View Full Version : Renamed: SCAR seeing action...apparently not with DEA
thopkins22
09-14-09, 21:24
In Afghanistan though....
Looks like the .308, first appearing at 1:34.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-boImGp1UY&feature=sub
Must be cool to have a high speed low drag assignment. Knowing my luck if I got into the DEA, I would be at a desk doing lots and lots of paperwork.
If i remember correctly, the guys in Multicam are the DEA, and the Guys in the AOR( digi desert) with scars are seals.
MisterWilson
09-14-09, 22:06
I don't understand why we're doing that, yet in the same conflict we're reimbursing other poppy farmers when we accidentally bomb their crop.
What's the difference?
Btw, my money's on it being a 5.56...
RogerinTPA
09-14-09, 22:21
It was later reported during the same report, that it was a Joint Task Force involving SOF and DEA, to hit the drugs to limit funding to the Taliban. The guy with the SCAR looked like he was MARSOC, with the Marine digital cammo. FWIW, a lot of SOCOM folks are running around that AO in Muliticam.
variablebinary
09-14-09, 22:23
Hard to tell if it is -H or -L from the angle
To me it looks like it kicked a bit much for a 5.56
variablebinary
09-15-09, 01:39
To me it looks like it kicked a bit much for a 5.56
That's what I was thinking. Those AR15's look like LWRC's at a glance. As a child of the Cold War it's neat to see new toys being fielded.
welchtactical
09-15-09, 03:30
DEA gun:
http://www.lwrci.com/DEAPackageSpecificationsInformation/tabid/97/Default.aspx
The special DEA configuration M6A2 has all of the standard features of the M6A2 plus some added features found only with this package. The standard features found in our rifles include our patented self-regulating short-stroke gas-piston system, NiCorr treated hammer-forged barrels, and nickel-boron coated bolt group. In addition the DEA configuration will feature our Advanced Combat Bolt (ACB), Enhanced Fire Control Group, a YHM Phantom flash hider, and comes with a padded cordura gun case w/ LWRCI logo, a Viking Tactics VTAC padded sling, and three 30 round P-Mags.
decodeddiesel
09-17-09, 09:57
I know this is about SCARs used in A-stan, but after looking at the LWRC specs on the "DEA Special" I can't help but wonder, WTF is up with a perm attached flash hider on an agency weapon?
I'm sure the DEA armorers must love that. :rolleyes:
MisterWilson
09-17-09, 10:14
I know this is about SCARs used in A-stan, but after looking at the LWRC specs on the "DEA Special" I can't help but wonder, WTF is up with a perm attached flash hider on an agency weapon?
I'm sure the DEA armorers must love that. :rolleyes:
Probably to save them on paperwork & approval for having an SBR.
As for the armorers, I'd imagine that 1) they're armorers and removing the FH is well within their realm of capabilities, and 2) that they have their rifle already in a decent configuration, so that they don't need to remove the FH often, if at all.
Probably to save them on paperwork & approval for having an SBR.
I don't think this is a huge problem for the DEA.
MisterWilson Quote:
Probably to save them on paperwork & approval for having an SBR.
14.7" w/ permanently attached flash hider
Nope still have to do the paperwork. Must be some other reason.
decodeddiesel
09-17-09, 11:43
Probably to save them on paperwork & approval for having an SBR.
I guess I didn't realize they would be under the NFA since it is a government agency.
As for the armorers, I'd imagine that 1) they're armorers and removing the FH is well within their realm of capabilities, and 2) that they have their rifle already in a decent configuration, so that they don't need to remove the FH often, if at all.
Still though weapons break and need to be serviced. I don't care who's name is on the side of it, given enough rounds it will need to be repaired and serviced.
Admittedly I am not up to speed on the LWRC platform, but I am willing to bet in order to preform basic repairs on the weapon you would have to pull the barrel/flash hider. I was a certified small unit armorer in the Army, and I can tell you that I did not have the capabilities, nor the resources to remove a pinned flash hider. I had shit break all of the time on my units Colt M4 and M4A1s (as well as M249s, M240Bs, MK19s, and M2HBs). Having a pinned flash hider to deal with would turn a 1 hour repair into a 1 day+ repair.
I guess I just don't see why they didn't go with a 16" barrel and an A2 flash hider. :confused: They would be SO much easier to work on and less of a headache in the long run.
Probably to save them on paperwork & approval for having an SBR.
