quote:

target known as a “killer tomato.”

in naval jargon, an inflatable seaborne target for gunnery practice, named after the monster.

There's several things wrong with that picture, even beyond just the backwards scope.

The thing is, the Commander didn't set up that rifle. He's just using what he was handed for the photo op. I guarantee the hapless Master-at-Arms responsible for that clusterfuck of a rifle is getting nine kinds of hell right now.

quote:

Originally posted by sigspecops:
maybe it's an optical illusion, but the barrel looks like it's bent where it comes out of the handguard

The quad rail handguard isn't fully seated in the delta ring. As a result, the top 3/4 of the handguard is what's off-kilter, not the barrel.

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
- What's up with that sling? Something's off there. It appears to be set up as a single point sling, but I can't figure out how it's being worn.

It isn't being worn. It's a single point sling that is just dangling down, and laying against his left side of his torse. A portion of it is partially obscured under his left armpit/behind his left stomach.

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
- What's is seen beneath (behind?) the zoom adjusting ring of the VCOG?

It appears to be an open scope cover, with the hinge rotated to the side at about the 4:00 position (if one were looking from the correct ocular end). Thus the open cover is laying against the far side of the scope body, and a protruding beneath the body a bit in the photo.

Similar to this, only reversed.

“Eagle eyed” viewers spotted it ?
It’s a VCOG, astronauts on the ISS can see it.

A bit more subtle than throwing the skipper's palm tree overboard.

Some GM is getting free sodas and candy in the Chiefs Mess

Tier one trolling there.

https://twitter.com/USMC/status/1778076775710363736

Nobody's mention the "Chicken Wing"? C'mon, we're slippin'!

The excuse of "someone else gave him the rifle that way" is lame. He should know enough himself, even if he is Navy. I was AF and still know better. There's no good excuse except ignorance.

Coincidently, Saturday I told a guy at the range that his 1-4 power scope was mounted backwards. Similar to that Pic, funny enough he was former Navy.

quote:

Originally posted by mrvmax:

Coincidently, Saturday I told a guy at the range that his 1-4 power scope was mounted backwards. Similar to that Pic, funny enough he was former Navy.

A lot of people are so accustomed to the typical form factor of traditional optics, where the objective lens is larger than the ocular lens, that they make a wrong assumption.

An acquaintance of mine spotted the Vortex Razor on one of my ARs, and told me that it was backwards.

I just looked at him like this.


That being said, this photo was probably someone screwing with the skipper. I hope so at any rate....

The fact that he didn't recognize that there was an issue when he looked through the scope, tells me he has never spent much time on the range....


Most people in the military never touch a rifle after basic training. Which is fine, their job doesn't necessitate it.

Still a little embarrassing for the Navy.

Well, at least it wasn't a recruiting poster emphasizing a family's military heritage with Wehrmacht soldiers in the background.

As has been said, there's a lot more wrong with that picture than the backwards scope.

https://www.outkick.com/cultur...oshopped-speculation

Was Humiliating Navy Rifle Photo Actually Photoshopped?
Published April 10, 2024 12:20 PM EDT

Was the Navy's embarrassing rifle photo actually photoshopped and edited?

The Navy published a photo on its social media platforms Tuesday of a man firing a rifle that had optics mounted backwards, the lens covers appear to possibly be closed, his arm was chicken winged out, the butt of the gun riding up his shoulder and the selector switch appeared to possibly be flipped to full auto at an unclear target in the water.

It was a wild post, and it's downright shocking nobody near the man firing realized the insanity of what was going on or that nobody posting it did either.

It was beyond embarrassing, led to social media roasting it and was eventually deleted. Well, it turns out the situation has a new wrinkle.

Was viral Navy rifle photo edited?

I spoke with an expert in photo analysis (specialization in WWII photos) whose name is withheld for privacy reasons, and he floated something I didn't even think of: The weapon's optic was on backwards because it was edited to be on the rifle after the fact.

"I can tell you that the scope was added to the recent US Navy photo after the photo was taken. If you look at the photo knowing that, it becomes obvious: the shadows are inconsistent and there are photo-editing traces around the scope. It remains embarrassing, of course, but that does explain how the issue happened. The Navy probably doesn't want to admit that they doctored the photo, since that, too, is worthy of criticism and opens up more questions about other photos," the photo expert told me.

He pointed out that it's incredibly important that the public understands the truth and that edited photos aren't allowed to go unnoticed.

"Military photo authenticity and accuracy is so important. We're losing historical integrity of photos through photo-editing and the even more common problem of wholesale misinterpretation or misapplication of content. For some people, all of that seems like an unimportant matter, but I've seen doctored military photos in hundreds of publications both in print and online. Eventually, these things snowball, and from what had been crucial and undeniable historical evidence we are then left with questions about accuracy and truthfulness," the expert explained.

While it's impossible for someone like me with an untrained eye to know for sure, his theory seems accurate. He also provided plenty of evidence to prove his credentials are legit. The photo expert suggesting the optic was added after the fact would explain why nobody on the ship's deck stopped the shooting as it was happening. I find it hard to believe a Navy ship full of people didn't notice a rifle had backward optics. That makes the weapon literally impossible to accurately aim.

People weren't impressed with the photo.

As you'd expect, people weren't overly impressed by the fact the Navy posted the photo and nobody in the workflow didn't realize all the incredible mistakes.

With two chunks of brass in the air there should be at least a little evidence of gas somewhere, this looks fake to me, but it is the Navy.

Innernet shenanigans.

quote:

Originally posted by 229DAK:

*SNIP* and the selector switch appeared to possibly be flipped to full auto at an unclear target in the water.

I saw the selector switch. What would be wrong with firing on auto (or 3-round burst, depending on the weapon specs)?

It would explain the multiple spent casings in the air. . .

Honestly, the picture looks fake to me. If you’re looking at it on a smart phone or tablet and turn the device so you can see the image at a steep angle, the rifle looks wrong; the front half of the M4 is not even in line with the rest of the weapon.

Is there a slim chance that this "photo" was released on April 1? Also not a hint of smoke near the ejection port from fired rounds. I think it is digitally manipulated and likely a joke.

The scope is fine.

The rifle and the shooter are facing the wrong way.
"Think positive dude."

quote:

Originally posted by bettysnephew:
Is there a slim chance that this "photo" was released on April 1? Also not a hint of smoke near the ejection port from fired rounds. I think it is digitally manipulated and likely a joke.

It was not a joke. The Navy admitted it was an error and removed the post.

https://twitter.com/USNavy/status/1777847656947056868

quote:

Was the Navy's embarrassing rifle photo actually photoshopped and edited?


I spoke with an expert in photo analysis (specialization in WWII photos) whose name is withheld for privacy reasons, and he floated something I didn't even think of: The weapon's optic was on backwards because it was edited to be on the rifle after the fact.

OH! of course this 'expert's' name is withheld, that makes perfect sense.
This is a single-citation article, based off the quote of a mysterious source and zero other attribution, this is no different than hearing about how to invest and get-rich from the homeless wino camped-out on the park bench.

It's just a picture that shouldn't have gotten out, nothing more. There's a reason why photographers take a million shots, so they can weed-out the bad ones