Has Tactical Gone Too Far?


PDA






M.E.Eldridge
January 14, 2006, 06:59 PM
I want to know your opinions on the matter. Has the tacti-cool fad gotten out of hand? At every gun show I see ARs decked out in all sorts of fancy lights, lasers, collapsable stocks, holographic scopes, grips, mag couplers and other junk. Now I could see the use of a light or laser on a pistol or carbine, in fact I want to put one on a Hi-Point .40 S&W Carbine, but what they got now seems to much to me. Any other thoughts?

If you enjoyed reading about "Has Tactical Gone Too Far?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Harry Paget Flashman
January 14, 2006, 07:05 PM
It's all a matter of disposable income and taste. Some people like to trick out cars with mud flaps, curb feelers and spoilers. Where's the harm?

joab
January 14, 2006, 07:06 PM
Has Tactical Gone Too Far
Yes
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v14/bugman/Picture015.jpg
And it ain't done yet

gezzer
January 14, 2006, 07:06 PM
Yep at least 5 years ago:what:

Black Majik
January 14, 2006, 07:13 PM
When I think about tactical I think of the AR market. Some of those M4's weigh as much as an M249!

In short, yes I think its gone too far. Practicality has been overrun by gadgets. And in most AR15 fan's defense, MOST of those add-on's are NECESSARY. Yeah rite....

Whats the point of the red dot with zoom, plus NVD behind it and BUIS sight behind that. Kinda cool to look thru those picture threads though, but quite a bit much.

gbran
January 14, 2006, 07:16 PM
My son-in-law hunts and shoots with me a lot. He always looks like a Navy Seal when we go out. Even his Ruger 10/22 rifle looks tactical. It's almost embarassing to take him along. Trust me, all that tactical equip and looks don't seem to bring him any mor results, but he sure looks cool.

M.E.Eldridge
January 14, 2006, 07:37 PM
Thank god I'm not alone in my way of thinking. Whenever I make my proclivities know to the dealer types they look at me like I'm a whackjob. Oh, well no harm done

thereisnospoon
January 14, 2006, 07:38 PM
It really depends...

There is A LOT of stuff we do to our guns because its (tacti)cool or we like the looks or we just plain can't find anything else to spend our money on.

However, that being said...

Having a light on a home defense shotgun,carbine or pistol could mean the difference between shooting a loved one and an intruder. Having a "laser" can be intimidating and can stop a hostile in their tracks. Having a Holographic Weapon Site (HWS)....or as you say "scope" can mean faster target acquisition and mean the difference between being dead ir alive.

Most of us will never need ANY of the stuff we have, heck, some people never practice with their "tacticool" gear, but tis better to have and not need than need and not have...

TexasRifleman
January 14, 2006, 07:46 PM
What's "tactical" and "toy" for one might not be for another.

A light on the weapon? A red dot sight?

I'd really put those as sort of standard equipment for any defensive weapon, along with backup iron sights in case something breaks.

Beyond that it can get pretty silly. I saw a guy on another board post a picture of his 7.5" shorty AR, but it had a 2x magnifier and a bipod. :scrutiny:

Glockman17366
January 14, 2006, 07:53 PM
Yep...although I'm guilty of it myself!

Mainly, the police have gone way, way overboard with this "Tactical" crap. IMHO, SWAT teams were a bad idea 20 years ago and a worse idea today. The SWAT teams are brought in for every instance it seems. Just as an example..that kid in Florida who was shot...and the kid had a pellet gun.

hksw
January 14, 2006, 07:57 PM
Eh, if you don't like to even look at them, don't pay them any attention and move along. Personally, I don't care for them myself but others do. If you don't like it enough to complain, get an FFL and sell and display the guns the way you think would be ideal.

Cosmoline
January 14, 2006, 07:59 PM
I like sticking lights on carbines because they're helpful. But it can go too far. Some of the tricked out AR's weigh more than ten pounds, not to mention the decked out semi pistols that weigh as much as a magnum revolver. At some point your returns start to diminish.

TexasRifleman
January 14, 2006, 07:59 PM
Just as an example..that kid in Florida who was shot...and the kid had a pellet gun.

I think that's a bit unfair. A kid in a school with a gun, unknown type of gun at the time, calls for SWAT in my opinion.

If MY kid was in school and some nut was walking around the building with a gun I'd want a SWAT team to take him out just exactly like they did.

Chris Rhines
January 14, 2006, 08:01 PM
Nope.

The whole anti-tactical thing has gone too far, though. It's based on the idea that someone else knows whats best for me, and for my kind of shooting.

Join me at the range sometime, and I'd be happy to show you what all the gadgets and doo-dads have bought me. ;)

- Chris

Justin
January 14, 2006, 08:12 PM
No.

Simply because no one makes a drink can coozie that can be put on a picatinny rail.


Yet.

Bridger
January 14, 2006, 08:13 PM
Some of it is too far and some of it makes sense. The "uninitiated" ;) won't necessarily understand all of it and so lump it all together as "excessive" when it's something as simple as a red dot. But if you actually have something like a red dot or a good rail system, and use your rifle for more than just bump firing, you might be more attuned to what is useful, and what is junk. Personally, I'm not sure yet if a bipod is a valuable attachment for my AR-15.

A lot of the stuff in the "cheaper than dirt" catalogue etc is pretty junky, as well as a lot of stuff I've seen at gun shows.

M.E.Eldridge
January 14, 2006, 08:18 PM
I never said that no one would ever need any of the tactical shtuff. I also said that a light or a laser could be useful. I don't really consider a red dot scope tactical. While the holographic sights might mean faster target aquisition, the ones I have seen all interfere with iron sights(or vice versa). I also think that to many people now have to rely on doo-dads to for basic firearms skills. Iron sights are on a gun for a reason. Learn to use them effectively and the need for fancy scopes for quick close range shooting won't be nearly as great.

taliv
January 14, 2006, 08:36 PM
my take on it is as follows:

if you've decked your baby out with all the gadgets you can afford, and over the course of firing 5000 rnds or more, those gadgets are still attached and you're happy, then more power to you. rock on.

otoh, if you've loaded it up and stuck it on your mantle without putting more than a few hundred rounds through it, all the while thinking it's the perfect tactical configuration, i reserve the right to snicker.

Bartholomew Roberts
January 14, 2006, 08:41 PM
Iron sights are on a gun for a reason. Learn to use them effectively and the need for fancy scopes for quick close range shooting won't be nearly as great.

