How many gun Co's falselly advertise that they are used by special ops

[RetiredUSNChief]

Thanks for the sneaker responses.

Light duty...with all that gear on him as well? I suppose it could be...seems silly if he's wearing sneakers for light duty while carrying all that gear AND operating on rocky territory like illustrated. Seems grounds for increased injury risk to me.

For those who don't understand why this raises a question with me, the military has uniform requirements, and in general "uniform" means "uniform in appearance" as well. Sneakers are not part of the uniform regs...they may, however, be exceptions to the regulations.

For example, as noted above, sneakers may be medically authorized due to light duty or some kind of foot injury. They may also be authorized for SpecOps missions in order to blend into the society in which the members are covertly operating in.

But mixing such "civilian wear", like sneakers, with regular military attire is always the exception. Typical uniform boots are part of the uniform for a reason, especially during combat or combat training. Wearing sneakers in the terrain shown is not smart at all...no ankle support and less protection for the sole of the feet on such rocky grounds.

That's why I'm scratching my head over that image.

 

[RX-79G]

Were you a Chief in the same Navy I was? Tennis shoes were a common sight for light duty sailors in uniform.

 

[PabloJ]

I've seen several pictures of Russians in sneakers all the way back to the 80s in Afghanistan.
Apparently the lighter shoe is preferred by some for it's lighter weight and increased mobility.

Chinese-made sneakers do not raise suspicion in those pictures. Americans solders want to be like Soviet ones and Russian soldiers want to look like Americans.

 

[Hacker15E]

For those who don't understand why this raises a question with me, the military has uniform requirements, and in general "uniform" means "uniform in appearance" as well. Sneakers are not part of the uniform regs...they may, however, be exceptions to the regulations.

Except that for units in SOCOM (or working under SOCOM control), the "exception" is the regulation. "Alternate grooming standards" and "alternate utility uniform standards" (although that's not the specific terminology) are canonized by official policy for units like the Rangers (and others) working for SOCOM.

In 2011 I recall seeing a policy letter tacked up to the wall of a briefing room at a FOB in eastern Afghanistan where Rangers under SOCOM control were based, and the letter was a GO-level commander rescinding the authorization for beards.

I'm an Air Force puke, so I don't recall the reference for whatever regulation that letter was changing, but clearly it was altering established policy that allowed beards.

 

[herkyguy]

Thanks for the sneaker responses.

Light duty...with all that gear on him as well? I suppose it could be...seems silly if he's wearing sneakers for light duty while carrying all that gear AND operating on rocky territory like illustrated. Seems grounds for increased injury risk to me.

For those who don't understand why this raises a question with me, the military has uniform requirements, and in general "uniform" means "uniform in appearance" as well. Sneakers are not part of the uniform regs...they may, however, be exceptions to the regulations.

For example, as noted above, sneakers may be medically authorized due to light duty or some kind of foot injury. They may also be authorized for SpecOps missions in order to blend into the society in which the members are covertly operating in.

But mixing such "civilian wear", like sneakers, with regular military attire is always the exception. Typical uniform boots are part of the uniform for a reason, especially during combat or combat training. Wearing sneakers in the terrain shown is not smart at all...no ankle support and less protection for the sole of the feet on such rocky grounds.

That's why I'm scratching my head over that image.

it was a joke.

Those types don't do "light duty" or even know what it means.

uniform regs are great and all, but there times when they just don't mix with the task at hand. whether that be beards and sneakers in the desert or simply a commercially procured fleece watch cap instead of the crappy issued knit one on the mids watch, we've all had a time in our life when we put aside something issued for something far superior.

i'm glad we give some latitude to the high-speed guys out there in their selection of weapons.

 

[TanklessPro]

Per his book, he had a Springfield TRP that was damaged and replaced it with a P220.

That's right. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[SIGLBER]

SEALS are still using SIG 9mm's. Word is they are transitioning to HK .45 Compacts. Marine MARSOC and Force Recon units are using various brands of the 1911 until the Colt 1911 starts to replace them. They have used some Kimbers and SA 1911's BTW. Most of the Rangers I've spoken with are just using the M9. The M9 often gets a bad wrap but is used by a lot of really good Tier1 guys.
They are given a lot of latitude though. Word is a lot of Delta Guys are using Glock 21 & 22's. But the late Chris Kyle said he often took his SIG 220 when out in the field. When you speak about SpecOps they really do have a lot of choices. So many of the claims of used by Special Forces are true. But what is standard issue? Each unit appears to have it's preferences.

