Navy Deletes Photo of Ship Captain Shooting Rifle with Scope on Backwards
“We’re Going To Lose A Major War”
Just in the last two days we have reported on major issues with the U.S. military, ranging from delays in every major Navy shipbuilding program, U.S. Navy Facing Major Shipbuilding Delays While China’s Navy Expansion Accelerates, to problems with military recruiting: Army Invites Retirees as Old as 70 to Return to Active Duty in Attempt to Fix Recruiting Woes.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg, and all of you are likely well aware of the deteriorating state of our military under Joe Biden.
But through all this, and the other foibles of today’s DEI/CRT-centric military, we always sort of assumed a basic competence in, you know, the mission, i.e., shooting weapons.
Well, not any more.
From ZeroHedge: “We’re Going To Lose A Major War”: US Navy Deletes Photo Of Ship Commander Shooting Rifle With Backwards Scope:
Cmdr. Cameron Yaste, the Commanding Officer of the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS John S. McCain (DDG 56), was recently photographed shooting a 5.56×45mm M4 carbine with the optics installed backward.
The now-deleted image and press release on the Defense Visual Information Distribution Service website featured Yaste shooting the M4 with the Trijicon VCOG scope installed backward while pointed at a giant target balloon.
Here’s what the press release said before it was deleted:
Cmdr. Cameron Yaste, the Commanding Officer of the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS John S. McCain (DDG 56), fires at the “killer tomato” [i.e. a sea-deployed practice target] during a gun shoot. The ship is in US 7th Fleet conducting routine operations. 7th Fleet is the US Navy’s largest forward-deployed numbered fleet, and routinely interacts and operates with Allies and partners in preserving a free and open Indo-Pacific Region.
Here’s how to properly use the scope…
The website Internet Archive saved a snapshot of the press release:
Netizens mocked the Navy commander, and that’s probably why the service deleted the image and text.
Here’s what the internet had to say:
Yaste merely shows how the US Navy is unprepared to fight the next major conflict. Sigh…
A brief review of X shows even more scathing commentary directed at my former service:
The US Navy posts such bad-ass pics. Before the pic was deleted, the audience noted that:
– the scope is on backwards
– the lens caps are on
– the stock is half-butted
– his elbow should be down
– he has a weird foregrip🤭🤭🤭 pic.twitter.com/hJR5cQFq7H
— Chebureki Man (@CheburekiMan) April 10, 2024
When the Space Force is clowning you, it's time to drop permanent anchor.
RIP US Navy
October 13, 1775 – April 9, 2024 pic.twitter.com/u8nF2lhST5
— Beach City Cop (@VBStrong_67) April 10, 2024
RIP Navy 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 pic.twitter.com/x31pFzxZyQ
— E=MC HAMMERTIME (@scs_real) April 10, 2024
I can’t even with my Navy anymore. It almost seems like self-parody.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
It wasn’t until some of the remarks quoted in this article that I realized he didn’t have the rifle in a proper grip.
I’m almost wondering if those shell casings are photoshopped in, because I’d expect that stock to ride right up off his shoulder had he fired. Maybe those aren’t his and they’re from other shooters out of frame.
those casings do look a little large for 5.56
The 5.56mm cartridge has so little recoil that the stock won’t ride up. The point of the complaint about his technique is that it doesn’t hold the rifle as stable as it might otherwise be, and this affects accuracy. More contact area (with the shoulder, the hands, and on the face/cheek) results in greater stability of the hold itself, enhancing accuracy. It also helps mitigate the already slight recoil of the (relatively puny) 5.56mm cartridge. (If you listen to the MSM, you are led to believe this cartridge in the AR is a “high-powered” round. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are jurisdictions in which it is illegal to use the 5.56mm/.223 Remington cartridge for deer hunting because it is so underpowered as to be considered “inhumane,” likely to wound rather than being immediately fatal, as would be a more capable hunting cartridge.)
I’ve fired an M4 on full auto. I admit it’s not the heaviest kick, but he doesn’t appear to have that great a grip on the rifle to begin with.
