View Full Version : Fake knights sights?
I won a rear site off eBay, just got them today, they don't have any KAC markings on them. I got a micro set from a member off here, they are marked. I'm worried the one I got are fake. Are the knights rear all marked as such?
Thanks,
Donald 376253762737626376253762737626
Those are some real blurry pictures on my phone. Do you have some with better lighting and resolution?
Mysteryman
02-08-16, 21:37
Coming from flea bay, my bet is they're fake.
MM
Don't buy gun parts off eBay. Like 10 years ago.
There are plenty of legit KAC sights on Ebay.
But those pictures are just too damn small to say one way or the other.
Sorry. Technology hates me. Try these. 376303762937628
Boba Fett v2
02-08-16, 22:18
Hard to tell without higher res images. KAC has been known to not mark certain parts and their sights are no exception, especially with some of the older KAC stuff out there. At first glance they seem legit, but again you'll have to provide some better pics. Try to get some shots of the underside as well as the tension screws and markings on the windage knob and elevation turret.
Hard to tell without higher res images. KAC has been known to not mark certain parts and their sights are no exception, especially with some of the older KAC stuff out there. At first glance they seem legit, but again you'll have to provide some better pics. Try to get some shots of the underside as well as the tension screws and markings on the windage knob and elevation turret.
Think it's the website that is resizing them.
http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/image203.jpeg
http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/image204.jpeg
http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/image205.jpeg
Don't buy gun parts off eBay. Like 10 years ago.
I've had some luck over the years on eBay. I ASSume most things are fake, but for $61 it was worth seeing. And eBay offers a buyer protection, so if they are fake I'll get my money back. I know the USMC marked sights are questionable, I remember reading kevinB's input on those.
Boba Fett v2
02-08-16, 22:41
http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/image205.jpeg
Those appear to be legit sights. I wouldn't lose sleep, OP. Run them, and run them hard.
I can say with confidence that is a legitimate KAC product. I own the same version among others and it has identical tooling marks, proper screws and identical adjustment markings.
Or they're immaculate fakes.
Those appear to be legit sights. I wouldn't lose sleep, OP. Run them, and run them hard.
Great. Thanks.
I can say with confidence that is a legitimate KAC product. I own the same version among others and it has identical tooling marks, proper screws and identical adjustment markings.
Or they're immaculate fakes.
The no KAC marks worried me. I mean they look good, everything is well machined and isn't sloppy. But everything else I have from KAC is marked. Live and learn. Thanks for the input. For $61 it was worth the risk.
http://www.knightarmco.com/portfolio/rear-flip-sight/?cate_cm=military&term=sights-military&features=rear-flip-sight
I was thinking they looked fake but the KAC site is showing that unmarked sight. Good score.
Think it's the website that is resizing them.
http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/image203.jpeg
Those look legit.
Failure2Stop
02-09-16, 08:21
I don't see anything that stands out as incorrect or share identifying features of known fakes/airsoft.
Are the USMC-marked KAC sights fakes or illegally procured?
As this one, for example:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Knights-Armament-Company-KAC-200M-600M-Micro-Back-Up-Iron-Sight-BUIS-USMC-25650-/172086553965?hash=item2811286d6d:g:JcsAAOSwuYVWoO6N
Boba Fett v2
02-09-16, 09:18
Are the USMC-marked KAC sights fakes or illegally procured?
As this one, for example:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Knights-Armament-Company-KAC-200M-600M-Micro-Back-Up-Iron-Sight-BUIS-USMC-25650-/172086553965?hash=item2811286d6d:g:JcsAAOSwuYVWoO6N
Real and illegally procured according to KAC reps. Doesn't stop people from buying them though. I'm sure Airsoft grade fakes of the USMC sights have been replicated by now.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
556BlackRifle
02-09-16, 10:10
I don't buy stuff like that off ebay or even Amazon. Chicom knockoffs or licensed airsoft versions marketed as the real deal are not uncommon. If the price is too good to be true, it probably is....