Yeah, they are there to use if the primary sight goes down. Sure they won't be as fast since you have to align three different objects (rear sight, front sight, target) in three different focal planes. They also require a consistent cheek weld unlike a holographic or red dot sight.

As to the rest of the stuff, buy what you need and want. Don't buy the rest. Most of that stuff has very practical applications; but if you do most of your shooting at fixed targets from the bench, you won't really get much chance to appeciate what they add. Also in a lot of cases, some gear is very specific and is good for a certain role and not so good for others. If you have made the wrong trade-off you may not be happy with that gear; but it doesn't mean it has no purpose.

Sam
January 14, 2006, 08:41 PM
Tactical went to far the minute someone picked up a spray can and started in with the black Krylon.

That's just fine with me. You want it, I'll sell it, you'll pay for it and it'll go in my wallet.:evil:
When tactical is done for, I'll sell chrome!:neener:

Sam

Rancid Bacon
January 14, 2006, 08:44 PM
I've noticed this alot as well. I chalk it up to the times. Remember the late 80's and most of the 90's? The term "MILSPEC" was all the rage back then, now it's tactical.

Don't get me wrong, 'tactical' sells...you can't tell me it's not a marketing ploy to some extent, but where do we draw the line as to what's practical and what is fluff?

I guess it's up to the operator (hehe..another term that is loosely used) and his gear that HE FEELS GOOD WITH.

Another way to chalk it up is that gear is getting better and more effecient.

My dad had a high speed-low drag tactical belt he used when my brothers and I acted up in the 70's, and he could hit his target:eek:

Justin
January 14, 2006, 09:04 PM
Iron sights are on a gun for a reason. Learn to use them effectively and the need for fancy scopes for quick close range shooting won't be nearly as great.

Disagree.

While at the Rocky Mountain 3 Gun competition in New Mexico last year, I ran a stock Rock River AR carbine with iron sights.

Despite being told by more than one person that I did quite well* with the iron sights, I was still left in the dust by those with scopes.

Now, granted, it was the first 3 Gun type competition I've ever shot, but I'm pretty much sold on the concept of having some sort of optic, like an ACOG, on a rifle.

*I don't say this to brag, I really consider myself to be a mediocre rifle shot.

Bill2k1
January 14, 2006, 09:12 PM
I would say it has gone way to far. There are two types of people. Those who use all the fancy stuff, and those who shoot with the light and 4 mags attached from a bench.

If you take classes and all of that, then tactical stuff maybe for you. If you have 14 items on your gun and only use them for looks, then I will laugh.

Dionysusigma
January 14, 2006, 09:34 PM
*sigh* Forget the "Tactical" fad.

Why are people still droning on about single-action wheelguns and lever-action rifles? Those are so obsoloete, NO military's dumb enough anymore to use 'em!

And black powder, too! Who the heck wants to spend 95% of their time at the range reloading, and in the end only getting off 10-15 shots? :confused:

Nobody uses Apple IIe, BASIC, or slide-rules anymore, either. Get with the times, people! :evil:

/dons flame suit, and goes ahead and call ambulance to save reaction time

benEzra
January 14, 2006, 09:57 PM
My son-in-law hunts and shoots with me a lot. He always looks like a Navy Seal when we go out. Even his Ruger 10/22 rifle looks tactical. It's almost embarassing to take him along. Trust me, all that tactical equip and looks don't seem to bring him any mor results, but he sure looks cool.
I don't see a problem. You see the same thing in the automotive realm. People who came of age thinking big-block Chevelles with Edelbrock intakes and Holley carbs were IT, make fun of the guy driving a slammed Civic with 20" wheels, wings, levitation lights, an aftermarket turbo kit, and video screens on the seatbacks. So what? Different strokes for different folks.

I personally think firearms covered with engraving are ridiculous, so I wouldn't own one. But if someone thinks that's a work of art and wants to own one, more power to him. Cowboy-style guns don't appeal to me either, and neither do revolvers. But there plenty of cowboy action shooters and revolver enthusiasts here. Good for them.

I think putting a bipod on an M4gery is rather silly, BUT if you like to shoot from the bench, what's the difference between a bipod and a benchrest w/sandbags? Not a lot.

Lights and red dots ARE practical accessories, and I am currently in the market for a holographic sight for my SAR-1. Not because I don't know how to use the irons, but because a holosight is faster in good lighting, not cheekweld-dependent, WAY faster in less-than-ideal lighting, and NEAT.

Mannlicher
January 14, 2006, 10:06 PM
it has gotten so far out of line, that its downright stupid now. Maybe its 'tactiStupid'.

f4t9r
January 14, 2006, 10:24 PM
whatever one wants. I just do not have the $$$ to trick mine out.
I do like em !!!!!!

coylh
January 14, 2006, 10:29 PM
People sure are good at finding opportunities to be offended.

R.W.Dale
January 14, 2006, 11:22 PM
On the same line of thinking. has anybody noticed that police are now "Law ENFORCEMENT officers" not peace officers or police officers.

Lex
January 14, 2006, 11:26 PM
I like the Tacti-Cool stuff.

I just got some of the Oakley Assault boots (thanks Santa!). WOW! These are very comfortable...even compared to my converse tactical boots.

Love the EOTECH scopes, AIMPOINTS, etc on my M-4'gery too.

I don't , however,condone dressing in a gilley suit to "play" in the woods.



Lex

thereisnospoon
January 14, 2006, 11:46 PM
I also think that to many people now have to rely on doo-dads to for basic firearms skills. Iron sights are on a gun for a reason. Learn to use them effectively and the need for fancy scopes for quick close range shooting won't be nearly as great.

I am in the medical field. Are you telling me that the Cardiologist I work with should learn to do Cardiac surgeory like they did 20 years ago, and then once he's succesful at that he could then learn the more inticate techniques currently in use. I understand how to use the iron sights on my M14/S, and have a SE, Inc. Scope Mount that allows the use of the irons, should the need arise. The HWS is faster/easier.

It is obvious to me that you are speaking as someone who has never used a HWS or red dot in a CQB style training class or competition (this is not an accusation, just an observation). Shooting a friend's one time at the range doesn't count...

Why do you suppose the guys who shoot Open class can shoot scenarios SO MUCH FASTER/BETTER/MORE ACCURATE than stock class?

Again, to each his own, but I want every advantage both in competition and in home defense.

