I also would not be surprised if the harpers ferry armorers referenced weren't retired military armorers.
I also would not be surprised if the harpers ferry armorers referenced weren't retired military armorers.
There are three of us conduction the inspections. One is former Army and the other two former Marines.
There are several problems I have with this article. First off the person writing this article obviously has a bug up his butt about armorers and starts insulting them from the get go. The typical military armorer has had a two week class and is really just performing a supply function of handing out weapons. The three of us all started our carriers attending the small arms repair course in Aberdeen Proving Grounds and have had years of experience doing direct, general, and depot level maintenance.
I’m not at liberty to get into the detail of the inspections, but I want to make it very clear that we are doing this to get unserviceable weapons out of the field and get new ones back to them as quickly as possible. Some of the weapons are very old and way past their service life.
I wrote the article and I have 8 years of dealing with Marines Corps armorers.Originally Posted by 5pins
How quickly is your organization going to replace 40% of the rifles issued that are now deadlined? Do you dispute the fact that deadlining 40% of rifles issued to a organization that works with a standard of one rifle per three agents is a problem? Why are you and your colleagues complaining about lube choice and application of lube? Do you disagree with running rifles wet with lube? Did you know that Slip2k and TW25b have NSN #s?
#RESIST
I can’t talk for the other two of the people conduction the inspections, but I have never complained about what lube is used. Some of the stations I have inspected have had well lube and properly cleaned rifles other have had no cleaning supplies at all and I have deadlind a few because the BCG’s where so rusted the action could not be worked. I’m all for lube, any lube, but I’m seeing most with no lube at all.
Just because something has an NSN does not mean it’s authorized. The only authorized lubes, for the mil, are listed in the TM’s.
Would you prefer that unserviceable weapon stay in the field?
I think he is saying that a bad rifle beats no rifle.
Unless that rifle malfunctions and an agent is injured or killed then the headline would be “CBP issues unserviceable and dangers weapons and puts officers lives at risk.”
I'm curious on how often is this type of inspection conducted? How many rifles were pulled from service last year from these stations?
It's less about armorers than it is about the system/culture from which they matriculate, which is, across the various warrior institutions (keyword), a "don't fix it until it's broke" model. Process-driven, not product-driven. 12 years in, 4+ as an outside trainer (able to throw up the occasional social-finger salute at folks with multiple rockers and glittery stuff on their collars), which included a left-to-right/top-to-bottom sweep of every armory in the GCE...the US military's overall model holds true: successful because it's the least incompetent, not the most competent. The armorers that are genuinely proactive are hamstrung by a system/workflow/process that values lock-step over function; not their fault, but the results are what they are, regardless of any blame-storming one'd care to do.
As with so many other things, armorers end up being the "public" face of their commodity area to the end-users
Point being, I'd not make an attempt to alter your feelings toward what was said, but assert that what was said about the workaday mil armory/armorer isn't without objective merit.
Also, RE: "Would you prefer...?" No preferences were stated. A series of questions was asked, including "Do you dispute that deadlining 40% of of rifles issued to a organization that works with a standard of one rifle per three agents is a problem?" Perhaps a bit superfluous, as I'd have a hard time imagining that kind of failure rate to have been assessed while those doing the work belting out stanzas from that "Everything is Awesome" tune from the Lego Movie (how far off am I in presuming that you're probably personally and professionally appalled by it...?)...
...but it also didn't even suggest in the slightest that a known NO-GO weapon being put back in the field would be seen as preferred, or as a superlative, except by the bean-countingest of bean-counting Poindexters who's pockets are empty of f@@ks.
Oh....and except by those who haven't striven to be better than their public school reading programs....
You or your colleagues surely didn't go all Johnny Appleseed and create the situation. The situation, however, rates a few shots to the running lamps....though it should be borne in mind that the folks who ARE working in good faith to do what they can to expose OR fix it most likely rate remaining unpunched.
5pins: Fair enough, but to be fully fair the current headline would be "Agents Killed Because CBP Lacks Rifles to Give Them." In other words, no matter what is done here it could easily turn out badly.
Now, as an armorer, you have to do your job, and if a rifle is truly unserviceable you have no choice but to suggest it be pulled from service. However, if I were the local CBP commander I wouldn't agree to take rifles out of service if no replacements were available and I thought the defects weren't bad enough to justify immediate removal.
Nor would I care much about whether a lubricant was authorized. I've never been the CBP, but I spent enough time in the Army not to care what lubricants the Army authorized (we both never were supplied with such lubricants--we were expected to buy our own--and had to remove any trace of them before handing our rifles into the arms rooms in any case). What I would care about is that the rifles had enough lubricating oil/grease on them to keep working.
However, all of that is focusing on the details. The real issue here is that the CBP's current system for the maintenance of rifles is obviously not working. The agents might be irritated at you guys, and you guys irritated at the agents, but neither of you are responsible for the mess. This is a leadership issue. The system needs to be changed to help ensure that those rifles are properly maintained and available because in the long run the current system is going to get folks killed.
I'm hearing concerns from officers in the field about using pool rifles. Specifically liability. Just like what I wrote about and I'm getting more and more corroborating stories.
#RESIST
Reply With Quote