Can the US Military use their own guns or rifles?

[peyton]

This is why I like this forum, world wide members with so many backgrounds. The United States Military issues General Order Number One in a combat zone. Mainly it covers all the things soldiers are not allowed to do. Drinking, and have personal weapons are just some of the things prohibited.
Having said that, soldiers here in Iraq were taught how to use the AK 47 in the early part of the war and certain units had them, mainly armor and mechanized infantry. The reason was that they were so short with the folding stock versus the 1 meter long M-16. The AK was useful for self defense around the armor. They have now been given to the Iraqis or destroyed.

 

[redranger1]

I know that a few of the guys(in specialized units) over here in Afghanistan have purchased their own 10'' barreled upper recievers. Ive also seen some Glocks being carried over here by a few guys in a U.S. service uniform however im sure they where a specialized unit also as they rolled out in up armored Toyota Hiluxes.

 

[usmc1371]

I spent a couple summers in Iraq (2005/2006) we were told in no uncertin terms that any personal weapon/ammo would lead to instant NJP or court martial. This question came up many times during pre deployment calsses and went to the LtCol directly, his words "don't even F@*%ing think about it".

Every marine trains with the same weapons so any marine can use what ever is at hand. 2 things to remember, 1 SAW's don't work worth a dam when fed with M16 mags
2 DO NOT try to take a gernade out of the MK19 and fire it in your M203.

I had no problem with my rifle's M16 A2 and M4, all the beretta's I shot were old, beat down, paper weights but they still fired when you pull the trigger. I would have liked to have my glock 35 but what can you do.

 

[redranger1]

"2 DO NOT try to take a gernade out of the MK19 and fire it in your M203."

I had a Sgt Maj tell me that he used to do that all of the time, but he didnt want to catch me doing it because we where short on MK19 ammo. I stood the two rounds side by side and am pretty sure that if you can get the ring off the 19 round w/o damaging it you still couldnt get it to close in the 203.

 

[herkyguy]

You don't bring your own weapons to war because if you screw something up, your supervisor is just as culpable as you are. Hence, the strict policy. I tend to believe that most leadership wants their guys to succeed and if their own personal weapon makes that more likely, they would be inclined to allow personal weapons. However, the rules by which the military operates would crucify anyone in a leadership position who allows that to happen. Any incident overseas draws attention - even more so if a personal weapon was used. I am not bashing anyone here, but the media in this day and age would rip the military apart. We would be called 'lawless cowboys' and ultimately this would hurt the war effort.

However, I do believe that in the event of a war the size or magnitude of WWII, many of those strict administrative rules may be overlooked in the interest of victory. It was not any more legal in WWII to carry a personal weapon, but the overarching theme was victory at all costs. Today, we walk a much finer line and politics, whether good or bad, play a significant role. In my opinion, I would not want to bring a personal weapon into a conflict unless I felt my life depended on it. The military issues capable and reliable weapons. Enough said on my part unless they start sending our guys to war without guns.......

 

[Kurt S.]

Here's a thread on the subject that yers trooly started last year. I wanted to send a concealable .45, like a mini-Glock, to my daughter in Afghanistan. (I was extremely worried about her- she's back stateside safe & sound now!)The consensus was don't even think about it, and that things are different from previous eras.

BTW, closest I ever got to combat was Alameda Naval Air station....

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=402365

 

[Eon047]

Interesting the stories guys and it seems something more of the time period. The way i see it is, it Illegal but their are stories of commanders allowing their weapons "under the radar." The sense behind a non-personal weapon is logical,and makes alot of sense. It works that way in russia as well, with 5.45 being the most common kind of ammunition, ado i like many despise it due to its material penetration being low. To clear some things up, i worked with MVD specifically 1st PSN VV Vityaz stationed in Moscow.

 

[Dravur]

(So please skip all the stuff about how you carried a TSMG, a Luger, and two ivory handle Colt SAAs in Vietnam.)

I carried candy...

Well, I was only 6 yrs old or so. What do you want me to carry? an M-16?

 

[rcmodel]

I think a lot of the "no personal weapons. wink wink" no longer being allowed is due to embedded reporters.

Imagine CNN showing a guy with his own S&W Chiefs Special and then breaking to the Vietnam photo of the same gun being used to shoot a suspected VC in the head!