M.E.Eldridge
January 14, 2006, 11:49 PM
Yeah, they are there to use if the primary sight goes down. Sure they won't be as fast since you have to align three different objects (rear sight, front sight, target) in three different focal planes. They also require a consistent cheek weld unlike a holographic or red dot sight.

As to the rest of the stuff, buy what you need and want. Don't buy the rest. Most of that stuff has very practical applications; but if you do most of your shooting at fixed targets from the bench, you won't really get much chance to appeciate what they add. Also in a lot of cases, some gear is very specific and is good for a certain role and not so good for others. If you have made the wrong trade-off you may not be happy with that gear; but it doesn't mean it has no purpose.

Ah, so iron sides are back up? Here I thought they were a legitimate target aquisition system.

Seriously though, I think its just the opposite. Scopes and fancy sights are the back up. If you need quick sighting, go for your scope. If you need long range sniping go for the scope. If you need moderate mid range shooting under most conditions use your iron sights. If you were bieng attacked would you want to rely on a piece of electronics that may malfunction or do you want dependable iron sights.

Furthermore, if I thought I need to defend myself I'm going to have my rifle loaded,cocked and at my shoulder.If an animal charged me I'd be able to get a shot off as accurately as possible.

Maybe I'm not knowledgeable enough on SWAT/Police/Urban Combat tactics. I live in the country and I don't plan on a tactical entry into a building full of crack dealers anytime soon.

Chris Rhines
January 15, 2006, 12:01 AM
Ah, so iron sides are back up? Here I thought they were a legitimate target aquisition system. Nope. Backup only. Optics are better for everything, every circumstance that I can think of.

If you were bieng attacked would you want to rely on a piece of electronics that may malfunction or do you want dependable iron sights. I've made that choice - scope, every time. Scopes are faster, more accurate, and easier to use.

An aside - I've never had any of my scopes fail under hard use. I have had two different sets of iron sights break on me. You tell me which I should depend on.

Maybe I'm not knowledgeable enough on SWAT/Police/Urban Combat tactics. You said it, not me.

- Chris

spaceCADETzoom
January 15, 2006, 12:20 AM
Maybe I'm not knowledgeable enough on SWAT/Police/Urban Combat tactics.
You said it, not me.

- Chris
I think you unwittingly hit one of the criticisms of tactical right there...

There are a lot of suburban ninjas buying all sorts of crap that has "tactical" on it. SWAT types...who dream of kicking down doors and throwing shurikens...erm...i mean, flashbangs. Guys who are "knowledgable on SWAT/Police/Urban Combat tactics"

Maybe you are a SWAT cop, I dont know you. Even if so, I think the disdain for "tactical" is the underlying juxtaposition of "rough & tough" SWAT versus,say, deployed soldiers, etc... There's just something odd about the inflation of "tacticool" in suburban/urban america. There are countless catalogs out tehre that sell boots, bags, lights, sights, etc...all to "nascar dads" married to soccermoms.

Please note, i don't mean to disparage law abiding citizens who like being "tactical" nor cops who serve thier communities being "tactical." I'm merely noting the ideas behind some who think "tactical fgoing too far."

ajax
January 15, 2006, 12:24 AM
M.E.Eldridge I have to agree with you. I've seen guys with ARs that have so much stuff on it I would be shocked if they could shoot it without a bipod. I guess to each his own. I definitly like my scopes and my halo sight but gadgets just are not for me. I'd still like to know what half that ???? is. When you have more than 5 items attached that have a acronym with 5 or more letters for the name you might have gone over board.:neener:

adaman04
January 15, 2006, 12:50 AM
I think some people take it too far as for practicality. Loading your gun down with 10 lbs of crap makes that gun way heavier and therefore often less fun to shoot. Not that it is neccessarily less fun I guess, just more weight to deal with. Why do a lot of people do it? Because this is America* and we can!

*America: According to the current legistlative standings in some areas. Your personal freedoms may differ and are subject to change due to uninformed legisators and soccer moms. We thank you for your time. :D

WarMachine
January 15, 2006, 12:52 AM
If it brings more people into the shooting sports (especially the youth who's only experience orignally came from video games) then what's the harm?

It's certainly not hurting anything, and there are more choices in firearms today, than there has ever been. This is a time to be happy :evil:

1911 guy
January 15, 2006, 09:22 AM
A lot of the doo-dadds are in existence because someone has/had a use for them, so I won't say that all things "tactical" are bull hooey, but as a marketing tactic, it's gone way too far. Examples:

BTW, the "quotes" are my ad-lib, not direct from advertisements.

If I buy a Kimber Warrior, it will be because I like the features of the pistol, not because it's "tactical, just like MEUSOC uses". Oh, and MEUSOC pistols are built on Springer frames, IIRC.

Harvester sells pants that go for well over a hundred bucks because they have a built in "tactical thigh holster" built in. How can that not be obvious?

Bipods are now "tactical" instead of a steady shooting platform. Rifles with an extra swivel stud are now "tacical models"

All these things have uses, but it's been done to death as a marketing gimmick.

GoBrush
January 15, 2006, 11:33 AM
It's all a matter of disposable income and taste. Some people like to trick out cars with mud flaps, curb feelers and spoilers. Where's the harm?

+1 dead on Paget

Old Dog
January 15, 2006, 11:50 AM
Perhaps the question should be, "Has the accessorization fad gone too far?" as the word "tactical" is so often and so readily mis-applied these days as to have lost all meaning.

tactical (tak'tik'l), adj. 1. of tactics, especially in military or naval maneuvers. 2. characterized by or showing cleverness and skill in tactics.

Look at your typical issue of, say, SWAT Magazine. Count the number of advertisements where gear is termed "tactical" or "extreme."

Why are pants being marketed as "tactical?" Because they're black and have lots of pockets? Why does a gun have a "tactical rail" or "tactical sights" rather than an accessory rail or night/light/holo/laser sights? "Tactical flashlights?" Give me a break.

Yes, tactical has gone too far ... in terms of how the word is used. Accessorization? Availability and marketing to the civilian market, of previously military or LE only accessories and gear? No, that's not gone too far -- many of us find this stuff quite useful and enjoyable.

akodo
January 15, 2006, 12:33 PM
I think that's a bit unfair. A kid in a school with a gun, unknown type of gun at the time, calls for SWAT in my opinion.

If MY kid was in school and some nut was walking around the building with a gun I'd want a SWAT team to take him out just exactly like they did.

