Thought this was interesting and didn’t see it posted yet. Looks like he’s using a Romeo4T. Kinda cool, I know the Romeo red dots have some fans here.

I was curious too about the rifle. I suppose it’s not possible to identify the exact make, but I find it interesting that the rest of the British army uses some sort of something that was clearly considered to be superior to the M16 pattern when adopted, but the SAS relies on a good ol’ M4 variant. And they don’t seem to think a backup rear sight is important either.

^^ Canadian C8, although they've got their own "L" designation for it.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
And they don’t seem to think a backup rear sight is important either.

Plenty in the US Military don't think so either.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
^^ Canadian C8, although they've got their own "L" designation for it.

Thanks.

I’m not criticizing the lack of a rear backup sight because although I have them on all my rifles that they can be mounted on, most haven’t been zeroed for long distance shooting. I do find it interesting, though, that a top-tier military organization in a hot zone wouldn’t mandate them. More support for my belief that today’s optical sights make backup sights very unlikely to ever be needed.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
I do find it interesting, though, that a top-tier military organization in a hot zone wouldn’t mandate them. More support for my belief that today’s optical sights make backup sights very unlikely to ever be needed.

I guess time will tell. I believe similar logic led to the lack of guns on the F4 Phantom.
That being said, none of my rifles have them either.

It was fun looking over that rifle trying to spot the gear.


Larue RISR on the stock.

Procter sling.

Ergo grip.

Not sure what kind of silencer. Surefire maybe?

quote:

Originally posted by RichN:
I believe similar logic led to the lack of guns on the F4 Phantom.

I would not say the thinking was similar.

In one situation the thinking was, “Even though our theory has never been tested in combat, we doubt that guns will ever be necessary on a modern fighter aircraft, so let’s not put them on this aircraft.”
In the other it was (I assume), “We have been using these weapons and sights in combat for years and never needed backup sights in the past; we’re probably never going to need backup sights in the future.”

In other words, supposition versus experience.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
More support for my belief that today’s optical sights make backup sights very unlikely to ever be needed.

but...but...but...

Everyone on da webz noze dat every serious use carbine needz backup sights. Every last one. I wonder how many times "serious use" was typed on this SF website last year.

I guess that means the SAS operator in Kenya wasn't deployed for "serious use".

If I had an aimpoint backup wouldn't be on my list. If I had a sig I'd make sure I had them.
just sayin...

When you reach that level as an operator you don't need back up sights.

Anyone else think the knife looks like a Bark River?

Found a better pic...

While I expect, and appreciate peoples interest in what gear the guy used, can we be honest?

The hardware is irrelevant and pedestrian.

The gear he used to get the job done, was his training, and his "toxic masculinity."

Is that a snakeskin pattern on that stock?

British SF has always had their own choice of gear/weapons et al. The same goes for those who worked with them in Northern Ireland. AR15/16, Heckler & Koch and SIGS were no-brainer replacements for the Sterling and Browning, although many like the 30-round stick magazine that the Browning had. The first iteration of the SA80 was nothing less than a national scandal, of which I have personal experience. When we had the SLR/FAL, getting a stubborn breechblock to open was simply a matter of standing the gun up against the wall, and applying the heel of the boot. Doing it with the SA80, it broke into two pieces. The weapon was universally loathed by troops, for all the best reasons - it was a pice of sh*t. Nobody in their right mind would have/should have taken the original SA80A1 into battle in a desert environment, although the latest version the A4{?] is not only pretty darn good, and well-liked by it's users, but only looks like the original. the only thing that has remained unchanged is the diameter of the hole down the barrel.

How odd it is, to have found that the IW version, that is to say the basic infantry rifle, worked best at full-auto, whereas the ISW, with it's longer barrel, but still retaining the thrity-round magazine, would have shoe as a short-range counter sniper weapon in single shot mode. Thankfully, that abortion has gone, replaced years ago by the M249 SAW.

quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder76:
While I expect, and appreciate peoples interest in what gear the guy used, can we be honest?

The hardware is irrelevant and pedestrian.

The gear he used to get the job done, was his training, and his "toxic masculinity."

Arc nailed it. That MAN would've attacked with a stick and stone if that's what he had available. The ending may have been diff and he may have only taken down one or two bad guys. His masculinity and courage required he act and his TRAINING made him successful with the hardware he had available.

Also, since I still think gear is cool, I like the desert tan scout light.

quote:

Originally posted by esdunbar:
Anyone else think the knife looks like a Bark River?

I doubt it is but I had the exact same thought when I saw the picture for the first time. The portion of the grip/handle visible in the pic made me think of my Bravo 1.

If you wanted to go to a British Armory and see one of those rifles...you would call it an L-119A2.

Then the armor would say something about your not getting a rifle and probably somehow throw the word yank in there, but deep down inside he would think it was cool you said the right thing.

My AR-15 dork friend is working on a clone of it right now.