So the guy fires a rifle with the optic mounted backwards and gets his command taken away after the image is going viral.
To me, the most serious issue is safety and as someone in a decision-making position, violating basic firearms safety rules is unacceptable at this level. He fired several rounds without a clear view of his target and what’s beyond. This is extremely poor decision making.
Not only the scope is mounted backwards, but it looks like the cover is in place.
I remember when this story dropped. I said then someone’s butt was going to get lit up. Navy gets real danged serious about it’s image. I guarantee there’s several more getting some fall out too.
I thought about a prank/setup. But when you shoulder that rifle and see nothing through the scope, do you:
a) verify that the safety is on and inspect the rifle and optic.
b) ignore that fact that you can’t see anything and fire a few rounds.
Regarding not being able to see the target and what’s behind it, looks to me that the ship is AT SEA where the max visible range from the height of eye is about 10 nautical miles. Visible and radar sweeps would have confirmed all clear. This is probably a “FAMFIRE” FAmiliarizationFire) to reinforce weapon controls. There is no target in a FAMFIRE; it’s just putting a few rounds down range. And the hand on his shoulder is likely that of a safety observer.
We have not heard CDR Yaste’s side of the story.
I’m embarrassed that my Navy would relieve a CO for a stupid mistake, although putting it up on social media was not wise. So why didn’t the safety observer or anyone else tell him the scope was backwards? It would have fixed the error on the spot. Something wrong there.
CAPT Spock, USN (ret’d)
p.s. Been there done that, with 50 cal too at a weighted inflated floating target. Quite a few years ago . . .
I do understand that these aren’t your typical day at the range, but if I shoulder a small arm mounted with an optic and I don’t see correctly through it, I will not fire. My first thought is what is wrong with that optic and is there anything else that is wrong with the rifle?
Also, I couldn’t just disregard safety “just this time” because the safety observer behind me says I’m clear. If I compromise safety once, I may do it again another time. It’s just a bad precedent to set.
But I would like to have a conversation with the guy who mounted that optic, though
Thanks, JLC. I wholeheartedly agree with you about finding the sailor who mounted the optic. Is it possible for him to see under the scope useing iron sights with what we can see in the photo? Would explain missing the bad scope mount and also the lense cap. Whaddya think?
OK, old Naval Aviator / Officer here; Unrestricted Line Officer - eligible for command at sea response:
At first I was dumbfounded by this! Here we have a man who was, I suppose, too ashamed that he was hesitant to admit he couldn’t see through the scope. There were people, obviously, nearby, who could see the problem and said nothing. If I were the Task Force Commander, I’d be having an inquiry of them and would utterly destroy those who watched and said nothing but knew better. I’d crucify the guy or gal who actually made the release outside of the chain of command. Somebody likely posted it thinking it to be funny and, quite frankly, that person is immensely immature and would also face my wrath.
UNFORTUNATELY … one thing the Navy is great for is this: You can delegate authority but you can never delegate responsibility! EVERYTHING that goes wrong on a Naval Vessel is the responsibility of the Captain of that vessel; regardless of the Captain’s rank! (Any Naval Line Officer (w/ the gold star on their epaulettes)can be made the Captain of a vessel! Indeed, enlisted men and women may be Captains of smaller vessels! If I am the Captain, and my junior officer plots a bad course through a narrow channel or doesn’t compute the windage and current drift angle correctly and runs aground, I’m going to be relieved at the very least; likely investigated and is possible court martialed!
I’m sorry … the guy should have known better! I mean, I was trained to do both surface and air; a Naval Aviator by career. From the first day in formation and air-to-air gunnery, etc., we are taught to cry-out, “3’s lost sight” if we don’t see what we need to - it could cause a midair not to do so. The guy knows that you NEVER shoot without seeing your target! (And beyond inasmuch as such is possible.) I know … he was shooting at a target in the ocean … still applies.
That being said, I don’t know of his training, which might be nothing much in handguns or rifles. Anyway … not surprised, being the Navy, what is happening to him.
I honestly find it hard to believe that he was relieved for just this photo, embarrassing as it is. I would imagine that their must be a multitude of other issues that contributed to his relief. I don’t think the Navy would wreck an officer’s career over just this photograph. Who knows though.
I’m thinking the same thing. I do think that taking and firing a rifle that’s obviously set up wrong speaks to poor judgement. If someone handed me a rifle and clearly the sighting system was unusable, no matter the reason, I’d clear the rifle and set it aside for a complete check. If one thing is wrong, I’d be suspicious of the whole rifle. Maybe that lack of judgemebt extended to other areas of ship operation.
There’s a point being made here by Command. I’m typing this and deleting this over and over because I need it to read the right way. But the point being made is if the Captain will be this careless at the micro, he can’t be trusted at the macro. A Captain has literal life or death command over his crew. So if he is this careless with a micro responsibility…
That’s my read, and like I said, as soon as I saw this I knew someone was going to get geeked over it. The US Navy doesn’t play games with responsibility.