Kids are imperfect thinkiers, that's why they are called kids. Let's take this one step further. 'Hey Billy, want to see the cool airsoft pistol i got for xmas, i know you and your dad are big into shooting' 'okay! cool!' Wham SWAT shoots your kid in the head.

Look, i am not saying toy guns in schools are a good idea, but you need not storm the building with 20 guys wielding mp-5s

joab
January 15, 2006, 12:54 PM
DELETED
Sorry about that akodo and I both posted on the wrong thread

1911Tuner
January 15, 2006, 01:07 PM
yes...Way too far. Understand that it's mainly a marketing ploy for the uninitiated. Sometimes the concept doesn't even apply to the equipment being marketed. Take Smith & Wesson's "Combat Magnum" moniker that they hung on the 4-inch M-19...and then stuck target sights and grips on it!:rolleyes:

308win
January 15, 2006, 01:16 PM
I don't , however,condone dressing in a gilley suit to "play" in the woods.Lex
I have been toying with building a gilley suit to see if I have the patience and skill to get really close to a groundhog.

1911Tuner
January 15, 2006, 01:23 PM
I have been toying with building a gilley suit to see if I have the patience and skill to get really close to a groundhog.

Wanna put your suit and your stalking skills to a test? See how close you can get to a Wild Turkey! Whew!:D

pwrtool45
January 15, 2006, 01:30 PM
yes...Way too far. Understand that it's mainly a marketing ploy for the uninitiated. Sometimes the concept doesn't even apply to the equipment being marketed. Take Smith & Wesson's "Combat Magnum" moniker that they hung on the 4-inch M-19...and then stuck target sights and grips on it!:rolleyes:

Heh. Well, IIRC, the 686/681 was the Distinguished Combat/Service Magnum, so I was kinda expecting the new 619/620s to be named the "Tactical Combat/Service Magnum." It's tactical, see, cause it's got titanium and, uh, black stuff on it. ;)

Along with Old Dog and 1911guy, I also thought the tactical pants (511s or whatnot?) was borderline. What's next? Tactical underwear? Camoflage the skid marks of the S Hitting the F? Now, that'll officially be too far.

Tom Servo
January 15, 2006, 01:35 PM
Yeah, "tactical" used to be so trendy before everybody started doing it. Used to be, I was the only guy at the beach with a Level II vest and G36 in a thigh holster... :)

Rem700SD
January 15, 2006, 01:42 PM
I must admit that I've succombed(sp) to the art of accessorizing, which is what I think that the "tactical" craze has become. I think it's due to market forces. There's been a plateau reached in gun design, and in the current legal/litiginous environment, designing new weapons from scratch is nearly impossible. Ron Barrett is one notable exception that I can recall, and he was nearly 20 years ago. Therefore the market has shifted to industries that are less regulated. Ask most gun stores and gun show people, and I'll wager their profit margin is exponentially higher on acessories than the actual gun. Just my observation.
Dan

zahc
January 15, 2006, 02:08 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v14/bugman/Picture015.jpg

What stock is that?

Mizzle187
January 15, 2006, 02:19 PM
I love the tactical stuff but then again Im under 30 and live in the city. What Im saying is I think alot of it has to do with age and demographics-but not totally. Is there suck thing as too-tactical? I think so! I have some tactical accessories and weapons. Do I think I went overboard? I know I didnt. I also have a truck thats is only 30% stock. Did I go overboard? I dont think so but there are plenty of people that have! More power to them! What ever makes them happy!

Bartholomew Roberts
January 15, 2006, 02:20 PM
Ah, so iron sides are back up? Here I thought they were a legitimate target aquisition system.

Well, they wouldn't be a very effective back-up if they weren't a legitimate targeting system would they? Just a nit pick; but you don't acquire a target with your irons - that is what the MkI Mod0 eyeball is for.

Seriously though, look at the Marines evaluation of the ACOG (which is now being issued throughout the USMC as the Rifle Combat Optic). Marines are required to hit targets out to 500m with iron sights as part of their basic training. Yet every Marine found the ACOG easier to use and scored better using it at all ranges. Look at any 3-gun competition. How often does the iron sight competitor come out on top of the guys in the open class?

Lots of guys who know how to use iron sights real well choose to use optics as their primary sight. Why do you think that is? Because they are suckers for marketing buzzwords?

Maybe I'm not knowledgeable enough on SWAT/Police/Urban Combat tactics. I live in the country and I don't plan on a tactical entry into a building full of crack dealers anytime soon.

Well, you don't have to be in combat to appreciate an ability to shoot more accurately, more quickly. If you do any type of hunting, timed competition, etc. you realize the benefits of optics. About the only place they may not be apparent is if you spend all your time plinking at a stationary target on the range.

The reason optics are the primary sight system is because they are the more effective sight system for the vast majority of people. This isn't supposition. You can look at military studies. You can [url=http://www.tacproshootingcenter.com/PDF/3Gun_Res_Oct05.pdf]look at 3-gun competition[/quote]. You can do your own tests side-by-side with your buddies. The results are apparent.

rustymaggot
January 15, 2006, 02:30 PM
No.

Simply because no one makes a drink can coozie that can be put on a picatinny rail.


Yet. vibration would disturb any carbonated drink and a good chance it will overflow. you could roll with fruit juice, but soda is out. if you do make one ,maybe a brass catcher is in order, to avoid a empty shell landing in the drink.

308win
January 15, 2006, 02:39 PM
Wanna put your suit and your stalking skills to a test? See how close you can get to a Wild Turkey! Whew!:D
Where I shoot groundhogs if I sit still long enough a turkey or three will walk by. Turkeys aren't scarce in Licking County.

coylh
January 15, 2006, 02:42 PM
vibration would disturb any carbonated drink and a good chance it will overflow

I.F.D. = Improvised Fizzy Drink

TexasRifleman
January 15, 2006, 02:46 PM
vibration would disturb any carbonated drink and a good chance it will overflow. you could roll with fruit juice, but soda is out. if you do make one ,maybe a brass catcher is in order, to avoid a empty shell landing in the drink.

Actually I saw a picture posted over at arf com where some idiot mounted one on his rail. The photo showed him shooting with what I think was a Miller Lite in the thing.