I don't see anything that stands out as incorrect or share identifying features of known fakes/airsoft.
Thanks! I just hadn't seen sights from you guys with out markings. Even my micro sights have them.
Real and illegally procured according to KAC reps. Doesn't stop people from buying them though. I'm sure Airsoft grade fakes of the USMC sights have been replicated by now.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
This is why I won't buy any USMC marked sights. I don't support selling stolen equipment. I'd rather pay full retail and buy direct from KAC then buy something like that.
Are the USMC-marked KAC sights fakes or illegally procured?
As this one, for example:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Knights-Armament-Company-KAC-200M-600M-Micro-Back-Up-Iron-Sight-BUIS-USMC-25650-/172086553965?hash=item2811286d6d:g:JcsAAOSwuYVWoO6N
I got a KAC Micro 600 sight from Ebay myself, I just looked at the photos on the KAC web page and they are identical, and I could see the KAC logo and KAC stamp, both are on the top. You can almost see the USMC stamp on the front of the sight in their picture. The one that is pictured above on 7.62NATO's post is from the same seller I got mine from, he guarantees them to be originals. Where he gets them I have no idea. I mounted mine on the rifle and they work just fine. Also from Ebay I just received a NIB KAC rail for my new Colt AR15A4, it's completely legit and I paid $150 for it. There are some good deals on Ebay you just have to know what you buying and do your homework before pushing that bid button....
Failure2Stop
02-09-16, 11:18
Are the USMC-marked KAC sights fakes or illegally procured?
As this one, for example:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Knights-Armament-Company-KAC-200M-600M-Micro-Back-Up-Iron-Sight-BUIS-USMC-25650-/172086553965?hash=item2811286d6d:g:JcsAAOSwuYVWoO6N
Illicitly acquired.
There have been 0 sales of 25650-1 (USMC marked, hex cross-screw, in contract bulk bag) to anyone other than military end-users.
Illicitly acquired.
There have been 0 sales of 25650-1 (USMC marked, hex cross-screw, in contract bulk bag) to anyone other than military end-users.
Just out of curiosity I went through Ebay and contacted the dealer that has these sights for sale. I asked him to comment on the authenticity of the KAC sights he was selling. His response was that they were 100% legit, not stolen from the military, he stated he buy's them from a broker and that they are perfectly legal. I bought one of these from him a few months ago and they work just fine, they came in a sealed bag with instructions on sighting and general use. If what he's is selling is so illicitly obtained and illegally sold then DOD or KAC should investigate and track this guy down. Seeing how they are openly sold on the net, maybe no cares.....
Boba Fett v2
02-09-16, 19:54
Just out of curiosity I went through Ebay and contacted the dealer that has these sights for sale. I asked him to comment on the authenticity of the KAC sights he was selling. His response was that they were 100% legit, not stolen from the military, he stated he buy's them from a broker and that they are perfectly legal. I bought one of these from him a few months ago and they work just fine, they came in a sealed bag with instructions on sighting and general use. If what he's is selling is so illicitly obtained and illegally sold then DOD or KAC should investigate and track this guy down. Seeing how they are openly sold on the net, maybe no cares.....
It's been stated before, but apparently there's been an ongoing investigation and KAC reps aren't at liberty to discuss the details of this investigation on an open public forum. I'm sure Jack will come along soon enough to confirm, deny or call me a fukcface.
Failure2Stop
02-09-16, 19:56
Just out of curiosity I went through Ebay and contacted the dealer that has these sights for sale. I asked him to comment on the authenticity of the KAC sights he was selling. His response was that they were 100% legit, not stolen from the military, he stated he buy's them from a broker and that they are perfectly legal. I bought one of these from him a few months ago and they work just fine, they came in a sealed bag with instructions on sighting and general use. If what he's is selling is so illicitly obtained and illegally sold then DOD or KAC should investigate and track this guy down. Seeing how they are openly sold on the net, maybe no cares.....
There are several active investigations about these. If you provide his pertinent details I will be sure to pass them into the investigating agencies.