Correct. The auto grip is set at the farthest position and is not used for semi-auto fire as it actually reduces accuracy, particularly with a scope.
“it doesn’t hold the rifle as stable as it might otherwise be, and this affects accuracy.”
Though not as much as having the scope on backwards, still with its lens cap on.
There are just SO MANY punchlines pregnant here…
YOU HATERS! It’s a TRANS scope!
“while pointed at a giant target balloon.”
New Biden DOD-approved scope mounting protocol ensures the safety of future Chinese spy balloons.
I was thinking the same thing, but I’m not enough of an expert to comment on proper gripping.
On a 5.56? Nah. That is easy to control and I’ve used the handle a time or two instead of the c grip. The shoulder is bad form but again not a fail because of the recoil.
That scope, though… I just thought he was a high speed operator that didn’t care what he was handed to immediately go into Death Mode and kill everything downrange.
Shooting through a scope while wearing sunglasses?
Going for the ‘tacti-cool’ image. Failed.
He should have held it sideways…
Possibly prescription sunglasses, I feel his pain.
I don’t all the time. I’m surprised at the people pointing this out considering the lens caps and all
Do it.
I’m sure that “Admiral” “Rachel” Levine is on the case, bringing his malignant tranny perspective and lived “truth” to bear.
1979 all over again!
Bring back MARDET. IFYKYK.
ONFTOUWDSATCKTPTTY.
OK. Now. For those of us who DON’T sit at the cool kids’ table, please translate. Thank you.
MARDET: Marine detachment. Anything from a squad to a platoon assigned to a ship for security detail.
And the other is: if you know, you know.
Just traveled through Louisiana, where some dipshit accident lawyer has plastered I-10 with billboards featuring only his face and “IYKYK.” Not even his phone number. At least it’s his own money he’s pissing down that black hole.
Why is there a hand on his shoulder?
It’s common for PMIs/range personnel to provide this kind of bracing when noobies are shooting full-auto/burst with automatic weapons for the first time. Without it, inexperienced shooters might have a tendency to fall off balance, which increases the likelihood of uncontrolled muzzle climb. Still, this pictures paints a thousands words and it’s clear that whoever the supervisor of this exercise was, he wasn’t qualified either. No competent PMI would allow that weapon to be fired…by anyone.
It can also be used to let the person know when to start/stop firing. Outdoor ranges are noisy enough, but a ship at sea can be brutal with wind and such. The touch of a hand on the shoulder can be instantly sensed by the shooter.
Is that common on Ships? Sounds reasonable.
To brace him against the recoil… which is as heavy as 20 boxes you might move things in.
Jesus. Holding back that Death Merchant from killing everything downrange.
“Calm down, son. They are all on their way to meet their maker”
It says much about how the Skipper is thought of by his crew that this happened. The Chiefs would never, ever had let this happen to a good CO.
Agree 100% Tregonsee. I was going to post the same thing. Hope things are going well on Rigel.
Or, as I saw in a comment elsewhere- whoever handed him the rifle knew exactly what was going on, and disliked him enough to let it happen.
Lowly E-4 here from the Navy, and you are so correct. Incompetence was a well known secret by the enlisted men, and a good chief never tolerated it for my short time in.
In all fairness the Navy as a general rule doesnt play around with such itty bitty guns
Nice chicken wing, Cmdr.
Navy scopes come with iron sights on top to help in aiming.
Some do. The Trijicon VCOG series of scopes do not.
Most people have irons as backups because scoped fail
Straight up or at 45 degrees.
you know, the mission, i.e., shooting weapons
Well, that’s NOT the mission for almost any officer in the Navy. They don’t carry small arms at sea, for the most part, and I would bet their small arms qualification is once every two years.
It’s similar in the Air Force (though they did get a lot more serious about firearms when the GWOT got going*). If you spend your time in the cockpit or fixing airplanes or fiddling at a computer console in the extreme rear, small arms skill is thought of as “not really necessary.” Same at sea. Especially for the captain.