Mad Bodhi
January 15, 2006, 05:47 PM
98% of the these guy's would be better served learning to shoot rather than getting the latest greatest bit of plastic to hang on a 15 lb .22.The whole problem is that people want to have all the cool stuff because it's something you can show off,you can't show of training as easily.My rifle is not a toy it is a WEAPON,and as such I consider any modifications carefully with a few things in mind.Will it adversely affect reliability? Am I using this as a crutch? Does it add complexity? and last, Are the actual benefits worth the trade off? I am responsible for the safety and well being of my family under any circumstance,from making sure their vehicles are in order and the smoke alarm has batteries to going to war against an aggresor.Always remember that a rifle is for serious business.Keep that in mind and you'll likely end up with a weapon that fits YOUR situation.If that happens to be a 15lb .22 ,well then GODSPEED.

rocky
January 15, 2006, 05:54 PM
Yes, I cannot afford to keep up with all the new ubertactical toys. Hmm, I wonder what color will be "in" for '06? Will coyote brown go by the wayside? :cuss:

Jeff White
January 15, 2006, 06:23 PM
We live in America where people have enough disposable income to indulge their hobbies. If some guy wants to spend thousands of dollars on the latest HSLD toys so that when his friends come over, he can trot his M4gery out of the safe and impress them, I don't have a problem with that.

To me it's just the same as people who build elaborate model railroads, restore antique cars, build hot rods that will drive 60 mph faster then any posted speed limit, collect antiques, coins or matchbook covers. It's a hobby and if it's not your cup of tea, you don't have to participate.

I have to admit, that sometimes I look at the pictures of some hobbyist's kit on the forums and get a little jealous because my department can't afford some of that stuff and neither can I. The only time I have a problem with that hobby is when an item of equipment becomes very popular and the collectors and airsofters buy it up so quickly that the guys who really use the kit for it's intended purpose can't find it in stock.

Jeff

444
January 15, 2006, 06:40 PM
One of the things that have defined my hobbies since early childhood is the fact that I love gadgets.
I buy as many firearms related gadgets as I can.
In my opinion, the vast majority of stuff I buy has a good solid practical use. And, I arrived at this decision after using the products, which is more than I can say of most of the bashers.
If you spend much time on internet gun forums, you will quickly find out that there are a large number of people who are very negative. There are also a number of people who love to buck trends. If something is popular, they are against it just because it is popular. My dad is like that. If some music is popular, he hates it. If "everyone" is wearing some style, he makes sure he would never be seen wearing that. If men are wearing their hair long, he has his head shaved. If shaved heads are popular, he grows his hair out. He even goes so far as to put down the local football team just because pretty much everyone where he lives root for that team. Thank God that I realized this was stupid behavior and make an effort not to do this myself.

"98% of the these guy's would be better served learning to shoot rather than getting the latest greatest bit of plastic to hang on a 15 lb .22."
I have over a dozen AR15s. I have ARs with barrel lengths of 7.5", 10.5", 16", 20", 24". I have all the cool stuff to go with them including suppressors. I have everything "hanging" off them that I think I want. Cost or weight don't even enter into the equation. If you want to shoot against me, bring it on. I'm not worried.

One of the things that makes me chuckle is reading theads like this where a bunch of people try to impress each other by talking about how they don't buy into the whole "tactical" craze: Why ? Because their guns are built strictly for combat.

M.E.Eldridge
January 15, 2006, 06:44 PM
Gadgets are fun and all, but everything is being called tactical now. That's one of the main reasons I think its gotten out of hand. Today I saw an ad for tactical pants.How the hell can pants be tactical?

M.E.Eldridge
January 15, 2006, 06:45 PM
Turkeys aren't scarce in Licking County.

I think I'll have to head up to Licking County next Turkey season. Is there any good public land around there?

308win
January 15, 2006, 06:55 PM
Some around Flint Ridge Park but it gets a lot of pressure. Also around Black Hand Gorge. You might check out Dillon Reservoir area. Most of it is in next county but there are a lot of turkeys. Check the DNR site for public hunting areas. I hunted turkeys in Illinois in the late 70,s and early 80's when there were a half dozen counties or so open and a statewide harvest of 40 was a big deal. Now I will see close to that many in a week during certain times of the year.

Jeff White
January 15, 2006, 06:55 PM
M.E. Eldridge said;
Gadgets are fun and all, but everything is being called tactical now. That's one of the main reasons I think its gotten out of hand. Today I saw an ad for tactical pants.How the hell can pants be tactical?

You're complaining about marketing. I'm sure whatever advertising agency is writing the ads and advising the manufacturers on what to call their products has done some reseach and decided that the word tactical will sell to the target audience. Who knows, next year it might be strategic equipment that everyone wants to buy.

Jeff

Bartholomew Roberts
January 15, 2006, 07:00 PM
Gadgets are fun and all, but everything is being called tactical now. That's one of the main reasons I think its gotten out of hand. Today I saw an ad for tactical pants.How the hell can pants be tactical?

Well somebody could make a pair of slacks with the "cellphone" pocket on the left hand side. The big cut on the rear pockets of the 5.11 pants is also handy to use as a dump pouch for expended mags.

Are these things 95% of people would appreciate? No. Are they things that are more effective than better training? No. Do they have a limited utility for certain jobs? Sure.

KriegHund
January 15, 2006, 07:13 PM
I want to know your opinions on the matter. Has the tacti-cool fad gotten out of hand? At every gun show I see ARs decked out in all sorts of fancy lights, lasers, collapsable stocks, holographic scopes, grips, mag couplers and other junk. Now I could see the use of a light or laser on a pistol or carbine, in fact I want to put one on a Hi-Point .40 S&W Carbine, but what they got now seems to much to me. Any other thoughts?

When youve got over 3 aiming devices (not including iron sights) i consider that a "Yes".

One flashlight, one red dot, and a forward grip, im fine with.
However, red dot and laser, that seems a little pointless.

It really depends on how usefull the stuff is.

444
January 15, 2006, 07:21 PM
"How the hell can pants be tactical?"
How can a pair of boots be "hunting boots", or "hiking boots" ?
How can a knife be called a "hunting knife" ?
Why would a coat be called a "ski coat " ?
Why would a car be called a "family car", or a "work car" ?
What about a "lawn tractor" or "farm" tractor.

You get the idea.

Many things can be used for multiple uses. Many items were made with a specific purpose in mind and that item works very well for that purpose. That doesn't mean you can't possibly use it for anything else.

