Use of MK23 as an "Offensive Handgun"

[Capp325]

In what capacity does US SOCOM use the MK23? I find it difficult to imagine an offensive scenario where a pistol would be preferable to an SMG or SBR. The only users I can think of are divers, as an SMG/SBR may be too bulky for their needs, but then again, one can think of a more compact pistol than the MK23.

[F22_RaptoR]

well really none anymore. Mark23 never took off.

But if you wanna get an idea of how they probably would have been used, watch Tears Of the Sun with Bruce willis.

Pretty much covert sentry removal etc... The gun was kind of designed to be used with a can, so it would be like a "primary suppressed weapon" type of deal.

M4's and AR15's dont suppress really well (due to super sonic bullet) so the .45 ACP cartridge is good for suppressed guns (no 'compromise' on velocity vs. weight).

But having an extra sub machinegun wasn't really practical due to weight. So handgun + suppressor was the best deal.

[Capp325]

But having an extra sub machinegun wasn't really practical due to weight. So handgun + suppressor was the best deal.
It still doesn't explain why it has to be so big. If all you wanted was a suppressible sidearm, why not use the much smaller USP Tactical (or even USPc Tactical)?

[F22_RaptoR]

Certain requirements, as for round count etc... IIRC the USP has a service life of 20,000 rounds of +P, but the Mark23 needed a service life of 30,000 + rounds of +P for the barrel, and 60,000 rounds for the slide and frame.

There are big steel blocks in the frame that the slide rides on, and i order to keep the strength, the frame needed to be bigger (thicker) for the blocks to stay in. The barrel is 5.78 inches long, which was probably for the range requirement (accurate out to 50 yards/55 meters) without substancial drop etc....

The slide is again, beefy so that it can withstand the high round count.

The gun was made to be able to take a rediculous ammount of high pressure rounds without ANY parts failures, thusly shown when they were proof testing the originals (with Proof loads - meant to break a gun) they ran out of Proof ammunition! (over 17,000 rounds of Proof ammo i think).

The USP's are a very strong design, but just not quite what the Mark23 was designed to take.

[Cadillac Johnson]

In what capacity does US SOCOM use the MK23? I find it difficult to imagine an offensive scenario where a pistol would be preferable to an SMG or SBR.

The short answer is; they dont use the Mk23.

It's a novelty, like a .50 DE, or .700 Nitro. It's fun to shoot, fun to look at, fun to hold, and makes for a good conversation piece.

As a true 'offensive weapon' it doesn't really have a capacity in military applications.

[Capp325]

Certain requirements, as for round count etc... IIRC the USP has a service life of 20,000 rounds of +P, but the Mark23 needed a service life of 30,000 + rounds of +P for the barrel, and 60,000 rounds for the slide and frame.

There are big steel blocks in the frame that the slide rides on, and i order to keep the strength, the frame needed to be bigger (thicker) for the blocks to stay in. The barrel is 5.78 inches long, which was probably for the range requirement (accurate out to 50 yards/55 meters) without substancial drop etc....

The slide is again, beefy so that it can withstand the high round count.

The gun was made to be able to take a rediculous ammount of high pressure rounds without ANY parts failures, thusly shown when they were proof testing the originals (with Proof loads - meant to break a gun) they ran out of Proof ammunition! (over 17,000 rounds of Proof ammo i think).

The USP's are a very strong design, but just not quite what the Mark23 was designed to take.
I understand that MK23 is a more robust design. I guess I'm just questioning the need for all that robustness in a secondary weapon that is only going to see occasional use. MK23 is so large that carrying it in addition to a rifle/carbine seems impractical. I always assumed that MK23 was designed with the purpose of serving as the operator's SOLE weapon in certain scenarios.

[F22_RaptoR]

I understand that MK23 is a more robust design. I guess I'm just questioning the need for all that robustness in a secondary weapon that is only going to see occasional use. MK23 is so large that carrying it in addition to a rifle/carbine seems impractical. I always assumed that MK23 was designed with the purpose of serving as the operator's SOLE weapon in certain scenarios.

no no no, the Mark23 was always designed with the "Primary offencive weapon" in mind, but only as a suppresed platform. Its not really great if you gotta out a bunch of guys.

