Should service members be able to bring personal weapons on deployment?

When I was in Afghanistan in 2004-05, I came across an E-7 with a sawed off shotgun strapped to his 3-day pack. My first thought was, "who the ... does he think he is, John Wayne?". Then more practical thoughts hit like, how is he going to get that thing off his bag when engaged (strapped to his bag remember)?; where is he going to get rounds outside his supply system?; and How is he going to get that back through customs when he goes home? Bringing your personally owned weapons, IMHO, is just stupid, and illegal. First, as stated above, weapons used in war are regulated by the Geneva convention as far as type and usage. So if you bring ammunition or weapons that violate the premise of "causing unnecessary suffering", you can be prosecuted - and I have personally seen this happen to friends in Iraq. Second, DoD provides weapons and ammunition that meets the mission needs of its forces, including the SOF community. Even if there is a type of weapon a solider needs, there is a process that can procure it. Third, all weapons and ammunition is approved and tracked before its even put on a transport. Anything found not on that roster will be confiscated. Bottom line, I would advise you to persuade people from thinking in this direction. This isn't WWII where Customs doesn't check your bags, and souvenirs like enemy weapons are ok to bring home. This violation will not only impact the delusional Soldier in question with probable criminal charges (think SOFA agreements), but can relieve people of their command or other leadership positions. In addition, the whole unit can be put in lock down for an undetermined duration (I saw it happen to an MP Company during Desert Storm). Its just not worth the risk.
https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/RC-Weapons.pdf

So you are saying if your personally owned weapons are damaged beyond repair, you will replace them? Yeah, right. Let's see how that works when that happens in the field, far beyond sources Remember, you can't send firearms thru the mail, especially into combat zones.

There is a process for bringing a personal weapon. As usual, it involves paperwork and the approving authority is usually at the Company or Battalion Level. A case in point General Swartzkopt had his personal shotgun in Iraq where he slept. The issue is Ammunition and if government ammunition can be used in t personal firearm. General Custer's Officers had their own personal weapons and ammunition because the government ammunition with copper casings was extremely defective. There is a process a complicated process to bring your own personal weapon to a War Zone it is extremely discouraged.
The U.S. Marshal's for example is issued a pistol by the DOJ, they can carry their personal firearm if it is different from what was issued if requested and if they Qualify with it.
The issue of Personal Firearms in the Military deal with a lot of issues. Legal Liability being at the top of the list. The next legal issue is the use of Government Ammunition in a Personal Weapon or the procurement of ammunition for a personal weapon.
I have not seen the current regulation concerning this since my Retirement and would be grateful to anyone who could refer it to me.

I would advise against it... I had a friend that took his own weapon to the first Persian Gulf War. I guess he strapped it to his body somehow concealed, and got it on the plane. You might make it flying from an Army or Air Force base, but if you get diverted to a civilian airport you might get in trouble. Leave the POW at home in my opinion!

All of the military regulations and international treaties aside, there is a simple good reason for not allowing personal weapons on deployments.

We use the same weapons so that in the heat of combat we can grab ammo from our teammates if we run out. If someone is using a personal weapon chambered in .40 instead of NATO 9mm, for instance, this creates a problem. Even if our weapon malfunctions and we grab one from a fallen or wounded comrade, we may not be familiar or proficient in it and it can cost lives on our side.

As much as I'd like to have My personal Ruger P90.45ACP, and Ruger SR/AR-10, they're both obsolete/out of production, as far as Ruger is concerned. Acquisition of repair parts becomes a problem. Not good in a combat situation. You can bet the Unit Armorer has repair parts for the Issue Weapon though.

Government issue should suffice, but I understand why one would want to. It's more common with special operators, and they seem to make it work. Whether it is their personal weapon or one modified within the unit, they battle with the weapons they are most familiar and comfortable with.

I agree.

Sounds dangerous to me. The biggest issue I have with it is that those weapons are not covered by Army regulations, Army inspection or Army maintence cycles. Your relying 100% on said NCO to maintain their personal weapon to standards of the weapon manufacturer, ensure they do not make modifications to it that impact safety or performance and once that weapon is on the battlefield and say dropped or the NCO falls and another soldier picks it up for use............do they know it's history and can they have confidence the weapon is one maintained and monitored by the Army vs a private individual? Lets say a Private takes over the weapon, fires it and the chamber blows up in his face and event that would probably be witnessed by others.........what effect will that have on the troops? So NO, stick with what is issued, maintained and supervised by the Army.

For some reason, I was allowed a M1911 when I was skipper out East Timor way. It was government issue. Everyone else has M9s. Back in CONUS we had to do paperwork to be "legit" on personally owned service match weapons for our practice and competitive shoots at varied locations, some foreign. Always felt good about being covered by paper. The armorers at NWS Crane worked on both our personal and service owned inventory.