 

[JHansenAK47]

The M9 often gets a bad wrap but is used by a lot of really good Tier1 guys.

My M9 had the finish worn off the frame to a silver color, a true rode hard and put away wet pistol. The other issue was the magazines had worn out springs. Needless to say I had a few jams.
The bad wrap is real but related mostly to worn out magazine springs and to a lesser extent pistol condition IMO.
I've owned a few Beretta 92 pistols and my personal ones have always worked great.

 

[jmr40]

Regarding footwear. It is common for a lot of SF troops to wear non-military issue footwear. In the book "No Easy Day" the author specifically mentions his preference for Solomon hikers, these to be specific.

http://www.rei.com/product/780681/salomon-quest-4d-gtx-hiking-boots-mens

If you look at almost any photos of SF troops you almost NEVER see them wearing normal military issue footwear. In fact "military issue" is sort of hard to pin down since there are literally dozens of options considered official. I've seen lots of photos of regular troops wearing personal footwear. I have no issue with wearing what works best.

 

[JTQ]

RetiredUSNChief wrote,
the military has uniform requirements, and in general "uniform" means "uniform in appearance" as well. Sneakers are not part of the uniform regs...they may, however, be exceptions to the regulations.

I'm a retired Air Force guy, so I understand your point about uniforms, though I suspect those shoes are about as "uniform" as those beards the guys are wearing. If they are Special Ops guys, I suspect they have "special" uniform regs. In addition, while they may look like "sneakers" or a pair of Nike running shoes, I suspect they are using a quality "off the shelf" hiking shoe that is a better choice for their needs than the typical uniform boot issued to the "regular" guys.

 

[PabloJ]

Regarding footwear. It is common for a lot of SF troops to wear non-military issue footwear. In the book "No Easy Day" the author specifically mentions his preference for Solomon hikers, these to be specific.

http://www.rei.com/product/780681/salomon-quest-4d-gtx-hiking-boots-mens

If you look at almost any photos of SF troops you almost NEVER see them wearing normal military issue footwear. In fact "military issue" is sort of hard to pin down since there are literally dozens of options considered official. I've seen lots of photos of regular troops wearing personal footwear. I have no issue with wearing what works best.

The Chinese make very nice boots for us.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Alternate grooming standards and non-standard issue pistols.

Sometimes it doesn’t even matter what or where your unit is, it is about who you are and what you have done. SGM Larry “Super Jew” Freedman when at JFKSWC was never stopped for failing to wear a T-shirt or displaying his gold Star of David neckless while in uniform in garrison. Larry was one of the greatest guys I ever worked for and it infuriates me we lost him so needlessly in Somalia. If you don’t know who Larry was you should find out.

I cannot post a picture of H&K P7s being carried in a secure facility on Ft. Bragg, but they definitely were used for a while during the 1980s.

 

[RBid]

Friends of mine from special groups have carried 1911s, Sig P220s, and M9s. One of them has mentioned that most of his team used 1911s and Glocks, and that they continued to do so later as contractors.

Interestingly, the hot topics when it comes to freedom to choose gear were armor and boots. Sidearms were not as big of a concern to them. Only one of them really disliked the M9. The others simply preferred other things. Boots were the number 1 hot button.


As an aside, the pic of the dog jumping out of the plane absolutely blew my mind. I knew they have been used a lot, but assumed it was helicopter, land, or water insertions. That is amazing.

 

[Nom de Forum]

I am not surprised boots were the number one concern. The issue LPCs when I was in left much to be desired. I was lucky to be in units where I could wear Jungle Boots where it was hot and Danners where it was cold. I still have a hard time understanding why it took so many years for the Army to abandon plain black leather. As someone mentioned earlier many guys relying on LPCs for mobility don't even think a pistol is worth carrying and would rather have more ammo or water.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Were you a Chief in the same Navy I was? Tennis shoes were a common sight for light duty sailors in uniform.

Oh, certainly I'm familiar with light duty sailors in uniform.

But if this guy is truly light-duty, and on light-duty that requires the wearing of sneakers, then he's definitely out of his light-duty bailiwick by carrying however many pounds of gear AND in shoes which are definitely NOT suited for such terrain, most especially if he's on some sort of light duty requiring such footwear.