It was meant for an operator (like a Navy SEAL) to go in and use it to take out patrolls and sentries and such. Not "a weapon so you can fight back to your rifle" type of deal. A gun you can use that has suppression in mind. Again, the M4's dont really have good suppression, and having 2 primary guns (like M4 and MP5) would be WAY to much weight. So they made a highly capable handgun to act as the supressed platform. And lets be honest.... the Mark23 doesn't really weigh that much. Its not much more than my friends SIG, even tho all the weight is at the muzzle end.

Again, watch Tears Of The Sun and it'll make more sence, as thats as close as any "speshul forces" got to using it :p

Its a good movie too!

[Capp325]

The short answer is; they dont use the Mk23.

It's a novelty, like a .50 DE, or .700 Nitro. It's fun to shoot, fun to look at, fun to hold, and makes for a good conversation piece.

As a true 'offensive weapon' it doesn't really have a capacity in military applications.
I would assume that SOCOM does not procure weapons for their value as conversation pieces. SOCOM saw it fit to conduct offensive pistol trials in 1989 and chose the MK23 as the winner, so I'm guessing that there must've been some logical justification for having such a gun in the their inventory, even if the pistol didn't see much real life combat use after all.

[Capp325]

It was meant for an operator (like a Navy SEAL) to go in and use it to take out patrolls and sentries and such. Not "a weapon so you can fight back to your rifle" type of deal. A gun you can use that has suppression in mind. Again, the M4's dont really have good suppression, and having 2 primary guns (like M4 and MP5) would be WAY to much weight. So they made a highly capable handgun to act as the supressed platform.
Okay, I now see what you mean. I suppose size may also be an advantage in the scenario you're describing because it allows one to amount a larger (and more powerful) laser module.

Is Tears of the Sun really worth checking out? From the movie description, it sounds like a bleeding heart type of film.

[Cadillac Johnson]

I would assume that SOCOM does not procure weapons for their value as conversation pieces. SOCOM saw it fit to conduct offensive pistol trials in 1989 and chose the MK23 as the winner, so I'm guessing that there must've been some logical justification for having such a gun in the their inventory, even if the pistol didn't see much real life combat use after all.

F22 described the scenario that would justify it's intended use.

That doesn't mean the choice was logical. ;)

*edit*

I'll add this, from the accounts I've read regarding the Mk23 and it's use by Seals, it was used when a handgun was the only option, and in conditions where the P226 might not hold up. Basically, if you absolutely had to use a pistol, and it absolutely had to work, and it's going to be used in adverse conditions. ie. extended deep salt water diving operations, lots of sand, mud, muck, extreme temps etc.

Ironically, when it came to offensive operations when a pistol was needed, the P226 was preferred.

[Lord Skeletor]

Okay, I now see what you mean. I suppose size may also be an advantage in the scenario you're describing because it allows one to amount a larger (and more powerful) laser module.

Is Tears of the Sun really worth checking out? From the movie description, it sounds like a bleeding heart type of film.


I thought this as well...although I did end up seeing it in the theaters. You'll like it. Trust me. The combat scenes in it were pretty damn good.

[G36gunner]

At that time, USSOCOM came up with certain mission profiles, and they designed the Mk23 to fit the requirement. Of course, they also wanted ultra durability and reliability, so all the little requirements added up, until you get the ultimate handgun, which also happens to be a burden to wield as a side arm. Rifle or subguns are always prefered in a fire fight so unless a specific mission profile calls for Mk23, then it's not used. There's also been discussion of special Navy .45 +P+ rounds specially designed to penetrate ship bulkheads. That ammo is for ship-boarding actions. The ammo crate specifies that it's for Mk23 only because only it can handle the pressure. The 1911A1 would blow up in short order. That should give you an idea how durable the design is.