Ok, so what would make a pair of pants "tactical" ?
Well, I guess we would be comaring that pair of pants to a pair of dress slacks or maybe jeans ? Or can we campare them to hunting pants ?
They have features like reinforced stitching, pockets down on your thigh that you can got into when wearing gear or body armor, big pockets for carrying gear that would be unsightly at the office, wide belt loops................some even have pockets sewn into the knees that you can insert knee pads into.

I own a couple pairs of tactical pants. I find that they suit me better than any other pants I own for everyday wear. I like to carry a lot of junk in my pockets. I have taken a number of formal shooting classes and wore those pants at those classes and thought they were terrific: when I had worn my two pair and had to go back to jeans it changed my whole style: if nothing else just because I couldn't stuff the pockets full of magazines: both full and empty.

MS .45
January 16, 2006, 11:47 AM
I don't see the problem with it. To each his own. I tend to keep my weapons pretty simple but that is just because I spend a lot of my disposable income elsewhere.

middy
January 16, 2006, 11:49 AM
One of the things that makes me chuckle is reading theads like this where a bunch of people try to impress each other by talking about how they don't buy into the whole "tactical" craze: Why ? Because their guns are built strictly for combat.
:D

I think you nailed it, 444.

Manedwolf
January 16, 2006, 11:50 AM
Yep...although I'm guilty of it myself!

Mainly, the police have gone way, way overboard with this "Tactical" crap. IMHO, SWAT teams were a bad idea 20 years ago and a worse idea today. The SWAT teams are brought in for every instance it seems. Just as an example..that kid in Florida who was shot...and the kid had a pellet gun.

The kid had painted the red tip of it black, and it was a school hostage situation. I call that a good response and a good shoot.

mtnbkr
January 16, 2006, 12:16 PM
No.
Simply because no one makes a drink can coozie that can be put on a picatinny rail.
Yet.
Several years ago (nearly 10), my wife, then girlfriend, gave me a handlebar mounted drink holder for my mountain bike. It even had a quickrelease so you could remove it, leaving the mounting bracket attached. I never figured out a good use for it since I didn't take can drinks on my rides. It was marketed to hold your coffee cup, but the last thing I want on a mtn bike ride is a bouncing cup of steaming hot liquid nearby.

Probably wouldn't be too hard to modify it for a picatinny rail. Heck, it was even made from titanium.

Chris

TechBrute
January 16, 2006, 02:32 PM
Has "Tactical" gone too far?

The more important question is if Cowboy Action Shooting has gone too far! Seriously, limiting yourself to 6 shots in a pistol? 2 shots in a Shotgun? Your can't even use a shotgun that ejects its own shells! What's with that?

How about that silly Hunting? Seriously, they have meat down the street at the deli. Of course some guys have more money in their hunting ATVs than I do in my rifle.

Benchrest shooting? Talk about worthless! 50 pound rifles? Nothing practical there!

Trap and Skeet? Come on, I see shotguns out there that cost more than my car! What do you need all that money in a shotgun for? Nothing practical about that! And for what? Shooting little clay Frisbees!

And what's all this whining about a 10lb rifle? You can have an AR with a light and optic and it would still weigh less than the legendary M1A.

At the end of the day, I have a rifle with a white light and a red dot optic. Totally practical. I'm not wedded to the iron sights as if one must master the irons otherwise they won't be able to hit anything. People who know a WHOLE lot more about practical rifle usage than you do say that a white light is indespensable. People who have FORGOTTEN more about rifle usage than you will ever know have shown over and over the benifit of the red dot optic.

If you want to live under a rock with your single shot muzzleloader, feel free. I won't judge you. Actually, I will... :neener:

USMCRotrHed
January 16, 2006, 03:22 PM
Yetserday at the range, I looked down the line. I was shooting on the 200 yard targets with my AR (iron sights) and so was 1 other guy. He had a 30/30 lever action with iron sights. There was a guy shooting 100 yards, sighting in his scope for hunting and such. On the far end were 4 others. One guy was teaching his girlfriend to shoot his SKS on the 25 yard targets and then the last 3 guys all had "tactical toys". There were optics and scopes galore on rifles that spent the whole time sitting on the benchrest while shooting.

My point is...if you are going to spend the money on that stuff, use it to it's potential. Those guys had the equipment to outshoot me at 200 yards and they never pushed themselves to see what their gear could do. BUT it sure looked cool. IMHO it would have looked cooler at 200 yards.

308win
January 16, 2006, 05:11 PM
Yetserday at the range, I looked down the line. I was shooting on the 200 yard targets with my AR (iron sights) and so was 1 other guy. He had a 30/30 lever action with iron sights. There was a guy shooting 100 yards, sighting in his scope for hunting and such. On the far end were 4 others. One guy was teaching his girlfriend to shoot his SKS on the 25 yard targets and then the last 3 guys all had "tactical toys". There were optics and scopes galore on rifles that spent the whole time sitting on the benchrest while shooting.

My point is...if you are going to spend the money on that stuff, use it to it's potential. Those guys had the equipment to outshoot me at 200 yards and they never pushed themselves to see what their gear could do. BUT it sure looked cool. IMHO it would have looked cooler at 200 yards.

Maybe the knew what they were capable of at 200yds and didn't want to embarass themselves. I know my Remmy will shoot better than I can but that doesn't stop me from trying.

Fred Fuller
January 16, 2006, 05:27 PM
I sometimes refer to it as "tack tickle." By that I mean those folk who believe that the trigger on a firearm simply cannot be pulled until it has at least twice the original cost of the original platform bolted on in the form of various accessories. It has to meet some idea of what a given sort of firearm is SPOZED to look like before it can ever be fired the first time, you understand.

I see it most among the shotgun crowd, probably some in other camps feel the same way. Shotgun forum moderator Dave McC has tee shirts made up with the acronym BA/UU/R, a common refrain over there. It stands for 'Buy ammo, use up, repeat.' Of course that assumes someone actually wants to learn to SHOOT, as opposed to passively accumulating kewl points by spending money on fuzzy dice and fender skirts.

lpl/nc (run what helps you shoot better)

TechBrute
January 16, 2006, 05:36 PM
By that I mean those folk who believe that the trigger on a firearm simply cannot be pulled until it has at least twice the original cost of the original platform bolted on in the form of various accessories.
Oh good, another "enlightened" member who thinks that there should be some correlation between the cost of a firearms and the cost of the add-on.:rolleyes:

Fred Fuller
January 16, 2006, 05:45 PM
Not at all.