I suspect, rather, that if he's actually active duty and training, then he's doing so with some concessions to expected attire to be worn for certain missions.

Ah, well...all guess work by each of us anyway, unless we're privy to the actual training requirements of the people in question.

 

[twofifty]

....
Ah, well...all guess work by each of us anyway, unless we're privy to the actual training requirements of the people in question.

Guessing the real point of this thread is that now we know who the guys are that know the guys who've been there done that with fancy guns and cool runners.

Having a beer and talking guns with the real deal does not make one an 'operator'.

 

[Fishbed77]

And still I have to ask: What's with the sneakers? (And yes, I'm aware that SpecOps personnel are authorized clothing and grooming deviations in order to fit their missions. But though I can accept his grooming in this picture, his dress isn't consistent with the sneakers.)

I believe those are Salomon Quest (or similar) boots, which, according to "Mark Owen's" book No Easy Day, are pretty popular with SEALs.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Guessing the real point of this thread is that now we know who the guys are that know the guys who've been there done that with fancy guns and cool runners.

Having a beer and talking guns with the real deal does not make one an 'operator'.

I don't believe anyone posting to this thread could be accused of being a poser.
Are you aware of the fact that for every "operator" there are a great many people on a first name basis with them that are serving as support? You get to know things that would never be known from just having a beer and talking guns. Who are you to imply otherwise?

 

[Willie Sutton]

^^ This.

From a weenie contractor-puke who's seen a lot, talked to many, offered advice now and then, and who's flown over a lot of dusty dirt.

One of the interesting things I have observed firsthand is a certain USN group that I work with closely who had SIG do a custom run of pistols with their unit emblem engraved on the slide. These were private purchase, but were (are) carried by the owners as their sidearms. As a weenie contractor with a long history of supporting this group, I was very privileged to be invited to be included in the purchase. The guys like the SIGs, and SIG has a program to provide for units to have arms personalized with their own ego-markings. Minimum order is 50, if I remember correctly.


Willie

.

 

[twofifty]

I don't believe anyone posting to this thread could be accused of being a poser.
Are you aware of the fact that for every "operator" there are a great many people on a first name basis with them that are serving as support? You get to know things that would never be known from just having a beer and talking guns. Who are you to imply otherwise?

What I am not is a nom dropper.

 

[easyg]

Sig, Springfield, and H&K, are probably the worse offenders of using the hype, but many others also do it.
Glock , and S&W, just seem to be more honest about the way they describe that their guns are used by many military and police agency's, but some of these Ads, are misleading at best.
Which guns and what calibers are actually used by our troops, I saw that new Marine pistol for 2 grand, but what about the Sigs and H&K's?

Keep in mind that if company XYZ makes the claim "our pistols are used by special operations teams", that does not necessarily mean that those pistols are used by United States Special Operations teams.

Maybe they are used by Croatian special ops teams.
Or German special ops teams.


As for the footwear and uniforms...
Soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines have been violating uniform policy since uniform policy has existed.

When I was stationed in Korea, in 2nd Tank, during the winter and during rainy periods, almost all the tankers wore sneakers under their wet weather overboots.

 

[Nom de Forum]

What I am not is a nom dropper.

I agree you did not drop “nom”. What you dropped in this thread is bovine excrement on the opinions and happy reminiscences of many people. Pardon me for sharing a relevant anecdote about a friend, dead 20 years, who was one of the most eccentric, flamboyant, and charismatic “operators” since the formation of SFOD-D. It was a tidbit of information you will not read in any book or online to the best of my knowledge. I wish I could post a photo of the look on the face of the many lieutenants who suddenly became aware of Larry’s flagrant disregard of uniform regulations and his manner of addressing their concerns. It was hilarious. They rarely addressed the issue with him twice. You ought to apologize to all the posters you insulted rather than attempt to insult and discredit me. Name dropping is used to improve financial and/or social status. Not much of that to be gained when using an anonymous name on just one of about a bazillion gun forums. I write about places been, people known, and firearms experiences that are happy memories and informative to a topic just like everyone else does at some point.

 

[Nom de Forum]

......When I was stationed in Korea, in 2nd Tank, during the winter and during rainy periods, almost all the tankers wore sneakers under their wet weather overboots.

We did the same thing in the 3rd Herd in Frankfurt. Usually it was those awful, cheap, basketball shoes you got at C.I.F. Your feet stayed cooler and dryer, and you did not ruin your LPCs.