[F22_RaptoR]

*snip*

Is Tears of the Sun really worth checking out? From the movie description, it sounds like a bleeding heart type of film.

Yeah, any silly lame moments are far outweighed by the cool shooting and action! :D

[Jagdraben]

Is Tears of the Sun really worth checking out? From the movie description, it sounds like a bleeding heart type of film.

There are guns and shooting and people die. And let's be frank, it's one of only two films that I'm aware of that have Mark 23s in them.

[MaD HuNGaRIaN]

There is a lot of misinformation here.

The MK23 is used intentionally by operators when it's the right tool for a specific job.

It's just another tool in the box, not an everyday kit.

There are plenty of operators who use them routinely.

It's not the ideal sidearm for all scenarios, but they're not collecting dust either.

[KBAR04]

I would assume that SOCOM does not procure weapons for their value as conversation pieces. SOCOM saw it fit to conduct offensive pistol trials in 1989 and chose the MK23 as the winner, so I'm guessing that there must've been some logical justification for having such a gun in the their inventory, even if the pistol didn't see much real life combat use after all.

Having been there, Id say you dont understand how HQ USSOCOM works..nothing has to be logical, especially in procurement. I saw exactly one Mk23 in Afghanistan in 2001-2002 and that was in a thigh holster on a SEAL LT's leg. I was the J2 for the Coalition Special Ops Task Force for most of Afghanistan so I pretty much saw what was loaded up and carried...

[SFCat66]

Having been there, Id say you dont understand how HQ USSOCOM works..nothing has to be logical, especially in procurement. I saw exactly one Mk23 in Afghanistan in 2001-2002 and that was in a thigh holster on a SEAL LT's leg. I was the J2 for the Coalition Special Ops Task Force for most of Afghanistan so I pretty much saw what was loaded up and carried...

Amen, Brother...

We never bothered to even pack them for deployment. The one I saw was used mostly for staff and support troops photo ops.

The Mk23 was primarily designed with input from Naval types that though it could be useful. The infighting in SOCOM about the 23 and the procurement process early on was so disgusting that only the Navy ended up keeping the project alive.

As far as a pistol for "offensive" applications, the one question I have is "WTF, over?" Having been around the block a few times, there are no mission sets or parameters that I'd choose a pistol over a long gun. The only use I've ever seen is more law enforcement SWAT/Active Shooter response for the Ballistic Shield carrier, and even then, he/she should focus on shield ops, and let the cover team provide cover.

Also, the Uber-cool SEALs pictured above need to work on weapon handling skills and proper dress. Maybe it's all the morale patches everywhere.

[03psd]

[I]
Also, the Uber-cool SEALs pictured above need to work on weapon handling skills and proper dress. Maybe it's all the morale patches everywhere.

Wow, OK. Please elaborate. I know nothing about the men pictured and have never BT or DT but would like to know what the issues are with what they are doing, and how they are dressed. Are you suggesting they are not what they appear to be, ala Poseur?

[SFCat66]

I'm not trying to call anyone out on this forum. I was caught up in one of those flame wars a few times on other boards, but there are some "inconsistencies" that give me pause... I'll list a few of the major ones that jump outn at me.

Overall, why the combat photography? I haven't paused to take cool guy action shots very much. Focus should be on mission and keeping everyone alive, not a break for CDI moments.

Handling skills overall. First pic shooter has a weak grip, and in last pic it appears shooter is walking with finger on trigger. Second pic, the shooter is in a very relaxed ready position.

Cool tactical nylon and absence of things. Vest has carbine mags, but why only a pistol? Why no body armor or plate carrier? Lack of other mission essential items. Lack of holster anywhere. Granted the MK23 is what I consider a crew served pistol, but it at least requires some place to park.

No MIBTR's or other inter-team/squad communications.

Dress belt.

Lack of helmet(s).

Possibly one mag/reload visible and accessible.

I don't know about the Navy, but the moral patches are usually out of sector until you are out of sector.