Personally, I think excellence with small arms is a way to inculcate a warrior spirit. Get you off your duff and thinking like a warrior instead of “It’s just my job.”
(* There were two impetus to it. The first was that the Army was going to – starting in the 90s – be less involved in guarding AF convoys and the like. It was getting smaller and couldn’t spare the personnel. Then, when things got up close and personnel for air bases overseas in the GWOT, it became even more important – for certain people. It’s still neglected for far too many personnel.)
“It’s similar in the Air Force (though they did get a lot more serious about firearms when the GWOT got going*). If you spend your time in the cockpit or fixing airplanes or fiddling at a computer console in the extreme rear, small arms skill is thought of as “not really necessary.””
Uh, no. I was Air Force ’75-’91, both as Life Support tech and communications maintenance supervisor. Annual qualification in both handgun and rifle was mandatory. Only time I missed Expert or better was the year I had to qualify with my left arm in a cast.
Annual quals depended entirely on your deployability status. A great many folks did NOT do annual quals. It started ramping up in the mid-90s. And I knew quite a few people who were maintainers (and admin folks) who thought “If I have to grab a rifle and fight, we’re in a lot of trouble.”
In the years of the late 80s and the 90s, it took me, as an officer 6 years before I was required to qualify with a long arm. And I wasn’t required to qualify with a handgun but twice in those 6 years (excepting the original qual I did). After that point I had to qualify every year.
I was in combat arms in the US Army, 1974-1978. I qualified once on the M-16, in basic training. One of the reasons I did not pursue a career in the military was because I thought training (in all aspects except tank gunnery*) was woefully inadequate, and I had no confidence in its ability to perform in combat. I wanted no part of the prospect of going to war with such an outfit.
*I was an 11D, a “cavalry scout,” but was once in an armored cav unit equipped with M-151 Sheridans, so I have experience with conducting gunnery table exercises. The unit was also tasked with supporting training conducted by the Armor School, and we regularly supported the school’s master gunnery program. Between our unit’s training, and the training we provided to the master gunner program and armor officer training, our tank gunners could shoot.
I was a 19K back in the early 90’s, back in the M1-IP and M1A1 days. The first time I sent a main gun round downrange at Ft. Knox was really something. Unforgettable. I guess Disney Barracks is some kind of ROTC summer camp or something now, and the small AAFES store right there is closed. To me Ft. Knox=Armor. Damn shame those days are over.
My son is in Space Force, he transferred from Army. He is designated Weapons Coordinator for his unit, which he finds amusing since they have no small arms in Space Force. They don’t have to qualify. They rely completely on Air Force Security Forces to defend their facility.
Recently a new Air Force Academy graduate in his unit told him she was disheartened when the Air Force Security Forces had an exercise and manned the gate with their “gun things.”
She admitted she had fired a couple magazines in a handgun at the Academy and that’s it.
My son just shakes his head and sighs.
They rely completely on Air Force Security Forces to defend their facility.
So, almost the exact opposite of the Navy-Marine relationship.
And, yes, it is pathetic. We need to not allow a chair force.
Does small arms qualifications in the Navy include knowing if a scope is backwards and checking the lens caps? An old paratrooper is curious as to Navy standards on this
I have this scope on one of my M4’s.
There’s another problem here. With the scope mounted directly to the upper receiver, the front sight assembly obstructs the line of sight through the scope. You’ll get a big gray blurry spot right in the line of sight preventing you from both zeroing and accurately firing the rifle. It’s like having your thumb in front of a camera lens. You either need a riser to elevate the scope to clear the front sight, or have a removable or fold-down front sight.
Notice the second photo of the infantryman firing from the kneeling position. He has a folding front sight that’s folded down so the scope has no obstruction to line of sight. His setup is good to go.
Also, having the front grip mounted that far back can interfere with proper magazine changes in some situations. That grip needs to be moved 2 or 3 slots forward on the accessory rail. Plus it puts your hand dangerously close to the delta ring at the rear of the handguard, which can get quite hot during sustained fire. Without a proper glove, you can get a nasty burn.
