You've obviously never seen  commanders type have to qual for their weapons.

Have you?

Have you?

A few.

A few.

Not on COD :facepalm:

Not on COD :facepalm:

Bruh, don't get me started on COD. SBMM/EOMM fucked up the game.

You've obviously never seen  commanders type have to qual for their weapons.

If the Navy training is anything close to Air Force training, then only the enlisted are required to qualify on the M4/M16 platform.  Officers only qualify using a pistol (in my case, revolver -- 1980s).

The exception was if the officer was in a job that required rifle proficiency, such as MP/SP.

Air Force and Navy are not normally on the front lines, so officers aren't usually carrying long guns.

I have a feeling this plays into the commander's lack of familiarity with the weapon.

If the Navy training is anything close to Air Force training, then only the enlisted are required to qualify on the M4/M16 platform.  Officers only qualify using a pistol (in my case, revolver -- 1980s).

The exception was if the officer was in a job that required rifle proficiency, such as MP/SP.

Air Force and Navy are not normally on the front lines, so officers aren't usually carrying long guns.

I have a feeling this plays into the commander's lack of familiarity with the weapon.

Many people think that all members of the military are the SF/SFDDS they see on TV and movies.  There are many MOS's that aren't required to shoot, which means they aren't familiar or very proficient with a weapon after leaving basic.  Same goes with being in physical shape and other stuff.  Which is why I replied the way I did to EEF.  In this case, the commander is the leader and shouldn't be handling a weapon at all, due to him leading.  Jocko Wilink (ret SEAL) has a story (O4), if he's holding security at a corner, within seconds, one of his guys will take over so he can do leadership stuff.  The point is that his guys know he's the leader and shouldn't be holding security.

Another running joke is: How often do you see an O6 doing PT?  No one questions him about it either.  WO's are on a diff level though. 

This brings me to a speculation that this ships captain isn't well liked.  Because no one corrected him prior to the photo. "Screw him, let him look stupid".

...
Another running joke is: How often do you see an O6 doing PT?  No one questions him about it either.  WO's are on a diff level though. 
...

Are you insinuating high ranking officers don't do PT?

i lived on-base in Oklahoma in formerly designated field grade officer housing.  i lived one block from my AWACS Squadron Commander (O-6).  i was 2 blocks from the Air Logistics Center Commander, a Brigadier General (O-7).

One day I'm doing a 5:30AM run to prepare for my upcoming annual 1.5 mile test.  This old geezer in a floppy brim hat ran toward me and said good morning as we passed.  I thought he must be a retiree staying at the VOQ right next to where we met. 

It wasn't until the second time I saw him running that I recognized him.  It was the general.  This is him after being promoted to Major General (O-8, 2 Stars):



One reason you don't see O-6 and up at PT is they either have exclusive workout facilities, or they exercise early in the morning before most people are awake and crowding the gym.  They usually have more control over their schedules, so they can pick times when fewer people are doing PT.

The O-6 i mentioned played racquetball where I played during lunch.  He had a standing reservation daily where the rest of us had to start dialing the phones at exactly 2PM to snag a reservation the next day.  He normally played at 10am if I recall -- just before the lunch crowd showed up.

Are you insinuating high ranking officers don't do PT?

i lived on-base in Oklahoma in formerly designated field grade officer housing.  i lived one block from my AWACS Squadron Commander (O-6).  i was 2 blocks from the Air Logistics Center Commander, a Brigadier General (O-7).

One day I'm doing a 5:30AM run to prepare for my upcoming annual 1.5 mile test.  This old geezer in a floppy brim hat ran toward me and said good morning as we passed.  I thought he must be a retiree staying at the VOQ right next to where we met. 

It wasn't until the second time I saw him running that I recognized him.  It was the general.  This is him after being promoted to Major General (O-8, 2 Stars):



One reason you don't see O-6 and up at PT is they either have exclusive workout facilities, or they exercise early in the morning before most people are awake and crowding the gym.  They usually have more control over their schedules, so they can pick times when fewer people are doing PT.

The O-6 i mentioned played racquetball where I played during lunch.  He had a standing reservation daily where the rest of us had to start dialing the phones at exactly 2PM to snag a reservation the next day.  He normally played at 10am if I recall -- just before the lunch crowd showed up.

It's a joke.  Hence the "no one questions whether the O6 doesn't do PT".  I know there are some that still do it and even do it with their soldiers.