I just believe that skill has never been sold in a box or blisterpack, and can't be bought and bolted on. Kewl points, of course, are another matter entirely.

lpl/nc (RUN WHAT HELPS YOU SHOOT BETTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

KriegHund
January 16, 2006, 05:52 PM
Its funny how alot of the people against "Tacti-cool" automaticly assume that they are somehow the superior being.

"I use iron sights so i am superior to that person who uses a red dot sight- even though he has faster, clearer target acquisition"
"I use all wood furniture so i am superior to the man who uses plastic- even though plastic is lighter and tougher"

Do ya NEED the ACOG? No! Is it very helpful? Yes!

Its that same mentality of wanting a bolt action over an assualt rifle because the bolt action is "Good enough".

Bare hands were good enough for our ancestors, lets just do away with weapons all together, i dont need no fancy iron sights!

TechBrute
January 16, 2006, 05:54 PM
Not at all.

I just believe that skill has never been sold in a box or blisterpack, and can't be bought and bolted on. Kewl points, of course, are another matter entirely.

lpl/nc (RUN WHAT HELPS YOU SHOOT BETTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
You seem to contridict yourself in the same post. Should I run what helps me shoot better, or can I not buy something that helps me shoot better?

M.E.Eldridge
January 16, 2006, 06:43 PM
Its funny how alot of the people against "Tacti-cool" automaticly assume that they are somehow the superior being.

"I use iron sights so i am superior to that person who uses a red dot sight- even though he has faster, clearer target acquisition"
"I use all wood furniture so i am superior to the man who uses plastic- even though plastic is lighter and tougher"

Do ya NEED the ACOG? No! Is it very helpful? Yes!

Its that same mentality of wanting a bolt action over an assualt rifle because the bolt action is "Good enough".

Bare hands were good enough for our ancestors, lets just do away with weapons all together, i dont need no fancy iron sights!

I never siad I was superior to anyone, if thats what you're trying to imply. I suppose I don't mind some of the tactical stuff, when its actually used and not just slapped on their because 'experts' deem it neccissary. It also seems to me that too many people rely completley on scopes, just look at the amount of hunting rifles that have no integral sights.

Now,that said, the term tactical is now being applied to wallets.

M.E.Eldridge
January 16, 2006, 06:45 PM
You seem to contridict yourself in the same post. Should I run what helps me shoot better, or can I not buy something that helps me shoot better?
I think he is just saying that you can't go out, buy a fancy scope, slap it on you gun and assume your now a better shot. You have to do what works best and helps your shooting.

TechBrute
January 16, 2006, 06:52 PM
I think he is just saying that you can't go out, buy a fancy scope, slap it on you gun and assume your now a better shot. You have to do what works best and helps your shooting.
I can agree with that, however, I think that buying a $1000 scope will typically net you a better result than a $100 scope, and I don't understand how someone else's arbitrary spending limits should apply in that situation.

Correia
January 16, 2006, 07:00 PM
Gentlemen, what we have here is a failure to communicate. Tactical as a marketing buzzword is one thing, but trying to lump different types of shooters into one category is just silly. There is a big difference between:

Shooter A. Has every single accessory from the Cheaper Than Dirt catalog stuck onto his gun. He shoots a 50 round box of ammo once every two or three months. He shoots at cans at the landfill with his buddies. He thinks he is good.

Shooter B. Has lots of accessories that he has tried out, trained with, and practiced with. He has kept those accessories that he finds helps his performance. He shoots 5,000 rounds a year in practice, and attends good training at every opportunity. At three hundred yards, in the dark, he can decide which eye socket to shoot you through.

Now some of you might think that both of these folks are ďtacticalĒ. Whatever. Iíve said this before, primarily in the shotgun forum, where I tend to post quite a bit. There seems to be this mind set that 444 pointed out earlier, of this sort of contrary negativity that permeates gun boards. Just because somebody has cool guy gear, donít assume that he doesnít know how to shoot better than you do with a blued steel and walnut stocked pump gun. And donít assume the opposite, in that if somebody has nice gear, he must know what he is doing.

The most fun Iíve ever had in a single 3gun stage, was probably the day that I kicked the snot out of a fellow who had been bragging all day about his fancy new JP wonder gun, and I beat him with a FAL built out of spare parts. On the other hand, Iíve had days where Iíve used cool guy guns, with good optics, and been absolutely smoked by a guy with an iron sighted Colt SP1 older than me.

Gear doesnít make the man, but good gear helps you shoot better. They key is experimenting with an open mind and figuring out what works for you, and what doesnít. Discard that which does not, and practice with what does.

In the meantime, I donít pay any attention to anybody who canít outshoot me. So Iíll continue to have a great deal of fun with lights, and EOTechs, and magazine fed shotguns. :)

KriegHund
January 16, 2006, 07:03 PM
I never siad I was superior to anyone, if thats what you're trying to imply. I suppose I don't mind some of the tactical stuff, when its actually used and not just slapped on their because 'experts' deem it neccissary. It also seems to me that too many people rely completley on scopes, just look at the amount of hunting rifles that have no integral sights.

Now,that said, the term tactical is now being applied to wallets.


A) I said "Alot", not all :)
B) No, its not what i was trying to imply, its what i was outright saying. At least, to anyone to whom it applys, mostly those who abhor anything other than iron sights and wood stocks...so it doesnt apply to you :)

gripper
January 16, 2006, 07:10 PM
When the price (and weight!) of the asscessories are greater than that of the firearm they adorn....damn right its gone too far! Especially for the minimalist designs like the AK, SKS; all I ever wanted on mine were better sights and triggers.Hey; I'm a cave man!!:neener:

USMCRotrHed
January 16, 2006, 11:34 PM
Its funny how alot of the people against "Tacti-cool" automaticly assume that they are somehow the superior being.

Not at all. I just want the gear to be used for what it was designed for, and that is not the 25 yard line in a bench rest. I shoot service rifle matches, not 3 gun (not that it doesn't look fun, I may do it someday) so our "missions" are different (not superior, not inferior) but these guys have some cool high dollar gear that is simply being wasted. It would be better to spend it on ammo.

444
January 16, 2006, 11:39 PM
"Rifle built for combat"
Right now, as I type, there are thousands of US soldiers conducting REAL combat operations. Thanks to modern technology, we see them on our televisions, in our magazines and in or newspapers. We see what REAL soldiers in REAL combat are using for weapons. They are using the exact stuff people are complaining about in this thread.