Overall, it just "feels" wrong. Like a earlier thread with pics posted of some German types in Afghanistan covered in Flecktarn, except for the bright, cool, and very reflective Oakley sunglasses.

[03psd]

Dress belt.

Overall, it just "feels" wrong. Like a earlier thread with pics posted of some German types in Afghanistan covered in Flecktarn, except for the bright, cool, and very reflective Oakley sunglasses.


Yeah I did wonder about the dress belt and about the hearing protection. Never seen anyone in the field wearing ear muffs. The mags are a good point and I didnt notice the lack of a holster. Hmmmmm.

[mdavis]

I agree with F22_RaptoR on all his points.

Plus, as to the MK23's use as an "offensive" handgun I would have to concur.

I use my Mark 23 "offensively" when combating paper targets. :)

[policemedic]

I'm not trying to call anyone out on this forum. I was caught up in one of those flame wars a few times on other boards, but there are some "inconsistencies" that give me pause... I'll list a few of the major ones that jump outn at me.

Overall, why the combat photography? I haven't paused to take cool guy action shots very much. Focus should be on mission and keeping everyone alive, not a break for CDI moments.

Handling skills overall. First pic shooter has a weak grip, and in last pic it appears shooter is walking with finger on trigger. Second pic, the shooter is in a very relaxed ready position.

Cool tactical nylon and absence of things. Vest has carbine mags, but why only a pistol? Why no body armor or plate carrier? Lack of other mission essential items. Lack of holster anywhere. Granted the MK23 is what I consider a crew served pistol, but it at least requires some place to park.

No MIBTR's or other inter-team/squad communications.

Dress belt.

Lack of helmet(s).

Possibly one mag/reload visible and accessible.

I don't know about the Navy, but the moral patches are usually out of sector until you are out of sector.

Overall, it just "feels" wrong. Like a earlier thread with pics posted of some German types in Afghanistan covered in Flecktarn, except for the bright, cool, and very reflective Oakley sunglasses.

I'm glad I'm not the only one that thought the pics felt off. I have the impression they were posed, and it seems like they could have been taken in Detroit or someplace other than downrange.

But hell, I'm just the doc.

[Jagdraben]

Yeah I did wonder about the dress belt and about the hearing protection. Never seen anyone in the field wearing ear muffs. The mags are a good point and I didnt notice the lack of a holster. Hmmmmm.

I've never seen anyone shooting an M82/M107 without hearing protection of some sort (along with everyone in the section) and I've seen a few Humvee M2-gunners wearing hearing protection, as well. Which is a good idea, as a local man lost a good deal of his hearing from using his Humvee-mounted M2 in both A'stan and Iraq.

[Shadow1198]

I'm surprised no one has said anything yet but, I'll go ahead and be the first to say those are probably airsofters in those pics. They just don't seem real to me for some reason. In pic number one, in one of the mag pouches I can see something that looks distinctly like this airsoft speedloader thing: Link (http://www.airsoftatlanta.com/images/marui_450_loader_jpg.jpg)

[edd1e22]

You can’t really tell the Mk 23 story without telling parts of the Beretta and SIG story, as well. The Beretta 92F was largely the result of a specific SEAL Team urging Beretta to modify a few things with the standard 92 for the unit’s use. Things like moving the magazine release from the butt to the frame, re-shaping the trigger guard…etc. This particular SEAL Team had Beretta 92F’s before the U.S. military ever went to the “M9”. During the testing for the new U.S. standard issue sidearm SIG actually slightly outperformed the Beretta. I was told that it wasn’t chosen because Beretta slightly beat the price point over SIG. The real answer is probably a bit more complicated than that, but Beretta did eventually win . The trials lasted a long time during which life went on in the Teams…until Berettas starting failing in the SEAL Teams. I remember those days well. The Teams had a lot of loyalty to the pistol, but all of that ended when Beretta publicly accused the Teams of routinely firing “hot” ammo through the guns. Not a true statement. The Teams dropped the Beretta and were authorized to purchase an “interim” handgun to fill the bill until the ink was dry on the government standard sidearm contract. The Teams bought SIGs and began a loyalty o that system which persists even still.