It's a joke.  Hence the "no one questions whether the O6 doesn't do PT".  I know there are some that still do it and even do it with their soldiers.

I read that it was a joke, which is why I asked "are you insinuating..." 

Yanking your chain while taking an opportunity to participate in Pau Hana story time!

 

I read that it was a joke, which is why I asked "are you insinuating..." 

Yanking your chain while taking an opportunity to participate in Pau Hana story time!

 

Shaka

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I don't have to prove a negative. 

Wrong, that's not how things work. It isn't about proving a negative because the image was never proven to be real in the first place. The neutral position is just that there is an image, proving it is accurate is no different than proving it is inaccurate. I can't prove its fake and you can't prove it is real. You just assume it is real while I looked and observed things that lead me to believe it was fake.

You have zero evidence to support your belief that the image is accurate and questioning my ability to recognize a photoshop job isn't evidence to support your opinion.


I circled the protrusion below the eyepiece/power ring of the supposedly backwards mounted optic (towards the front on the image) but the trijicon VCOG doesn't have a protrusion under that portion of the optic. The other portion I circled towards the read of the gun has a taper that is consistent with the taper power right of the VCOG.

If you want to say you don't find that convincing then fine, you are free to disagree, but that's not your style is it? You can't let someone stand who suggested you might be wrong, you have to turn it into a big, personal, nasty argument.

Wrong, that's not how things work. It isn't about proving a negative because the image was never proven to be real in the first place. The neutral position is just that there is an image, proving it is accurate is no different than proving it is inaccurate. I can't prove its fake and you can't prove it is real. You just assume it is real while I looked and observed things that lead me to believe it was fake.

You have zero evidence to support your belief that the image is accurate and questioning my ability to recognize a photoshop job isn't evidence to support your opinion.

You obviously can't tell the objective from the ocular of a scope but you are here to argue and you haven't installed a RIS on an M4 before so you can't explain the obvious cant on the upper rail.
I can bring my M5 RAS to the range tomorrow to show you how it works.

I circled the protrusion below the eyepiece/power ring of the supposedly backwards mounted optic (towards the front on the image) but the trijicon VCOG doesn't have a protrusion under that portion of the optic. The other portion I circled towards the read of the gun has a taper that is consistent with the taper power right of the VCOG.

The battery compartment where you labeled as a "protrusion" are on different locations on the 1-8 and 1-6 models.

You obviously can't tell the objective from the ocular of a scope but you are here to argue and you haven't installed a RIS on an M4 before so you can't explain the obvious cant on the upper rail.
I can bring my M5 RAS to the range tomorrow to show you how it works.

I didn't say that can't on the front handguard means the photo was edited, I just pointed it out. I don't think that part is photo shopped because he is clearly holding a vertical handguard so it wouldn't make sense to photoshop a crooked handguard on top of a straight handguard. I do believe your suspicions of an improperly mounted handguard to be the most likely explanation.

But feel free to offer your explanation of why the power ring portion has a protrusion in the image which does not exist on that scope. To me it looks like someone pasted an image of a scope over the old scope without erasing the scope from the original image and thus the old scope protrudes from behind the top layer of the image.

The battery compartment where you labeled as a "protrusion" are on different locations on the 1-8 and 1-6 models.

I did notice that when looking for more images of the scope. However, none of them have a protrusion under the power ring portion of the scope to explain the protrusion under the power ring seen in the image. Thats the observation I made which led me to believe the most likely explanation was that the image was photoshopped. If you don't consider that the most plausible explanation thats fine.

I didn't say that can't on the front handguard means the photo was edited, I just pointed it out. I don't think that part is photo shopped because he is clearly holding a vertical handguard so it wouldn't make sense to photoshop a crooked handguard on top of a straight handguard. I do believe your suspicions of an improperly mounted handguard to be the most likely explanation.

But feel free to offer your explanation of why the power ring portion has a protrusion in the image which does not exist on that scope. To me it looks like someone pasted an image of a scope over the old scope without erasing the scope from the original image and thus the old scope protrudes from behind the top layer of the image.

Our next shoot is on May 18th. You are more than welcome to come out.

Makes sense, cause some job industries dont like to admit theyre wrong on a higher % than others.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Our next shoot is on May 18th. You are more than welcome to come out.

Maybe we can have a backwards scope day

Maybe we can have a backwards scope day

Who is we?

Who is we?

Me and Ren, duh. See where it says "Quote from ren..."? That indicates I am replying to him, thus together it becomes "we".