# US Soldiers ok'd To Paint Rifles



## MikeL (15 Mar 2010)

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/03/army_m4_camo_031410w/



> Army will allow soldiers to recolor M4s
> 
> By Matthew Cox - Staff writer
> Posted : Monday Mar 15, 2010 7:44:40 EDT
> ...


----------



## Journeyman (15 Mar 2010)

> The guidelines will identify parts of the weapons that should not be painted, such as inside the chamber and accessories such as optics.



 :rofl:


----------



## dapaterson (15 Mar 2010)

I look forward to creative use of this new authority.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Mar 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> :rofl:


  Brought to you by the same people that put 'Front towards enemy' on the Claymore and 'Top' and 'Front' on a radio (even though it would only fit in the tray one way) :blotto:


----------



## harry8422 (15 Mar 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I look forward to creative use of this new authority.


ha ha smart they will be looking for soldiers with black weapons!!!


----------



## MaDB0Y_021 (15 Mar 2010)

I might sound like a idiot, but is it allowed in the Canadian Army to repaint our issued rifle when we are on deployment?


----------



## MikeL (15 Mar 2010)

MaDB0Y_021 said:
			
		

> I might sound like a idiot, but is it allowed in the Canadian Army to repaint our issued rifle when we are on deployment?



Unit dependent, but usually you will see Recce Pl and Snipers with painted weapons. Some guys also acquire their own handguards and butts and paint those than put them on their rifle.  On tour there is also a water soluable(?) cam kit that some guys got to paint their weapons with.


----------



## MaDB0Y_021 (15 Mar 2010)

That was fast. Thanks for the answer, Skeletor


----------



## armyvern (16 Mar 2010)

A few years ago, my troops in Gagetown hung a giant copy of that Hello Kitty weapon pic with my name on it on my office door ... I was like "WTF??"  ... but it stayed; saving it for the inevitable "major HQ" roto ...


----------



## Matt_Fisher (5 Apr 2010)

Soldiersystems.net has posted up that the US Army is about to issue formal guidance giving the go-ahead for troops in operational areas to paint their rifles and carbines so as to aid in camouflage and concealment.
http://soldiersystems.net/2010/04/05/army-to-allow-soldiers-to-paint-weapons/

I know that there's been some unit level authorization for CF members to paint C7s and C8s in theatre, but should the CFs be looking at adopting a similar policy?


----------



## 1feral1 (5 Apr 2010)

The Australian answer to 'decreasing' weapon signature.

The latest F88SA2, this one fitted w/ M203PI.

A factory job. 

Will it work? Will the finish last? Time will tell.

The black GLA stick out like dogs 'ballz'  :nod:

OWDU


----------



## brihard (6 Apr 2010)

> The guidelines will identify parts of the weapons that should not be painted, such as inside the chamber and accessories such as optics.



Without such SMEs we would be screwed in every way imagineable.
 ;D


----------



## SeanNewman (6 Apr 2010)

Canada was on par with the US on this issue, in that on paper it was banned, but the word "unenforced" nails it perfectly.

I am actually very surprised that there hasn't been a run of tan plastic hand guards made.  Some of the other stuff like the butt and pistol grip would be harder to swap and arguably unnecessary since they're usually covered or tucked in, but the hand guards would be incredibly easy to swap.


----------



## brihard (6 Apr 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Canada was on par with the US on this issue, in that on paper it was banned, but the word "unenforced" nails it perfectly.
> 
> I am actually very surprised that there hasn't been a run of tan plastic hand guards made.  Some of the other stuff like the butt and pistol grip would be harder to swap and arguably unnecessary since they're usually covered or tucked in, but the hand guards would be incredibly easy to swap.



The stock's much easier to swap out than the hand guards. The actual stock itself comes right off the buffer tube with no tools or anything; instead of squeezing the... uh... hell, I don't know what to call it; the thingy you squeeze to adjust the stock, you just pull the rear of the thingy away from the butt. The spring loaded detent is thus retracted enough to slide it right off the buffer tube. The pistol grip is easy too. But I agree, I'm surprised we haven't seen tan furniture made.


----------



## dangerboy (6 Apr 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Canada was on par with the US on this issue, in that on paper it was banned, but the word "unenforced" nails it perfectly.



I found that it depends on which organization you belong to.  Some enforced it rigorously while others did not really care as long as when you turn it in back in Canada it looked like it did when you first where issued.  It would be nice if we came out with a policy so you are not rolling the dice as to what your chain of command will allow.


----------



## SeanNewman (6 Apr 2010)

Danger,

Fully granted.

Just as we had different units who enforced or did not to different degrees, I am sure the US Forces likely had different command personalities as well.

In fact, if anything we are far more standardized as an Infantry than the range of US infantrymen I have seen ranging from different Army units to Marine units, which is against the stereotype that if you join the US military you join the Borg (sp?).


----------