It wasn’t too long before Army SOF began to sour on the Beretta. Their problem was that they already had M1911A1’s on their TOA&E. The military being what it is, you can only have one caliber of a particular type of like equipment. Army SOF began to work the issue by conceptualizing an “Offensive Handgun” different in definition and .45 ACP. This was just post Desert Storm. SEAL SIGs had been in inventory for 2-3 years and folks were starting to recall that the P226 was only an “interim” buy. Someone was caught using improper justification for a second purchase of SIGs by Congress. During the dust-up which followed Army SOF approached Navy SOF through Crane with the “Offensive Handgun” concept. The Navy could take the lead on the project and if it came off both the Army and Navy SOF would enjoy a new .45 cal handgun. The “Offensive Handgun” project felt the influences of many opinionated pistoleros. A long list of features was drawn up.

Eventually both Colt and HK submitted Phase One Prototypes for endurance testing. I was actually one of the SEALs who had to fire 30,000 rounds through a Colt and HK pistol over the course of a week in 1994 and document every failure. Not as fun as you might think.

We also took the revamped (Phase Two) prototypes to Rogers’ Shooting School for testing (that was fun) in early 1995. I and several other SEAL Team “bullet heads” went to the testing with malice in our hearts not only for the gun but the very concept of the gun. Our intent was to shoot it better than anyone else and then slam it in the critiques.

The gun grew on us haters. That simple. It was dead accurate, big- yes, but manageable. With a suppressor on it is unlike any other handgun.

It was finally issued around 1996 or so. I used it in winter warfare a lot, for over the beach work and diving. I preferred my SIG for assaults. Later in my career I did a lot more diving and over the beach work. The Mk 23 was awesome at that stuff. It is the best weapon to have in a hide site when lying up with a Team in a concealed position. You can bring it to bear day or night on anyone sneaking up on you. It is accurate even after blowing through your hide site material, the suppressor is pretty quiet and the LAM lets you get away with a lot. I used it and trained many other SEALs to use it very capably. The SEAL Teams that did not dive as much as, say, SDV Teams neglected their Mk 23’s. The Mk 23’s strengths were not as obvious to those guys who weren’t swimming and diving all the time. Last year a message came out to turn in all Mk 23’s to Crane. At least one SDV Team flatly refused. A few other Teams suddenly decided they should keep a “few”. So those at NAVSPECWARCOM who had sent the message in the first place restricted the expenditure of .45 ammo, instead. SDV Teams now have Mk 23s but no ammo allowance. They even ordered S&W 686’s from Crane to outfit their guys because a SIG will not survive a long dive very well. I know of a handful of guys who have taken their issue Mk 23’s overseas since the ammo cut-off because they know they can get the ammo there and have actually carried them in missions far from the water.

That’s the story in nutshell. What else would you like to know?

Frogman

[edd1e22]

To answer your questions, yes, the Mk 23 was nicely executed in that way. Even the magazines could survive a long night at sea.

The answer to your second question is far more disappointing. For 20 years I've seen weapons upgraded in the Teams. The policy for upgrading to new weapons was the same as it has always been for rotating SEAL platoon deployments. You did not send back the old until you received the new on site, where it mattered.

However, there was a historic paradigm shift last year when NAVSPECWARCOM ordered the withdrawal of Mk 23's from SEAL Team armories before a suitable replacement was on site. This marked the first time I can recall in 20 years that a weapon system was removed from a SEAL's inventory without there being a suitable replacement delivered first since the Stoner M63 series of machine guns was removed in the 1980's. It was roughly 20 years that SEAL Teams went without a 5.56mm LMG after that fateful decision. I wonder how long our guys will go without a suppressed maritime mission capable pistol.