As far as "nobody cares", I care, and take umbrage that people think that it's fine that others profit from our tax money spent directly on the warfighter.
These aren't grey area items. They were, at some point, stolen from the military. Maybe it wasn't the last person in possession, but the moment they were removed from government control, they were stolen, and that is the only way those get to the open market.
It's been stated before, but apparently there's been an ongoing investigation and KAC reps aren't at liberty to discuss the details of this investigation on an open public forum. I'm sure Jack will come along soon enough to confirm, deny or call me a fukcface.
So let me see if I have this right. You can buy one of these sights directly from KAC (Not USMC marked) but not from Ebay. Anyone one of these sights with the USMC markings should be considered illicitly obtained (stolen)?? Is this correct??
Boba Fett v2
02-09-16, 20:12
So let me see if I have this right. You can buy one of these sights directly from KAC (Not USMC marked) but not from Ebay. Anyone one of these sights with the USMC markings should be considered illicitly obtained (stolen)?? Is this correct??
Yup. But considering the sheer number of these things floating around out there, there are a lot of folks using illicitly obtained items. All my KAC sights have been purchased through KAC, authorized dealers or seemingly vetted forum members, so my conscious is clear. ;) And yes, you can buy legit KAC sights from eBay as well. ecop! (http://stores.ebay.com/eCop-Police-Supply) is a good example of a legit KAC dealer on eBay.
There are several active investigations about these. If you provide his pertinent details I will be sure to pass them into the investigating agencies.
As far as "nobody cares", I care, and take umbrage that people think that it's fine that others profit from our tax money spent directly on the warfighter.
These aren't grey area items. They were, at some point, stolen from the military. Maybe it wasn't the last person in possession, but the moment they were removed from government control, they were stolen, and that is the only way those get to the open market.
Well I want to make something clear, that is that I would never buy stolen property, government or not. Like me I'm sure that others that have bought these sights had absolutely no idea about any of this. I have not seen anything being posted here or anywhere else regarding this. As far as this guy's information, I went to eBay and used the ask the seller a question portion of his add. I was that simple....
Failure2Stop
02-09-16, 20:27
So let me see if I have this right. You can buy one of these sights directly from KAC (Not USMC marked) but not from Ebay. Anyone one of these sights with the USMC markings should be considered illicitly obtained (stolen)?? Is this correct??
Correct.
The USMC marked ones were sold ONLY to the military.
Well I want to make something clear, that is that I would never buy stolen property, government or not. Like me I'm sure that others that have bought these sights had absolutely no idea about any of this. I have not seen anything being posted here or anywhere else regarding this. As far as this guy's information, I went to eBay and used the ask the seller a question portion of his add. I was that simple....
This issue has been discussed numerous times, here and elsewhere, in the past.
This issue has been discussed numerous times, here and elsewhere, in the past.
So that means that everybody knows!!!!
So that means that everybody knows!!!!
Expect a call from USMC C.I.D. Might as well give your contact info to F2S.
So that means that everybody knows!!!!
Well... obviously not, but it's certainly nothing new. Your post made it sound like you were skeptical because "you" never seen it discussed here or elsewhere before.
Expect a call from USMC C.I.D. Might as well give your contact info to F2S.
7.62NATO, USMC C.I.D can contact me when ever they want, M4Carbine has my contact info, I'll be more than glad to direct them to Ebay, Gunbroker, GunsAmerica and elsewhere where they will find KAC sights being sold. I'm not selling them so I have nothing worry about...
Well... obviously not, but it's certainly nothing new. Your post made it sound like you were skeptical because "you" never seen it discussed here or elsewhere before.
It is new to me!!!
Boba Fett v2
02-09-16, 21:43
7.62NATO, USMC C.I.D can contact me when ever they want, M4Carbine has my contact info, I'll be more than glad to direct them to Ebay, Gunbroker, GunsAmerica and elsewhere where they will find KAC sights being sold. I'm not selling them so I have nothing worry about...