A total cluster f***.
With that scope height, the fixed front sight isn’t that much of a problem. However, it is useless with no rear sight….the scope mounting prohibits a fold down rear sight. It’s just a nuisance gas block as is.
Maybe BHO could show him how to shoot….he showed his prowess with shooting skeet.
I’m a gunsmith.
Mounting a scope on an AR or M4 low with the front sight assembly in the line of sight is most definitely a problem. Among other things, it induces distortion that affects where the crosshairs appear to be to your eye.
It makes sighting in the scope next to impossible let alone actually using the scope to accurately engage targets. The distortion is also multiplied the higher the magnification you use and the further downrange your target is.
In regards to folding rear sights, some scope/mount combinations do have the clearance for a fold down rear. The infantryman’s rifle in the second photo has a folding rear sight
“…some scope/mount combinations do have the clearance for a fold down rear.”
Absolutely. Both of my ARs have fold-down BUISs (“back-up iron sights” to the uninitiated). One has a red dot, but the other has a 1-4X optic. Even if the the scope has a large diameter ocular, a scope mount can be found high enough to give clearance to a rear BUIS. Some optics are meant to be run fairly far forward, so they don’t even interfere with a rear BUIS no matter how low the scope might be.
Of course, an optic should be run on an QD (quick-disconnect) mount, so it can be removed and discarded if it gets wrecked (even if the BUISs – front and rear – can be co-witnessed, a broken scope may be impossible to see through, so it’s essential that the scope can be quickly removed without tools). The rear BUIS doesn’t need clearance to be deployed with the scope mounted, it just needs enough room to remain folded under the optic, until deployed after removing an inop scope.
Yep, batteries die, glass can break. QD optics and backup iron sights are a must in my opinion. I really like the Magpul MBUS flip up front and rear sights. Well made, very durable, and not too expensive.
Personally I don’t use anything but the iron sights. I don’t view that as a problem as I don’t expect to be shooting anything past 100 yards or so around my place.
Ironclaw…. the rapid acquistion of targets with illuminated sights is soooo much nicer especially in low light and older eyes. I wasn’t big on illumination for hunting but now wouldn’t buy without it.
ARs have been sold with the fixed front sight/gas block with the option to use an attachable AR rear sight/handle or scope. The distortion depends on the height of the mount. I prefer the flat top all the way with foldable iron sights and a good LPVO… such as my Vortex 1-6 Razor with American Defense QD mounts.
Yes, my first build was an “AR-4” – just like the M-4 I carried. With that old school gas block/hi-A front sight.
My second build is add-on sights all the way. (Of course, it’s also a little different in caliber and uses. *shrug* It’s why the AR platform is so nice – modular.)
GWB… so many caliber options… hard to choose! Still think the 6.5 Grendel had a place in the military… but with its 7.62×39 heritage…oh well…. of course the 22 and 6mm PPCs are the most accurate rounds ever made and they are Russian by heritage also.
Y’all are talking about the weapons you PREVIOUSLY owned before they were forever lost in a tragic boating accident right?
CommoChief….. I am certain that there will be a crime for previous legal ownership of firearms. I’ve seen a Peanuts cartoon reworded with Linus telling Peppermint Patty “they will never give us the education needed to overthrow them.” For the Founding Fathers, firearms were “the teeth of liberty”. FJB/BATF/RINO/ABCDEFG is into total dental extraction.
All of these unnecessary Zero Dark Thirty Fed SWAT arrests (killings) are designed to show who is in total control of life and death of any citizen. As the FBI told the judge about Ruby Ridge…. since there wasn’t a judge at the Weaver home. the Feds could do what they wanted…even if eventually rule unconstitutional.
Aside from the obvious, I saw the forward grip and thought, “That’s waaay too far back, that’ll impede reloading.”
As to the pic?
Yes, horrible grip. The chicken wing is one thing, but not too awful. That foregrip, though – yeesh. Just grab the magazine well if you’re going to keep the support hand that far in.