Before the Mk 23 we had suppressed .22 cal Ruger Mark II's AND 9mm Hk P9S's. Once the inventory of Mk 23's was on site at each Team the other systems were thoughtfully sent back to Crane.

It looks like the Teams are just winging it now. It's BS, it's wrong, and as soon as someone dies because they didn't have a suppressed handgun available in the inventory it is criminal.

There are people in the NSW community who do know better. But, their voices are either being purposefully "suppressed" or they aren't speaking loud enough.

Great place to send your kids these days, isn't it?

Frogman

[edd1e22]

Frogman posted some pics on tacticalforums as well but I don't know how to link it. In a nutshell, the MK23 was an excellent weapon that filled a niche which still apparently is empty to this day.

[Shadow1198]

Edd1e22, thank you very much for your input. It's great to hear from someone that's been there. Also, thank you very much for your service to this country! :)

[edd1e22]

I cut and pasted his post from another tacticalforum.

[SFCat66]

Best perspective to date from The Navy side of the house. Despite the "one size fits all" thinking from big military, each service component does have different needs and requirements.

I agree quite a bit with what Frogman from Tactical Forums stated that was posted by edd1e22, but at the same time I do have my own preferences. Each service, command, etc., on down to the individual has some degree of flexibility in what can be used as far as "personal preference" but it varies with the command structure.

IMHO, the economy of warfare and the procurement of weapon systems is such that the smallest item is treated the same as the largest. Weapon manufacturers are passing on R&D costs, tooling costs, into the unit cost of each weapon, sending the costs skyrocketing.

Then you throw in the Army's current penchant for electro-computerized gizmoidology...

The M4 and M9's are going to be around awhile, I think. There's more $$ to be made in re-equipping the military with high dollar, big ticket items than small arms, unless the manufacturer can convince the end user that they need something new.

[ltbarber]

very interesting thread. I'm a broken-down old-man who served in the cold war. The Mark 23 is an offensive handgun weapon system. Emphasis on system. By itself it may not be much more than most combat auto, but with the LAM and suppressor,it is a force to be reckoned with. Like I said,I have zero experience with it in today's dynamic combat realm, but I have several decades with 45 autos. In this broken-down old-man's opinion,it's the most offensive handgun I ever used. My compliments to you all.

[.45ACP]

very interesting thread. I'm a broken-down old-man who served in the cold war. The Mark 23 is an offensive handgun weapon system. Emphasis on system. By itself it may not be much more than most combat auto, but with the LAM and suppressor,it is a force to be reckoned with. Like I said,I have zero experience with it in today's dynamic combat realm, but I have several decades with 45 autos. In this broken-down old-man's opinion,it's the most offensive handgun I ever used. My compliments to you all.

lf I were to pick one hangun to use as an offensive weapon, it would be the Mark 23.

[AviatorDave]

Yeah I did wonder about the dress belt and about the hearing protection. Never seen anyone in the field wearing ear muffs. The mags are a good point and I didnt notice the lack of a holster. Hmmmmm.

Forget ear muffs and holsters, why is everyone besides the guy in the background of the first pic wearing just baseball caps?

Are those some new kind of ballistic ball caps?

Is it SOP to not wear a helmet even in a training exercise?

And I don't know about you guys, but there's no way I'm standing where the photographer did for that first picture where home-boy has his finger on the trigger.

[G3Kurz]

In what capacity does US SOCOM use the MK23? I find it difficult to imagine an offensive scenario where a pistol would be preferable to an SMG or SBR. The only users I can think of are divers, as an SMG/SBR may be too bulky for their needs, but then again, one can think of a more compact pistol than the MK23.

This is what I dislike about the internet. Anyone with internet access and a keyboard can make statements on all subjects and not know the truth. But when did that stop anyone!