They won't call you. They'll send a SWAT team.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
They won't call you. They'll send a SWAT team.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
This will be like the last stand at the Alamo. LOL
Funny I was in a gun store yesterday and in the case was one of these rear sights marked USMC. Still in the Knights package with a knight sticker on the front.
Boba Fett v2
02-09-16, 21:55
Funny I was in a gun store yesterday and in the case was one of these rear sights marked USMC. Still in the Knights package with a knight sticker on the front.
Seen 'em at gun shows too.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
Seen 'em at gun shows too.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
I've seen a lot of them around at well respect dealers who don't handle used item, new stock only. They aren't shady what so ever, and only order from major distributors. I can think of at least 2 dealers in Tucson alone that stock them fairly regularly along with other KAC products.
I've seen a lot of them around at well respect dealers who don't handle used item, new stock only. They aren't shady what so ever, and only order from major distributors. I can think of at least 2 dealers in Tucson alone that stock them fairly regularly along with other KAC products.
Yea" the Marine Swat team is going to get them too LOL
Boba Fett v2
02-09-16, 22:16
Yea" the Marine Swat team is going to get them too LOL
It's not the Marines I'd be worried about. It's Trey's personal assault team led by The Jack L.
Get it? Jack L? Jackal?
That was a poorly executed joke.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
Correct.
The USMC marked ones were sold ONLY to the military.
However, the military can declare them excess or scrap, and dispose of them through DRMO....
So, the ones sold on ebay and elsewhere can be perfectly legal and not stolen.
Failure2Stop
02-10-16, 08:45
However, the military can declare them excess or scrap, and dispose of them through DRMO....
So, the ones sold on ebay and elsewhere can be perfectly legal and not stolen.
They cannot be disposed of through DRMO as there is a current acquisitions contract on them. If they are not fit for service, they are to be de-mil'd and scrapped.
Sold new in unopened packaging is about as far from that state as one can get.
Failure2Stop
02-10-16, 08:47
I've seen a lot of them around at well respect dealers who don't handle used item, new stock only. They aren't shady what so ever, and only order from major distributors. I can think of at least 2 dealers in Tucson alone that stock them fairly regularly along with other KAC products.
It happens.
Not everyone knows the story on them and are tricked into buying stolen items.
Failure2Stop
02-10-16, 08:52
To be clear, neither the Government or I really care about the single sight that some LCpl sells to his buddy that he was "given" due to poor asset control by the armory.
What really matters is the thousands that are stolen at a time and sold in bulk. Those people know exactly what they are doing and those people f**king suck.
They cannot be disposed of through DRMO as there is a current acquisitions contract on them. If they are not fit for service, they are to be de-mil'd and scrapped.
Sold new in unopened packaging is about as far from that state as one can get.
It shouldn't be disposed of through sale, they should be more focused on the "R" in DRMO. However, depending on the DRMO site sometimes they do just dispose of it through sale.
Government waste? Maybe, but it happens.
If someone has a USMC KAC sight, I have a Matech for trade. I picked up at end of last deployment. Supply told me to that they didn't want it back. Hope that doesn't make me a thief.....
I'm joking. Just because an expendable item saw service, it doesn't make the owner a thief.
It happens.
Not everyone knows the story on them and are tricked into buying stolen items.
This.
I bought two when they first hit the market, not knowing anything about the back story. Ended up getting a couple of offers I couldn't refuse and sold/traded them away, and then learned about the back-story on these. Ooops.
I like the Magpul MBUS Pro series sights better anyway.
Failure2Stop
02-10-16, 14:12
If someone has a USMC KAC sight, I have a Matech for trade. I picked up at end of last deployment. Supply told me to that they didn't want it back. Hope that doesn't make me a thief.....
I'm joking. Just because an expendable item saw service, it doesn't make the owner a thief.
It would not make you a "thief" in common perception, but it would make you in possession of stolen government property. It would also make the supply clerk likely to be charged under Articles 108 and 121 of the UCMJ, but would likely just be an NJP due to the relatively low cost.