LE/gov aps and transfers don't take anywhere near as long as others.
MisterWilson
09-17-09, 13:54
LE/gov aps and transfers don't take anywhere near as long as others.
But I figured that there's still some manner of jumping through hoops within the agency. But I could be wrong (and often am).
But I figured that there's still some manner of jumping through hoops within the agency. But I could be wrong (and often am).
Within the agency, perhaps. I know that with some folks and purchases, it took longer to do the POs and contracts than it took for BATFE to turn around the paperwork.
Makes me want a M6A2 now lol.
Seeing that makes me miss Garmsir. Still have my FROG suits will all the dust on them.
Iraq Ninja
09-17-09, 17:25
It says that the DEA approved these for private purchase.
The DEA Domestic Configuration LWRCI M6A2 is authorized as a personal purchase duty rifle. A foreign service configuration has also been authorized for use OCONUS.
I don't read it as saying that the DEA will be buying these to issue CONUS. Thus, the perm flash hider makes it easier for a private purchase?
No idea what the foreign config is, but I suspect those are bought by DEA and don't have a perm flash hider and probably full auto.
The press is reporting we now have 80 DEA agents in A Stan.
Failure2Stop
09-17-09, 17:55
Just in case anybody has missed it so far-
The DEA is NOT fielding SCARs.
The SCAR seen in the video appeears to be MSOB
DEA is on LWRC (still)
I think a renaming of the thread would be appropriate.
It was later reported during the same report, that it was a Joint Task Force involving SOF and DEA, to hit the drugs to limit funding to the Taliban. The guy with the SCAR looked like he was MARSOC, with the Marine digital cammo. FWIW, a lot of SOCOM folks are running around that AO in Muliticam.
I did see a news report showing DEA and SF working together to fight the 'stan drug production. I didn't pay enough attention (or didn't see the same report) to pick out the SCARs or LWRCs. Seeing the Marine desert digi-camo does make it seem as Marines were involved but I've seen several printed reports and photos of Seals using different camo patterns, one report showed a squad of Seals using the Army's ACU pattern. So my guess would be that it was probably Seals using Marine camo as the Seals (to my knowledge) have yet to officially adopt one of the new camo patterns, again this is just my guess. What did strike me as unusual was their use of Russian helicopters, this one I could not understand.
decodeddiesel
09-17-09, 19:48
Just in case anybody has missed it so far-
The DEA is NOT fielding SCARs.
The SCAR seen in the video appeears to be MSOB
DEA is on LWRC (still)
I think a renaming of the thread would be appropriate.
Sorry to have contributed to the derailing...
So we have identified the SCAR users as Navy types?
RogerinTPA
09-17-09, 20:19
I did see a news report showing DEA and SF working together to fight the 'stan drug production. I didn't pay enough attention (or didn't see the same report) to pick out the SCARs or LWRCs. Seeing the Marine desert digi-camo does make it seem as Marines were involved but I've seen several printed reports and photos of Seals using different camo patterns, one report showed a squad of Seals using the Army's ACU pattern. So my guess would be that it was probably Seals using Marine camo as the Seals (to my knowledge) have yet to officially adopt one of the new camo patterns, again this is just my guess. What did strike me as unusual was their use of Russian helicopters, this one I could not understand.
Most SOF/SOCOM folks (Army SF, Rangers, Seals, Marine Marsoc, USAF STT) have the latitude to wear whatever they deem is essential to the mission. It could have been a force of several SOF and DEA players or just DEA, with a few SOF sprinkled in the mix. It's anyone's guess as to the makeup and organization of the DEA assault force and not really all that important, as it pertains to the title/subject of the thread, but it is an interesting footnote. My guess on the russian aircraft, I suspect since it was a DEA OP, it was on their dime, and probably leased the chopper and crew, to conduct there missions so as to not tie up US military assets, since they are conducting a "Police Action" and not a military one. FWIW, I've noticed quite a few civilian orgs and the UN, that lease foreign aircraft to perform their particular function, in several war zones and on humanitarian missions.
