. Have you ever tried to shoot a 1911 issued 45 in a tunnel. This is done. Several of this Army special forces staff seargent's friends came to shoot at a range on the farm and they all had their own weapons that they were using before they were to ship out from Iraq to Afghanistan. They ride around on Donkeys and dress like the nomads that live there and speak that language fluently. I have seen the pictures. Not every soldier carries issue weapons in this elite group.

earlthegoat2
May 7, 2010, 08:27 AM
edited

Off topic

danez71
May 7, 2010, 08:31 AM
Where did I claim anything more? The light "problem" has been fixed with updated magazines.

Never said you claimed more.

I just provided more info from your own source.

Defensive?

Fastcast
May 7, 2010, 08:48 AM
Because they're experts and have a choice?

Ahhh.....We have so called expert Mods right here, that proclaim with all the authority in the world, that Glock is the best "fighting" pistol ever. Everyone would be better served to use a Glock for combat/defensive purposes and there's really no reason to own anything else. END of story, no other pistols needed! :rolleyes:

Funny that the best military in the world doesn't see it that way but what would they know, as compared to the tactical jockeys here on THR. ;)

earlthegoat2
May 7, 2010, 08:59 AM
Ahhh.....We have so called expert Mods right here, that proclaim with all the authority in the world, that Glock is the best "fighting" pistol ever.

Care to substantiate?

snooperman
May 7, 2010, 09:17 AM
There was a special on this on the Discovery channel and it showed men from one of our Army special forces groups, "AT A DISTANCE" , where they could not be identified, dressed as Afghans with beards etc, with AK 47 rifles etc, on donkeys . They have intensive training in the language and customs and are quite intelligent ,to meet the stringent requirements. Not all special forces are issued the same weapons and yes some can buy or use what they want to use in this unit . AND, It is not against the "code of military justice " to do so. One of these men , who was one of my former students , shoots with me at our private range , when he comes home with his wfe to visit his mother, is now training some of our finest in counter insurgency in the U.S. He is very bright and speaks Afghan language fluently.

snooperman
May 7, 2010, 09:28 AM
Counter insurgency units and certain special forces units can carry what they want, including AK 47 and other weapons "NOT ISSUED BY THE U.S. military. This is common knowledge.

Owen
May 7, 2010, 09:42 AM
Why do you think the AK's aren't issued to the SF and SEALS by the US Military?

As far as handguns go, they use what they have because they are satisfied with them, to the point that the component units don't feel the need to change. If the handguns they are currently using were causing some sort of operational gap, then they would go ahead and write a new requirement, which would open the door to a new pistol competition.

mljdeckard
May 7, 2010, 10:51 AM
Some units are under much more direct supervision than others by their commands. Your issued weapons are accountable. Battlefield pickups are not.

No, I'm not playing with POWs in theater. I KNOW I can't get away with it. My command will back me up for just about anything but violations of G.O. #1.

Fastcast
May 7, 2010, 01:28 PM
Care to substantiate?

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=518991

Take your time....Only a 169 opinions. LOL

jkulysses
May 7, 2010, 01:46 PM
I'm pretty sure that Delta and maybe even the SEALS and SF can carry what they want within reason. Like I really doubt they would allow them to carry Hi-Point or Taurus but I'm sure if it's a pretty common 9mm such as glock, beretta and sig it would be fine especially Delta beings they really only answer to the president.

Owen
May 7, 2010, 02:24 PM
I'm pretty sure that Delta and maybe even the SEALS and SF can carry what they want within reason. Like I really doubt they would allow them to carry Hi-Point or Taurus but I'm sure if it's a pretty common 9mm such as glock, beretta and sig it would be fine especially Delta beings they really only answer to the president.

No, they can't, due to Federal Acquisition Regulations.

KodiakBeer
May 7, 2010, 03:27 PM
There are two reasons police forces went to Glocks, both revolving around money.

One was a spate of million dollar lawsuits where suspects being held at gun point got shot after a policeman had already fired his SA/DA and was in single action mode, or was holding a cocked revolver. The normal police story was that the suspect grabbed for the gun, while the suspects lawyer claimed a nervous cop accidentally fired his piece because of the "hair trigger" of a handgun in SA mode. The police generally lost those lawsuits, rightfully or wrongfully. Those lawsuits were the impetus for the long trigger pull of the Glock, and police lawyers and insurance companies approved of the concept.