The USMC sights are not "expendable items". The Matech may be, I don't know as I don't know the language in their contract of if they were a simple COTS buy with a different fund source.
On the civil side, this is covered by the 9-66.000 series: http://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-9-66000-protection-government-property
Here are some pertinent snippets:
1641. Concept -- "Sell, Convey And Dispose Of Government Property Without Authority"
The offense of selling, conveying or disposing of government property without authority can be seen simply as one form of knowing conversion. Section 641 of Title 18, however, contains a separate prohibition against this conduct. To prove a violation of this prohibition the United States must show: that the defendant sold, conveyed or disposed of; property belonging to the United States; without authority to do so; and with knowledge that he did not have authority to do so. See, e.g., United States v. Denmon, 483 F.2d 1093 (8th Cir. 1973); United States v. Sher, 418 F.2d 914 (9th Cir. 1969); United States v. Souza, 304 F.2d 274 (9th Cir. 1962).
It is not necessary, however, for the government to prove that the defendant knew the property belonged to the United States as part of the prosecution under this section. See United States v. Denmon, 483 F.2d at 1095. Nor must the government show that the property was stolen from the United States. The government is not required to show how a defendant obtained possession of this property in a prosecution for sale of government property. See United States v. Sher, 418 F.2d at 915.
1642. Concept -- Receiving, Concealing Or Retaining Stolen Property
Section 641 of Title 18 also prohibits receipt of stolen government property. There are five elements to the offense: the defendant must receive, conceal or retain; stolen property; belonging to the United States; knowing that the property has been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted; and with the intent to convert that property to his own use or gain. See United States v. Fench, 470 F.2d 1234 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 909 (1972); Teel v. United States, 407 F.2d 604 (8th Cir. 1969).
At the outset, it should be noted that the conduct proscribed by this section is set forth in the disjunctive. Thus, a defendant violates the law when he either "receives, " "conceals" or "retains" stolen property. None of these words are terms of art and they should be given their normal construction.
The intent requirement of this section presents more serious problems. Prosecutions for receiving stolen property require proof of a compound state of mind. First, the defendant must know that the property he has received, concealed or retained is stolen. Note, however, that the defendant need not know that the property was stolen from the United States. See Baker v. United States, 429 F.2d 1278 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 957 (1970). Ownership of the property by the United States is simply a jurisdictional requirement and is not relevant to the criminal intent needed to violate the law.
The defendant must also act with the intent to convert the property to his own use. Thus, this offense is a specific intent crime. Proof of this intent, however, does not require evidence showing that the defendant actually derived some benefit from the property. This element is satisfied merely by showing that the defendant intended to convert some property to his personal gain. See United States v. Hinds, 662 F.2d 362, 369 n. 15 (5th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1022 (1982).
No shit. Your KAC sight is else an expendable item. So you find it your duty to throw this crap in the face of every soldier who has deployed, who has extra gear left over from their service to our Country. Some people need to get a life.
If there is a guy selling dozens of these, NIW, yeah, it needs to be looked into. But application of this verbage as a blanket over the military community is offensive. It pisses me off.
Failure2Stop
02-10-16, 16:31
No shit. Your KAC sight is else an expendable item.
It appears that our definition of "expendable" is different.
Mine comes from AR 735-5, in which the sights meet the criteria for "Durable Property":
7–6. Durable property
Durable property is personal property that is not consumed in use, does not require property book accountability, but
because of its unique characteristics requires control when issued to the user. The following classes or types of
property will be coded durable and responsibility assigned as follows:
a. All hand tools in Federal supply classes (FSC) 5110, 5120, 5130, 5133, 5136, 5140, 5180, 5210, 5220, and 5280
with a unit cost of $50.00 or more, but less than $300. When the unit of issue contains more than one item (such as,
package, box, dozen, and so forth and the cost of a single item (unit of measurement) is less than $50.00, the hand tool
will be treated as an expendable item at the user level, even though it is coded as durable in the AMDF contained on
FEDLOG.
b. Personal property having a unit cost over $300, but less than $5,000, assigned a CIIC of "U" or "7,” and a RICC
of “0."
c. Nonconsumable supply class 8 items as limited by AR 40–61, and not otherwise coded with an ARC of "N"
(nonexpendable) in the AMDF contained on FEDLOG.
d. Commercial and fabricated items similar to those items coded with an ARC of "D" (durable) in the AMDF
contained on FEDLOG.
e. Audiovisual production master material and copies that are accounted for under AR 25–1.
f. Cellular phones, pagers, and research in motion (RIM) Blackberry units with a unit cost of less than $1,000.
g. Software.