Oh, and I forgot the stock location: I have seen operators placing the rifle that high if they’re in body armor. A lot of the plate carriers obstruct the meaty part of the shoulder, it seems, with the straps and buckles. The Army pic looks like he’s pushed the straps further in so he can get a good shoulder position.
When the CAR-15 type collapsible stock was phased out in favor of the M4 stock as pictured in the article, it was for this reason. The M4 stock buttplate has extra surface area at the bottom allowing for shouldering higher up. Even without body armor many people find it more comfortable and easier to get a good sight picture with the butt shouldered higher.
A higher stock mounting allows the shooter to keep his head more upright, bringing the sights up to the eyes, rather than cocking the head to bring the eyes down to the sights. The position of the stock in the photo didn’t bother me too much. You shoot in the manner that allows you to be the most accurate.
Or… higher mounts do the same thing. Since recoil isn’t a issue, a cheek stock weld isn’t as critical.
Israeli technique is to put the rifle more centered in chest …keeping more armor forward and also avoids getting your arm blown off with that chicken wing position. Whoever cobbled that rifle together for the pic should spend a lot of time on KP.
I’ve heard the “arm blown off” ding on the “chicken wing” and discount it. Nobody is aiming at your arm, and they don’t intend to hit you there. Your arm is just as likely to be hit if it’s tucked in. (Arguably, it’s more likely to be hit, because your enemy is trying to hit your torso and tucking your arm puts it in the way of his target.)
Unless the chicken wing is exposed further out from cover. Or impedes your ability to snuggle up to the cover because it’s sticking out there.
“Make yourself a small target” is a valid thing, and the “It’ll get blowed off” derives from there, to some extent.
Mostly, it’s a bad idea because it’s not as stable over a long period as tucking that arm down some. It’ll get tired before it’ll get blowed off.
Chicken wing is more bad habit than anything imposed by the chosen shooting hardware. Up or down, your actual shoulder joint morphology, including painful pressure points, really doesn’t change much.
Wings in for sure. Go in tight.
An opportunity for self-reflection
So he’s the CO of the John S. McCain?
Somehow very appropriate.
the whole thing looks photo-shopped–the casings for one–too big for 5.56–if they’re not from the co’s weapon then they’re likely from the weapon (muzzle on the gunwhale) to the co’s left and below–nutso indeed
as far as the co’s personal expertise with small-arms, come on–ir’s not trafalgar and they’re repelling boarders–there are several hundred sailors(and likely marines) tasked to defend against a boarding party before the skipper needs to pick up a weapon
the glasses, the scope, his grip, the casings–nah–photoshopped
No. Those casings are likely not photoshopped. Depending on the photographer’s location and lens usage, items closer to the photographer will appear larger than items further away. The blurriness shows the brass is moving.
And if you think 5.56 rounds don’t fly far from the rifle, then I will suggest you’ve never stood to the side of someone shooting one and taken one in the noggin or down the shirt.
Yep. The photographer was likely positioned in the path of the ejected casing to get a ‘cool visual’.
With a stock ejector spring, most 5.56 AR variants eject the brass anywhere from 15-25 feet away, and some even more. The photo is definitely not altered.
I’ve got one that drops them and a few that are hard to find for reloading. The sweet spot is a rifle that drops them all in a pile
Is that scope in fact on backwards?
Isn’t the little closure door thingy (<– technical term for "little closure door thingy") on the front of the scope, and not the back?
The larger diameter ribbed part of the scope body contains the eyepiece, which should be facing rearward towards the shooter’s eye. The smaller end of the scope body is the objective lens, which should be facing forward towards the muzzle of the rifle. The scope is indeed mounted backwards.
The ribbed portion is ribbed to provide traction to what is likely a focusing or zooming ring, which are placed on the shooter end of the scope to facilitate use.
The VCOG I have is a 1x-6x variable, and the zoom ring is incredibly tight. The ribs work well, plus one rib is a flap that’s fairly tall and gives really good leverage.
Got it and, thank you.