Or his own "Dirty Harry" .44 Mag revolver, or a stag handled Bowie "scalping" knife.
The TV News people would have it on the evening news.

And the Commanding General would have the company level officers balls on a spit the next morning.

rc

 

[Madcap_Magician]

Personal KNIVES and other cutting, bludgeoning implements, I think, are entirely within regulations. I know knives and axes are. Personal FIREARMS are way out of bounds.

So in theory, if you wanted to carry the weight, you could lug a foot-long Bowie knife around Iraq with you. I don't know why you'd want to.

I'm taking an RMJ Shrike and an Emerson La Griffe with me.

 

[possum]

i have been in the Army for 6 years and no you are not allowed to have pow's (personally owned weapons) technically. i do know of one case where one person was given permission by command to bring something that was a pow

 

[j-easy]

i have been in the Army for 6 years and no you are not allowed to have pow's (personally owned weapons) technically. i do know of one case where one person was given permission by command to bring something that was a pow

just out of curiosity, what was the gun?

 

[Bass Killer]

Ive never served in The USA. Ive served in Internal Troops of Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs, What you guys call spetnaz. My whole family has served, Some with The US Marine corp and some over in the russian armed forces.
Yes it makes sense logistically. And it makes sense. My age by the way is 31.

As Ive seen it, the military of this country is alot more organized. The armed forces In the USA Are less corrupt and not rife with disagreements. Soldiers serving in the armed forces over in russia often brung thier own weapons, usually personalized pistols as back-up weapons.

More like internet troop's, haha!

 

[Bass Killer]

SOF can sometimes carry personal weapon's, but as of why they would? makes no sense! SOF have the option of SIG's and H&K, pistol's at they're disposal. They have the option of Sub and Full size machine gun's not available to most LE or Military. SOF can carry a fully auto M16A4, and you dont see too many of those babies around.

 

[BornLoser]

I know special forces can basically use anything they want.
When my Uncle was in Iraq, he rode around a lot in a civilian car and carried a short AK. He fell in love with the AK over there, and got one as soon as he got home.

 

[leadcounsel]

Short and most accurate answer to the question "Can the US Military use their own guns or rifles?" Nope, not for official business. Yes, on the limited "for civilian use" military ranges (not on all military ranges), but they are subject to registration and strict transportation rules.

The weapons that Special Forces use are all military property or confiscated weapons (which are Gov't property). I'm not aware of ANY SOF that use personal weapons or ammo. If there are it's above my clearance level and would be used in such a limited capacity as to say, again, the answer is NO.

 

[Clyde K.]

supercopjason: What weapons did you teach Marines to shoot? Where & when?

 

[Nicodemus38]

you cant use your private weapon in the army. you will not have proper interchangability with the government contract weapons that the rest of the company will be using. if you dont have a contract rifle, the armory will not be able to slap in replacement parts like they can with contract weapons

also, if people were allowed to use there own weapons, two days before their enlistment was up, theyd all appear at the armory with an ar 15 and have the armorer slap in an m16 fire group and take home a machinegun. military wont do that.

 

[paintballdude902]

a friends dad is a marine and was in desert storm, he said they were getting ready to go into kuwait so they were doing an inspection he walked over to a young marine and said:
"son is that a .45 on your hip?"
kid says "sir yes sir"
friends dad " well i hate to break it to you but we didnt bring any .45 ammo with us"
kid "sir if its okay with you i brought my own" (kid pulls out 8 boxes of fmj .45acp)
friends dad "well carry on then"

 

[Impureclient]

My cousin was in Iraq for two tours and is going back for a third. He was given a Glock 19 as a gift from my other cousin(his older brother) when he went there.
He was allowed to bring it, use it, and he brought it back. It makes it's 3rd trip there again in a couple months. While driving it's obviously hard to handle
anything other than a handgun for personal protection. Seeing as how he was told he wasn't going to be issued a handgun, he asked if he could provide his own.

Forgot to add: He is in Army and I don't recall his rank but, it's low on totem pole.

 

[Shadow 7D]

Paintballdude

1st is anidotal
second is that the kid most likely had to drop that into the amnesty box clearing the MPs on the way out or learn how to smuggle quickly. All the guys in my unit the first time in Iraq that deployed for desert storm said something like the "MPs are the same jerks as last time" as they were dumping our stuff heading home.