Source: http://army.com/sites/army.com/files/r735_5_d20050228.pdf
So you find it your duty to throw this crap in the face of every soldier who has deployed, who has extra gear left over from their service to our Country. Some people need to get a life.
I spent plenty of time in service to my country in deployments, and I too left service with expendable items that were not unit assets.
As I have said before, I'm not worried about that, and it would be a pretty pitiful existence running around pointing fingers at people that retained items that were essentially given to them.
I even extend that concept to the individual that keeps a rear USMC marked sight under the impression that everybody is ok with him keeping it right along with his extra set of boots, some magazines he found, and a set of flight gloves.
I don't find pleasure in screaming about stolen KAC sights on EBay, but when a dude is moving dozens of them along with other military issued stuff, he's doing something wrong, or is getting them from somebody that is doing something wrong.
If there is a guy selling dozens of these, NIW, yeah, it needs to be looked into. But application of this verbage as a blanket over the military community is offensive. It pisses me off.
I didn't write the regulations or the rules, but I know of them, and I disseminated the information in an applicable thread.
I don't know how that applies to the "military community", or how the statement that people that are stealing stuff, are, indeed, stealing stuff is offensive.
I didn't initiate this course of the discussion, I answered direct challenges to my statements; statements that I believe to be true.
I didn't intend to offend or "piss off" anyone, but simply back my statements with what I believe to be supporting information.
So you find it your duty to throw this crap in the face of every soldier who has deployed, who has extra gear left over from their service to our Country. Some people need to get a life.
Why don't you go ph-ck yourself? F2S is a stand-up guy who has bled for our country and has some awards to prove it. He is personally known by multiple members and one of the good guys.
You on the other hand, come across as an asshole keyboard commando. Why don't you STFU unless you know what you are talking about.
Voodoochild
02-10-16, 17:05
Why don't you go ph-ck yourself? F2S is a stand-up guy who has bled for our country and has some awards to prove it. He is personally known by multiple members and one of the good guys.
You on the other hand, come across as an asshole keyboard commando. Why don't you STFU unless you know what you are talking about.
Ease back on the throttle Ice Man. Don't get your self in trouble take a deep breath and step away for a bit and clear your head.
Why don't you go ph-ck yourself?
You on the other hand, come across as an asshole keyboard commando.
OK "killer"… kettle black? Dork. I didn't question F2S's credibility, service or his reputation. People argue and bitch. It is the internet. Holy shit, really?
ANYWAY… my gripe isn't with F2S. It was the delivery. Nowhere did I question his service. I understand that he has profits to protect. That is cool, I respect that. I have an issue with your average Joe being placed in the same category as the ebay humper. It pisses me off. I think it is disrespectful. Whether that is F2S's intention or not, that is how I feel about the subject.
I have read (as many of us already have) about this subject to nauseam. Every one of these threads one can read multiple statements from guys freaking out about a USMC KAC sight (I have a couple myself, got a great deal on them too!). Yet, any person I have met who is passionate about our profession/hobby has multiple items on their rifle, or in their range boxes, or in their ammo cans/lockers, that were originally paid for by Uncle Sam… whether they know it or not. Heck, how many member on this forum have a M9 bayonet, Gerber, Benchmade, Surefire, Otis cleaning kit, Matech sight, KAC RAS, Sop-Mod stock, cans of ammo, muzzle devices ect., ect., where the owner owner knows that the origin is questionable?