I’m not familiar with this particular scope, but the big focusing ring at the “objective” end tells the whole story.
I’m not aware of an optic that has the focus ring in the front but maybe someone else has? Don’t care about the form or that ” enough Sgt Slaughter” hand on the shoulder but those closed lens covers..
Cut the Navy some slack, everyone!!
Ya’ know, if YOU were at the whim of a commander-in-chief like the Navy is, you’d be too worried to get things right, too!
Almost surely this photo was generated by AI.
For every advancement in artificial intelligence there is an equal advancement in artificial stupidity.
There’s nothing artificial about that stupidity. It’s all-natural.
Nope. The captain only has 10 fingers total.
All fingers formed too well and in correct quantity.
So … is he going to have his record for “World’s Longest Bullseye” taken away, too?
Just want to mention that when I qualified shotgun at sea we fired off the fantail and had to hit the ocean…
To be fair, hitting a target that’s bobbing in the sea from a deck that’s bobbing and rolling, is no mean feat. Any shooting a swabby might do at sea is more likely to be against boarders (as unlikely as that may be) rather than shooting at human-size targets on another ship (even less likely).
It’s most likely to be against a small craft entering the “Cole Zone” around a ship, to prevent boat-bombs being used.
That requires the gun to have ammo.
And looking at it in a reversed sight makes it all that much more difficult! Anyone who can shoot bullseyes through a reversed sight is a fantastic shot!
I think he was an ultra long range competitor who wanted a challenge hitting marshmallows.
For so long I wondered how battleships would duel in horrible weather … duh…. the guns only fired when the ships were transiently level. As for a great legend in battleship gunnery… Adm. “Ching” Lee was superb.
To all of the people waving this off because of typical Navy duties, I have two things for you:
1. War is not always typical
2. This would fall under signs and symptoms of dysfunction.
My 2¢:
there is absolutely no reason why everyone in the U.S. Air Force, from the base commander to the grunt just awakened in his sack, shouldn’t be able to defend themselves with a firearm.
Air Force, Space Force, Navy, Coast Guard
This pic “triggered” a tot of gun nuts.
I haven’t shot my 223 for so long I’d probably look the same.
Jesus, I hope not. If you put the scope on backwards and don’t flip up the covers before sending shots downrange just leave that firearm at home
Total aside…. on YouTube a guy makes black powder from all sorts of sources…. recently his best batch was with Cottonelle ultraclean toilet paper… better than commercial powder. He has tried other brands… so far he hasn’t squeezed off the Charmin.
I’ve made crude BP from urine and straw. Takes a year, though.
What scares me is that there is someone on that ship that actually put that scope on like that. Whether they did it to embarrass or thought it was done right, their career is basically over.
I just loved hearing all the back and forth about various weaponry and knowledge (or lack thereof, at least by the Navy). At 95 comments, it’s the most I think I have ever seen. As an ex-liberal afraid of guns, I am very glad my husband taught me to shoot – may we all be able to stick together when SHTF.
Thank you all for your service. We truly need more of you!
As a retired Navy O-6 and a current firearms instructor, I guarantee you this dude has pissed off his Master Chief Petty Officer at some previous date.
I’d normally recommend a Project Appleseed course, but quite frankly he’d be better off with an Eddie Eagle class.
You’d think he’d be aiming higher with the target SO FAR off.
It is highly unlikely that this commander will ever have the opportunity to fire an M4 in anger. His job is to take care of his ship. I hope that is where his wheelhouse, so to speak, lies.
Probably not but I expect a Captain to have basic knowledge of everything on his ship. I expect all military to know how to fire a rifle. Even if, as I suspect, this is a photo op the Captain should have checked the firearm and made sure it was correct. I’m cutting zero slack on this.
If your in any branch of our military for any reason your fallback job is 11 B.
C’mon man. Let those of us who have never put the scope on backwards and left the lens cap on while shooting cast the first stone.
Patriot Post to the rescue:
https://patriotpost.us/memes/105966-fixed-it-guys-2024-04-13