Facts of the MK23 MOD 0 program are:

1. Size: It is that large because the specs allowed it. SOCOM "overspeced" the weapon telling the maker how to make the gun right down to the controls and detailed features. They got what they asked for. The overall length was set by SOCOM because they wanted a muzzle compensator on the gun to reduce recoil with the "Enhanced" round of ammo they wanted for it so provided additional length to add that. Hk did that piece with the internal recoil reduction system and then used the extra length for a longer slide, sight radius and barrel to meet a tough accuracry requirement. HK did offer SOCOM a shorter option during development, more like a USP45T in size, but the program office turned it down due to direction from the SOCOM CG who would not accept the required 3 month program slippage to make the change. It goes back to "Be careful what you ask for or you may get it!"

2. Use: There are MK23's still in use by some of the NSW units but it is not seen very often overall. 500 were assembled from the parts kits purchased with the 2000 pistiols and fielded to various SOF units during OIF/OEF who wanted a .45 ACP pistol and could not get one. Interestingly some were sold thru US FMS to foreign contries for their use, places like Egypt and even Japan, SOF units who trained with and saw the MK23's with US SEAL and SBU operators.

The Offensive Handgun Weapon System (OHWS) was designed by a joint service committee to be the end all of handguns, suppressed, "+P+" "Enhanced" ammo, laser/light module, and unmatched accuracy, reliability and durability. It is all that and more but the SOCOM specs drove the size and the redundant controls.

One wonders what it would have been if the shorter gun and USP style variant controls would have been accepted as offered? The USP45 Tactical was specd out by the undersigned to address the desire for a smaller version of the MK23. It has done well because of it's size and modular controls but will not perform to the level of the MK23. The USP45CT came about in the same way as an HK Defense internal development to address the desires of the users for an even smaller version of the USP45T and was the pistol that NSW planned to procure as the "MK23 MOD1" which then became the SOCOM SOF Combat Pistol (SCP), then the Joint Combat Pistol (JCP), then Combat Pistol (CP), then dead, at least for the time being.

The MK23 was desiged for all manner of uses from suppressed sentry removal, CQB use, general use, etc. There is no handgun in the world that will outperform an MK23 for raw performance. None. It's just too big and heavy to complete with more streamlined handguns available.

That is the real story from one who was there for it all.

G3Kurz

[jollyrogerf14]

Snake, in the Metal Gear games, did a hell of a job with the Mark 23 as an offensive weapon system! I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned as I suspect this is an area where a few of the posters have real firsthand knowledge. (Nice belt there Captain trigger control!)

[MaD HuNGaRIaN]

You guys sure did pick those pics apart...LOL. Now you have me wondering what the real story behind them is.

[.45ACP]

I think those pics are fake as well, mostly because they appear staged. It isn't because of the lack of helmets or uniform oddities. In my experience SEALs, SF, etc don't wear helmets and will wear "sanitized" DCUs or just a T-shirt with body armor. They were the guys walking around with beards and no unit patches, insignia, or rank on their DCUs.

[Shadow1198]

Just in case no one caught my post, those pics are most likely airsofters:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=36969&d=1195433118

First off, the photo is from militaryphotos.net. I haven't looked at that site a whole lot, but from what I've seen a lot of people there are airsofters. Also, if you notice from the picture above, one of the front most m16 mag pouches has a very dark black colored "mag", however you can see a little T-shaped handle sticking out of it. That to me looks like one of these speed loaders:

Link (http://www.airsoftatlanta.com/images/marui_450_loader_jpg.jpg)

Looks fake to me. ;) It makes me laugh how hard some of those guys try to pretend at being an uber-top secret Delta Devgru urban ninja operator. :380::57::57::44::4:

[Capp325]

Also, if you notice from the picture above, one of the front most m16 mag pouches has a very dark black colored "mag", however you can see a little T-shaped handle sticking out of it. That to me looks like one of these speed loaders:

Link (http://www.airsoftatlanta.com/images/marui_450_loader_jpg.jpg)
Good eye.

I don't know enough about airsoft to catch small details like that, but I must say the pictures simply don't feel right. The guy looks way too geeky (which is discernible even with his face blurred out) to be a Navy Seal.

[SFCat66]

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/vividdrifter/derailedthread.jpg