Yes, I agree, the guy humping dozens of USMC KAC sights on ebay is likely a thief, and knows that the origin of these sights is questionable. My point is that most of the persons who repeated suggest that ownership, sale, or purchase of these items is on par with theft and deceit is hypocritical at best.
It appears that our definition of "expendable" is different.
Mine comes from AR 735-5, in which the sights meet the criteria for "Durable Property"
I spent plenty of time in service to my country in deployments, and I too left service with expendable items that were not unit assets.
As I have said before, I'm not worried about that, and it would be a pretty pitiful existence running around pointing fingers at people that retained items that were essentially given to them.
I even extend that concept to the individual that keeps a rear USMC marked sight under the impression that everybody is ok with him keeping it right along with his extra set of boots, some magazines he found, and a set of flight gloves.
I don't find pleasure in screaming about stolen KAC sights on EBay, but when a dude is moving dozens of them along with other military issued stuff, he's doing something wrong, or is getting them from somebody that is doing something wrong.
I didn't write the regulations or the rules, but I know of them, and I disseminated the information in an applicable thread.
I don't know how that applies to the "military community", or how the statement that people that are stealing stuff, are, indeed, stealing stuff is offensive.
I didn't initiate this course of the discussion, I answered direct challenges to my statements; statements that I believe to be true.
I didn't intend to offend or "piss off" anyone, but simply back my statements with what I believe to be supporting information.
I understand you have profits to protect. Someone doesn't take their time and $$$ to sponsor and moderate an internet forum out of the goodness of their heart. I respect that.
As a person who has extensive military/deployment experience, you also know the tangible reality of how many of these items end up in Joe's possession. The majority of the time, it is far from deceitful. You know that. I have no doubt that you own some cherished "durable goods" that were just shorted of "gifted" to soldiers by their command. One of favorites is a Benchmade that I carried in Iraq, along with the blanket letter from our commander authorizing us to return home with it. The other is a sop mod stock stop used on my Afghanistan deployment M4. It is chewed and beat to hell, it was going to be thrown out. It is on my "go-to" rifle and it is priceless. Some fobbits kept their pristine stocks. I have no doubt a couple found their way onto ebay. Go figure.
FYI- your shenanigans is putting you in the perilous category of becoming disappeared. Moderators of any sort are not compensated for our time here.
I understand you have profits to protect. Someone doesn't take their time and $$$ to sponsor and moderate an internet forum out of the goodness of their heart. I respect that.
As a person who has extensive military/deployment experience, you also know the tangible reality of how many of these items end up in Joe's possession. The majority of the time, it is far from deceitful. You know that. I have no doubt that you own some cherished "durable goods" that were just shorted of "gifted" to soldiers by their command. One of favorites is a Benchmade that I carried in Iraq, along with the blanket letter from our commander authorizing us to return home with it. The other is a sop mod stock stop used on my Afghanistan deployment M4. It is chewed and beat to hell, it was going to be thrown out. It is on my "go-to" rifle and it is priceless. Some fobbits kept their pristine stocks. I have no doubt a couple found their way onto ebay. Go figure.
I didn't state he was compensated.
He does openly represent KAC, while also serving as a moderator. I'm not a rocket scientist....
I'll move on, I apologize for intruding on your venue, Have a nice day.
DreadPirateMoyer
02-10-16, 21:38
I understand you have profits to protect. Someone doesn't take their time and $$$ to sponsor and moderate an internet forum out of the goodness of their heart. I respect that.
As a person who has extensive military/deployment experience, you also know the tangible reality of how many of these items end up in Joe's possession. The majority of the time, it is far from deceitful. You know that. I have no doubt that you own some cherished "durable goods" that were just shorted of "gifted" to soldiers by their command. One of favorites is a Benchmade that I carried in Iraq, along with the blanket letter from our commander authorizing us to return home with it. The other is a sop mod stock stop used on my Afghanistan deployment M4. It is chewed and beat to hell, it was going to be thrown out. It is on my "go-to" rifle and it is priceless. Some fobbits kept their pristine stocks. I have no doubt a couple found their way onto ebay. Go figure.