Most SOF/SOCOM folks (Army SF, Rangers, Seals, Marine Marsoc, USAF STT) have the latitude to wear whatever they deem is essential to the mission. It could have been a force of several SOF and DEA players or just DEA, with a few SOF sprinkled in the mix. It's anyone's guess as to the makeup and organization of the DEA assault force and not really all that important, as it pertains to the title/subject of the thread, but it is an interesting footnote. My guess on the russian aircraft, I suspect since it was a DEA OP, it was on their dime, and probably leased the chopper and crew, to conduct there missions so as to not tie up US military assets, since they are conducting a "Police Action" and not a military one. FWIW, I've noticed quite a few civilian orgs and the UN, that lease foreign aircraft to perform their particular function, in several war zones and on humanitarian missions.
I agree, and I feel SF should have a wide latitude in choosing their gear. I would have thought if SF was involved in these raids that they would have used SOAR aircraft, but I didn't consider DEA operating with out the assistance of the military. Thanks for wideing my thinking. Sorry for the sidetrack.
Those LWRC's are certainly going to be put to the test over there.
Must be cool to have a high speed low drag assignment. Knowing my luck if I got into the DEA, I would be at a desk doing lots and lots of paperwork.
It's the government they work for. There is no such thing as High speed and low drag in government work.
Failure2Stop
09-21-09, 11:25
Sorry to have contributed to the derailing...
So we have identified the SCAR users as Navy types?
To be candid, I am in no position to confirm or deny the identity/unit of those in support of the DEA mission. My point was simply that they appeared to be MARSOC/MSOB (though trying to deduce affiliation based on camo pattern is not the best indicator due to uniform variablilty in theatre) and that the DEA has given no indication of fielding the SCAR at this time.
Must be cool to have a high speed low drag assignment. Knowing my luck if I got into the DEA, I would be at a desk doing lots and lots of paperwork.
Interesting article here http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/70386.html
Agents say DEA is forcing them illegally to work in Afghanistan
By Marisa Taylor | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — As the Obama administration ramps up the Drug Enforcement Administration's presence in Afghanistan, some special-agent pilots contend that they're being illegally forced to go to a combat zone, while others who've volunteered say they're not being properly equipped.
In interviews with McClatchy, more than a dozen DEA agents describe a badly managed system in which some pilots have been sent to Afghanistan under duress or as punishment for bucking their superiors.
Such complaints, so far mostly arising from the DEA's Aviation Division, could complicate the Obama administration's efforts to send dozens of additional DEA agents to Afghanistan as part of a civilian and military personnel "surge" that aims to stabilize the country.
Veteran DEA pilot Daniel Offield has alleged in an employment discrimination complaint he was told if he refuses to go to Afghanistan in July he'll be demoted. The Stockton, Calif., agent asked for a reprieve because he was in the process of adopting two special needs children and offered to serve his required temporary duty in other countries.
Another agent, David Beavers, told McClatchy that he was ordered in July 2007 to prepare to go to Afghanistan in two weeks while he was on bereavement leave after his mother-in-law died. To avoid going, the Orlando, Fla., pilot decided to retire early.
Both men have flown for the DEA in Latin American countries wracked by drug violence, but they say service in a combat zone should be treated as voluntary because they're not military personnel.
"You could say that the war on drugs is dangerous," said Beavers, a DEA pilot for more than 20 years. "But it's not quite like Afghanistan, where you can get your legs blown off by an (improvised explosive device)."
Agents said supervisors told them that working in dangerous countries is part of their job requirements, but Offield's Sacramento-based lawyer said such compulsory duty violates a 2008 federal law that requires civilian personnel to serve voluntarily.
"The DEA is not only violating the law," said attorney Richard Margarita, a former DEA agent and county prosecutor. "They could very well be sending Dan Offield to his death."
The Obama administration has said it doesn't expect problems with finding volunteers for Afghanistan missions, despite an ambitious strategy that calls for sending hundreds of additional civilian personnel. The plan already faces long odds in a country of resurgent Islamic militants, endemic corruption and widespread opium trafficking.
At least one other agency has faced similar complaints about compulsory duty.
Two years ago, the State Department told U.S. diplomats that they might be forced to serve in Iraq in the largest call-up since Vietnam. The announcement triggered an outcry, but the department eventually found enough volunteers to fill the jobs.
DEA officials with the Aviation Division referred questions about the Afghanistan assignments to agency headquarters. Garrison Courtney, a DEA spokesman who responded to written questions, said that agents aren't being demoted, because even if they lose their pilot position, the salary is the same.
Courtney said pilots "are expected to support DEA's global mission," and that the Aviation Division "does not have the luxury" of allowing them to pick where they fly on temporary duty because many of the more than 100 pilots don't have the experience to fly in Afghanistan.