 

[kw11b2p]

As a former paratrooper and combat veteran......yeah I know it's been stated previosly, the only members of the armed forces that may have the ability to carry non-issue weapons on the field of battle are those assigned to SOCOM (Special Operations Command). These men are Army Special Forces, Seals, Delta, etc.. They are not subject to the same rules and regulations as the average soldier as they fall "outside the lines".........see the above poster who claimed alternatively armed men arrived in a Toyota. Most Infantry arrives in HMMWV's or UH-60's. Just because a guy's wearing a uniform doesn't mean he has a unit patch, rank, or name tag on. Also to the poster commenting on the ammunition difference between the M-203 round and the MK-19 mod 2 linked round............It is similar to the difference between loose 5.56mm and belt fed M-249 5.56mm rounds. They are at a glance the same round, but the SAW round actually has a higher powder content because of the weapons highter rate of fire and is therefore not supposed to be used in an M-4 or M-16.

 

[kdave21]

When I was in Iraq as an enlisted man, I couldnt even talk my unit into giving me the standard issue 9mm that the officers carried. My argument was that as a driver with the lives of two other soldiers in my care, there was no way I could fiddle around with the m16 and the steering wheel at the same time. (Obviously I would rather have the 16 for general combat, but when people are running up the side of your humvee with intentions that only God knows, then you get a bit nervous about asking him/her to wait while you try to get your rifle from between the seats and take aim). I was told no and accepted the refusal, as any other course would have been a waste of time anyway. I bought a knife, kept it handy, and thought worst case scenario, if somebody lunged in at me unexpected like I could at least have a chance. I have no idea of militarys official stance other than what I have read in this column, but I would venture to bet there is a direct correlation with leniency on this issue and rank. Who's gonna tell the colonel or general that he can't carry what he wants? The Pentagon back home? Not likely.

 

[leadcounsel]

As a recent combat veteran and CURRENT paratrooper....

Lots of people here are giving REALLY BAD information. Current General Orders for all US military forces is that it is a violation of orders and unlawful to use privately owned weapons or ammuntion in Iraq or Afghanistan theaters! During the early stages of the wars (like the first year or two) this may have not been the case (although I think it has been the case), (more likely) may have been unenforced, frowned upon, etc. but currently it is just NOT ALLOWED. Sure some people smuggled - key word "smuggled" - weapons in and out... but it certainly was not and is not legal. No joke, people get in serious trouble for this kind of activity.

They are at a glance the same round, but the SAW round actually has a higher powder content because of the weapons highter rate of fire and is therefore not supposed to be used in an M-4 or M-16.

Huh? This is the first I've heard of this.... Considering that one purpose is to use the SAW and the M4 both in 5.56 is for the ammunition commonality for supply reasons, this makes ZERO sense. I call BS. The SAW has a higher rate of fire because it fires from an open bolt position and fires belted ammuntion (and it can also accept the M4 magazines in a side port, but they don't feed well). In fact, supply gets 5.56 ammo, and some is belted and some put in M4 mags. I've never seen any differentiation between the two... And I've spent a lot of time in the sandbox.

Who's gonna tell the colonel or general that he can't carry what he wants? The Pentagon back home? Not likely.

I'll tell you... a HIGHER ranking officer... that's who! How many really high ranking officers, with 20-30 years in service, want to challenge a General Order and carry a personal weapon, breaking all sorts of rules and laws and leading a poor example, to carry a weapon that they'll likely never unholster? ZERO! The 06s and up that I knew rarely left well protected bases and when they did they traveled with personal security details of experienced NCOs armed to the teeth with full combat loads. When, exactly, is a Colonel or General going to be using his sidearm? It's there for personal self defense and show and little more.

 

[kw11b2p]

Could be wrong, but this is what we were told in the 82nd Airborne Division 98-04 by armorers, NCO's, and other leadership. This is what supposedly accounted for the variations in muzzle velocities of about 100fps between the two weapon systems. Although, it may have been differences in muzzle lengths. Regardless we were constantly told the two were not meant to be interchangeable. If anyone has other knowledge please post.