Questioning Jack's credibility is a step too far. Your other shenanigans are already wearing thin, but that passive aggressive statement is a bad joke. Yeah, some people do moderate this forum out of the goodness of their heart, because they like the community and want to see it thrive. Jack has all that KAC stuff in his signature for the opposite reason of what you think: to be completely transparent for the sake of the community and so as to avoid any conflicts of interest or weird ethical quandries.
And before you get into some semantics pissing match, yes, implying that Jack's moderation is somehow subtly done for the real reason of benefiting KAC or his bottom line is Bush League, USDA Grade-A garbage, and is definitely a credibility attack. The moderators here do a damn fine job and quite frankly, Jack's responses here were reasonable as hell. They warranted nothing of what you said.
What a sad, shameful pile of crap.
Anyway, I think Jack's statement is good policy. Random one-offs from gun shows or friends or deployments aren't a big deal. Moving inventory is. That about sums it up.
"Gosh" and Ive'e been upset about the millions of dollars given to the New-Iraq Army in the form of equipment, that has found it's way into the black market over there. The Marine base that after being vacated and turned over to the Iraqis was looted by them. "But we are concerned over some possibly stolen sights". Come on guy's lets give ourselves a break.
Concerning the pressing issue, I think we all agree that the real culprits would be the guy selling these sights in mass on the web, not the vet that brought one back to put on his favorite AR, or the guy like me that bought one not knowing anything about this issue. I urge everybody to keep all this in perspective...
.... wow, how did I question anyone's credibility? He is a representative of KAC. He is a moderator. Surely, there is pleasure.... it is also smart business. I'm sure Jack would tell you the same thing. The thread is dealing with movement of stolen USGI or faked KAC sights. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to acknowledge that he has a vested interest regarding the issue. That is common sense, I'm not the one who is butt hurt over it.... For f's sake, as I stated at least twice before, I respect that. I did not suggest that he was dishonest,.
I think it is an interesting topic... that line between durable and expendable items. Yes, there are regs., and then there is what tangibly occurs. Maybe it might be a little more interesting than the same tired Internet thread, where people freak out and suggest anyone with a USMC sight is stealing from Uncle Sam and somwhow a soldier somewhere is deprived as a result. Seriously, Google search KAC USMC, and you will find the same tired thread beaten to death dozens of times over.
But that is construed as "shenanigans," with a passive aggressive motive, perpetrated by a keyboard commando. Gotta' love the Internet.
ColtSeavers
02-10-16, 23:15
Good god, this thread's turned to shit.
Seadonkey, seriously, stop being obtuse and stop posting, or continue to do so so as many people as possible can see you for what you really are.
Great, you had the last word. Now see yourself clear of this thread.
.... wow, how did I question anyone's credibility? He is a representative of KAC. He is a moderator. Surely, there is pleasure.... it is also smart business. I'm sure Jack would tell you the same thing. The thread is dealing with movement of stolen USGI or faked KAC sights. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to acknowledge that he has a vested interest regarding the issue. That is common sense, I'm not the one who is butt hurt over it.... For f's sake, as I stated at least twice before, I respect that. I did not suggest that he was dishonest,.
I think it is an interesting topic... that line between durable and expendable items. Yes, there are regs., and then there is what tangibly occurs. Maybe it might be a little more interesting than the same tired Internet thread, where people freak out and suggest anyone with a USMC sight is stealing from Uncle Sam and somwhow a soldier somewhere is deprived as a result. Seriously, Google search KAC USMC, and you will find the same tired thread beaten to death dozens of times over.
But that is construed as "shenanigans," with a passive aggressive motive, perpetrated by a keyboard commando. Gotta' love the Internet.
Boba Fett v2
02-11-16, 17:02
http://www.quickmeme.com/img/5b/5b7e0fdd39178dc8d4148618607fc96fb8908a1ea62c04119630f50f349c4ce1.jpg
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.