He said if pilots don't want to go, they have "the option to transfer back to an enforcement division and conduct domestic drug enforcement investigations."
Courtney noted that DEA missions in Peru and Colombia "pose similar challenges" as Afghanistan because of the countries' mountainous terrain.
More than a dozen agents told McClatchy that the experiences of the two pilots aren't isolated and have continued over the past several years. The other agents asked to remain anonymous, saying they fear retaliation from the DEA.
"There are number of guys who say 'I don't want to go,' but they suck it up and go," one agent said. "What's going to happen is somebody at some point is going to get killed."
One official e-mail sent in 2007 demonstrates the pressure placed on agents to accept their assignments, warning agents that "it is not if, but when" that they'll go to Afghanistan. The e-mail noted: "it is cold and miserable in the winter" in Afghanistan and added that pilots who volunteer might be able to choose what time of year they'll go.
DEA agents said the decision to force some their peers to go to Afghanistan doesn't appear related to a lack of qualified volunteers. One agent said he'd volunteered to go to Afghanistan and went through the required training. His superiors, however, denied his request without explanation. The agent said he knows plenty of others who are willing to go.
"With some people, if you want to go, they won't send you," the agent said. "They use Afghanistan as punishment for agents they don't like."
Offield, a 25-year DEA veteran who oversees marijuana eradication in California's national forests, alleges in his complaint the agency's decision to send him to Afghanistan is part of a larger pattern of harassment based on his age and sexual orientation. He responded to McClatchy's questions through his attorney out of concern that he'd be punished for going outside the chain of command.
Offield, 47, alleges the harassment began soon after he told a colleague that he's gay, although he said he's generally chosen not to discuss his sexual orientation with his colleagues.
The retaliation, he said, became worse after he appeared on an MSNBC news program, where he told reporters that he didn't think the DEA was winning the battle against California's marijuana cultivators. Although he got clearance to appear on the show, Offield said his comments hardened the resolve of his superiors to punish him.
About a month later, he was told he was going to Afghanistan although he'd requested to go elsewhere.
Courtney said the DEA didn't discriminate against Offield and said officials have offered to transfer him back to a street agent job that would allow him to work closer to his home.
He said Offield was punished — his government car was taken away for a week — but only because he didn't respond to his supervisors' e-mails. Margarita, however, said his client couldn't respond immediately to a handful of e-mails because he was on duty and his inbox was full.
John Adler, the president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, said that each federal agency has its own set of policies for overseas duty ,and an agency's ability to send an employee depends on the position description. FBI agents, for example, can be sent on compulsory duty, he said.
"We understand and accept that in national emergencies we have to go," he said. "But an agency crosses the line when they target certain employees and they try to punish them by forcing into an undesirable assignment."
Agents say the duty is made even more difficult because once they arrive in Afghanistan, they're given inadequate equipment.
Pilots said they generally go on two-month tours and are given a machine gun, a semi-automatic pistol and bulletproof vest. Although pilots are required to file flight plans electronically, they aren't given laptop computers.
Courtney said DEA pilots in Afghanistan can use computers in a common work area and that all agents are also given boots, flight suits, survival radios, helmets and other essential equipment.
However, after one agent asked in an August 2007 memo about getting additional equipment, including boots, for a two-month tour, then-Assistant Special Agent in Charge William F. Dionne dismissed the request, saying the agent would only get more equipment if he volunteered for a longer tour, agents familiar with the memo said. Dionne is now the acting special agent in charge of the DEA's Aviation Division.
Yet when four supervisors, including Dionne, traveled on brief trip to Afghanistan in 2005, they spent more than $700 on boots and uniforms for themselves, according to DEA records.
On longer tours, agents complain that they're not issued ammunition or magazines and are forced to borrow them from fellow agents. Ballistic vests aren't fitted for specific agents. Rifles are issued without laser sights and optics like the military has, and personal locator beacons and GPS systems are hard to come by. Some agents said they end up buying thousands of dollars of equipment themselves.
"The DEA does not have enough resources or equipment to get the job done in Afghanistan," one agent said.
The allegations come after McClatchy reported earlier this year on several other management problems within the aviation division. William Brown, the former special agent in charge of the division, stepped down soon after McClatchy revealed that he'd chartered a private plane for the DEA's acting administrator at a cost of $123,000 and had invested in untested planes that agents feared were unsafe.