The second thing was simplicity of training. No safeties, no hammers, no change in trigger pull from 1st to 2nd shot. Cops, mostly, aren't gun people and the simplicity cuts training time and costs.

Elite military forces don't have the same constraints. They like guns, know guns, and want the best. If a prisoner is going to be held at gunpoint, it's probably with a rifle. They've got all the time and money they need to train. Those elite forces who can choose a sidearm, almost universally choose some configuration of the 1911.

None of this applies to us. We're just armed citizens. We don't have lawyers breathing down our necks to choose one platform over the other and we don't have unlimited funds for training. We get to choose what we want, and that's different for each of us - compacts for concealment, big handguns for home defense and toys to shoot at the range.

snooperman
May 7, 2010, 04:06 PM
What makes you think that some of our elite forces are not issued AK 47s? I see them on T.V. with them. I also saw pictures of Navy SEALS with H&K MP 5 submachine guns. Marcinko, can not think of his first name, was a special ops man with the SEALS or special forces, and I have read several of his articles in Soldier of Fortune magazine, and has written several books as well. He talks repeatedly about how great the AK rifle is and how he used it for years, while serving in Viet Nam etc. What I can not understand is how so many people on the web site think that it is against the Code Of Military justice for not using the weapons only issued by our Armed forces. Tell that to men like General George Patton, who by the way, did not carry issued sidearms at all, along with countless other officers and noncoms as well during WW11, Korea, and Viet Nam.

10pacesmike
May 7, 2010, 04:39 PM
I personally worked with SF in Southern Iraq in 06-07 that carried Glock 19s.

As far as non-issued ammo...In Salerno, AFG, 2004-2005, the range was littered with nickel-plated 300WM, 338WM, 338L brass. I've never seen nickel-plated 300/338/338L in SAASMOD.

Owen
May 7, 2010, 06:23 PM
snooperman, you missed the point. Special ops has mp5s, AKs, and RPGs available for issue. Lake City occasionally makes runs of 7.62x39. A Warfighter with an AK did not necessarily pick the gun p off the ground. It's entirely possible that it was issued by his unit.

The reason that they can't use Personal weapons is that they have not been certified safe, the operators haven't been trained on the system, there is no property accountability and there is no logistical tail. When you pick a gun up off the ground, and your supply system is pilferage from the locals, how do you know you haven't been booby-trapped?

Sorry for the drift.

To answer the OP, some SOCOM units do have glocks in small quantities, generally the mid size and compacts. They can't buy large quantities due to the FAR, and the hoops they would have to jump through. Wanna buy 200 pistols? you're talking about 500K plus, just to get safety certs. You're going to have to compete it. IF you compete a polymer framed, compact pistol, the cost of the testing will be more than the entire procurement. Even the Tier 1 components are supposed to compete procurements, they just don't have to announce that they are competing.

They don't buy <X = fanboy gun of choice>, because X doesn't solve a problem, or address an operational shortcoming. When what you have is doing the job, getting something else is wasting money.

But of course, snooperman read a paperback, so I'm sure he knows more about it than the military folks, and the defense acquisition folks wandering around the topic.

Mags
May 7, 2010, 07:06 PM
What makes you think that some of our elite forces are not issued AK 47s? I see them on T.V. with them. Lol, way to go!

snooperman
May 7, 2010, 07:10 PM
who is in the special forces at Ft. Campbell KY and he was in Iraq and Afghanistan. He stated that those in his unit that wanted to use a different weapon was able to buy thier own and use them. The military did not issue these weapons to them. I called his mother who lives about 3 miles from my farm and she and her husband were career soldiers. She told me today that he uses his own weapons not the military procurement ones. She assured me that some special forces troops have that right given to them by their commanders.

Full Metal Jacket
May 7, 2010, 07:18 PM
saw special forces in afghanistan the other day on nat geo carrying glocks.

Owen
May 7, 2010, 07:39 PM
Then the officer has taken personal responsibility for that unauthorized weapon. If anyone is hurt by that weapon, the officer is legally on the hook.

Zach S
May 7, 2010, 07:47 PM
snooperman, I talked to a retired member of SF that said that the bullets fired from an M16 tumbled, so when you shoot a terrorist in the leg the bullet could come out of his shoulder...

If I had a buck for every SF operator I've met I'd use the money to paint my car. If they weren't so entertaining I'd just ignore them.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why does't the U.S. Special forces/Navy Seals" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!