A permanent replacement for Brown hasn't been named, but DEA agents said that current supervisors continue the practice of forcing some unwilling agents to go to Afghanistan.
I don't think this is a huge problem for the DEA.
The riles advertised on the website are for individual officer purchase, not agency. If the agency owned the rifles it wouldnt matter if they had a happy switch.
One of those two pilots who is mentioned in the article works for my agency now. I will run him down sometime and see what he has to say about the whole thing.
There is also an NCIS agent on SigForum who is in Astan and is issued a SCAR. I'll see if he has seen any of the 7.62 ones around.
Just a few things. I happen to have a few DEA guys living in the same compound as me. All of them were carrying LWRC carbines with what appeared to be 10.5" uppers (I didn't measure them). One of the guys has an LWRC 7.62 REPR with a 12" barrel. I was specifically told that they are issue weapons, not private purchase.
Most of the optics I saw were ACOG 4x32's. The overall impression that I got was that they were happy with the LWRC guns, but one guy did say that the company has been "very accomodating". I was also told that when they return CONUS they are supposed to contact the LWRC rep so that they can examine the weapons and fix any issues.
All of them were carrying LWRC carbines with what appeared to be 10.5" uppers (I didn't measure them). One of the guys has an LWRC 7.62 REPR with a 12" barrel. I was specifically told that they are issue weapons, not private purchase.
Just clarifying that the REPR is now an issue weapon?
Can you find out when the change from personally owned LWRCI's to issue took place?
If this is correct, for such an unproven platform to be issued for use in OEF, that is surprising. Maybe they will start issueing ACR's next ?
Thanks.
I was specifically told that he was issued the weapon (REPR) as were the M6A2's or whatever they call those shorty carbines. I will ask again when they get back to camp.
They also had NVG's, IR lasers, ACOG's, etc....which is all issue as well as their Multicam uniforms.
Just clarifying that the REPR is now an issue weapon?
Can you find out when the change from personally owned LWRCI's to issue took place?
If this is correct, for such an unproven platform to be issued for use in OEF, that is surprising. Maybe they will start issueing ACR's next ?
Thanks.
Ok,
So I talked to the guys today. They told me that the M6A2 and the REPR were issued and not individual purchase. The only issue(s) thus far were magazine related on the REPR. One of the M6A2's I looked at last night had approx. 2500 rounds through it and it looked good. No signs of carrier tilt issues in the lower receiver extension.
Ok,
So I talked to the guys today. They told me that the M6A2 and the REPR were issued and not individual purchase. The only issue(s) thus far were magazine related on the REPR. One of the M6A2's I looked at last night had approx. 2500 rounds through it and it looked good. No signs of carrier tilt issues in the lower receiver extension.
Thanks for the update! :thumbsup:
FMJs-of-Freedom
04-29-10, 19:39
1. It is very uncommon for any fed agency to allow their agents to field private purchase weapons.
2. Fed agencies are exempt from all NFA laws, and are only subject to their own policy on weapons restrictions. They do not fall under departmental purchases like local law enforcement... they buy, the company ships, and they shoot. Just like ordering a box of pens for them.
3. The flash suppressor - it was pinned on because it is rare that something like that ever gets upgraded by a fed agency, they pinned it so it was one less thing that could come loose and fall off. This is a common practice.
parishioner
04-29-10, 20:28
I stumbled across some SCAR action...SEALs I believe.
http://i40.tinypic.com/sqplp0.jpg
http://i41.tinypic.com/mmcs2p.jpg
Here's another Scar in action
thopkins22
05-01-10, 22:49
http://i41.tinypic.com/mmcs2p.jpg
I love that he's taped the rattle out of that stock. I suppose it could be for something else but....
"1. It is very uncommon for any fed agency to allow their agents to field private purchase weapons. "
Not true. I carry one of two everyday.
Must be cool to have a high speed low drag assignment. Knowing my luck if I got into the DEA, I would be at a desk doing lots and lots of paperwork.
Thats exactly what Im worried about...i dont wanna get stuck behind a desk.
If you don't spend time behind a desk when do you expect to write your search warrants, affidavits, subpoenas, reports, OP Plans, prep for trial, etc? For every hour spent doing the "fun stuff" expect 10-12 hours or more in the office writing about it.
I could handle the 10-12 hrs of office work if I still get field time...all I want to do is taskforce.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.