"Rifle Weight".
The comments are usually something like, He put all that junk on an M4 and now it weights as much as an M1. I am not sure what to make of these comments. I bet with all the accessories the M4 weighs as much as a Chihuahua and a half or maybe two dozen paperback books. What one has to do with the other, I don't know. Ok, I'll humor you. Let's say we take an M4 and put a day optic like an Aimpoint ML3 on it, then we add a night vision device, an IR laser, an IR weapon light, and a sound suppressor. And we compare it to an M1. The M1 doesn't have any of this stuff, how can we compare them ? What does weight have to do with it ?

Then there is the burning desire to prove one's worth. It was mentioned previously that people post that they are using iron sights and IMO they are implying that they are superior to others because of it. Or this guy is shooting off a bench and I'm not. So what ? This used to be referred to as judging a book by it's cover and also massaging one's ego.
As I mentioned, I have a number of AR15s with all kinds of gadgets on them: Aimpoints, ACOGs, scopes etc. Appearently this means that I can't shoot iron sights. Well, the last carbine class I took was a two day class with about 700-800 rounds fired. I shot the whole thing with my back up iron sights. Right after the class (before I put the gun in the case for the trip home) I put the Aimpoint back on the rail. I compete in two matches every month with iron sights. But, I know from personal experience that iron sights are not as good as optics for shooting......period. Close, far, night, day, quick, slow, whatever: optics are superior. I have fired 10s of thousands of rounds through iron sights and came to this conclusion.
I have also fired these gadget laden AR15s off of benches. Why wouldn't I ? I need to zero the sights and optics just like everybody else. And for an AR15, I use the Improved Battlesight Zero and zero at 50 yards, then confirm my zero at 200. I work up handloads for those rifles just like everybody else . I spent a day at the bench a couple months ago to see exactly how much my point of impact changed with an AAC M4-2000 suppressor mounted (about 2 MOA low). A couple weeks before that I fired groups on paper using an Aimpoint ML3 at 200 yards off a bench just to see what kind of groups I would get. Does this mean that I can't make a shot off-hand ? According to some guys on this board I guess it does.

Mot45acp
January 17, 2006, 12:07 AM
No.

Simply because no one makes a drink can coozie that can be put on a picatinny rail.


Yet.
+100000:evil:

1911 guy
January 17, 2006, 12:29 AM
I'm not against the gear, my first post mentioned that most of it existed because someone saw a need for it. What I am against is the marketing aspect of it. Some shooters will buy something because it is labeled "tactical", not because it helps them in any way. Is a red dot or ACOG faster than irons? For me, yes. But they are not a replacement for the skill to use irons. A Surefire or other very bright light is wonderful when you need it, but clipping it on your belt does not eliminate the need for situational awareness in a dark parking garage. The tools are useful, but the recent mindset that means "skills in a box" is harmful.

ShackleMeNot
January 17, 2006, 09:10 AM
When the price (and weight!) of the asscessories are greater than that of the firearm they adorn....damn right its gone too far! Especially for the minimalist designs like the AK, SKS; all I ever wanted on mine were better sights and triggers.Hey; I'm a cave man!!:neener:

I spent a lot more on the scope on my bolt rifle than I did on the rifle itself. Did I go too far?

TechBrute
January 17, 2006, 09:41 AM
I'm not against the gear, my first post mentioned that most of it existed because someone saw a need for it. What I am against is the marketing aspect of it. Some shooters will buy something because it is labeled "tactical", not because it helps them in any way. Is a red dot or ACOG faster than irons? For me, yes. But they are not a replacement for the skill to use irons. A Surefire or other very bright light is wonderful when you need it, but clipping it on your belt does not eliminate the need for situational awareness in a dark parking garage. The tools are useful, but the recent mindset that means "skills in a box" is harmful.
Yes, and that mindset is climbing a steep hill without that surefire when you're in the dark.

benEzra
January 17, 2006, 10:20 AM
When the price (and weight!) of the asscessories are greater than that of the firearm they adorn....damn right its gone too far! Especially for the minimalist designs like the AK, SKS; all I ever wanted on mine were better sights and triggers.Hey; I'm a cave man!!
A holographic sight on an AK is a better sight...and I can see how a light would be useful as well.

Now, I wouldn't necessarily want a laser on mine, or an 8x mil-dot scope, or a forend with 6 Picatinny rails, or a fake suppressor, but I don't think you can dismiss good optics and a good light as being useless fad accessories, even if they cost more than the rifle.

USMCRotrHed
January 17, 2006, 10:25 AM
"Rifle built for combat"
Right now, as I type, there are thousands of US soldiers conducting REAL combat operations. Thanks to modern technology, we see them on our televisions, in our magazines and in or newspapers. We see what REAL soldiers in REAL combat are using for weapons. They are using the exact stuff people are complaining about in this thread.

"Rifle Weight".
The comments are usually something like, He put all that junk on an M4 and now it weights as much as an M1. I am not sure what to make of these comments. I bet with all the accessories the M4 weighs as much as a Chihuahua and a half or maybe two dozen paperback books. What one has to do with the other, I don't know. Ok, I'll humor you. Let's say we take an M4 and put a day optic like an Aimpoint ML3 on it, then we add a night vision device, an IR laser, an IR weapon light, and a sound suppressor. And we compare it to an M1. The M1 doesn't have any of this stuff, how can we compare them ? What does weight have to do with it ?

Then there is the burning desire to prove one's worth. It was mentioned previously that people post that they are using iron sights and IMO they are implying that they are superior to others because of it. Or this guy is shooting off a bench and I'm not. So what ? This used to be referred to as judging a book by it's cover and also massaging one's ego.
As I mentioned, I have a number of AR15s with all kinds of gadgets on them: Aimpoints, ACOGs, scopes etc. Appearently this means that I can't shoot iron sights. Well, the last carbine class I took was a two day class with about 700-800 rounds fired. I shot the whole thing with my back up iron sights. Right after the class (before I put the gun in the case for the trip home) I put the Aimpoint back on the rail. I compete in two matches every month with iron sights. But, I know from personal experience that iron sights are not as good as optics for shooting......period. Close, far, night, day, quick, slow, whatever: optics are superior. I have fired 10s of thousands of rounds through iron sights and came to this conclusion.
I have also fired these gadget laden AR15s off of benches. Why wouldn't I ? I need to zero the sights and optics just like everybody else. And for an AR15, I use the Improved Battlesight Zero and zero at 50 yards, then confirm my zero at 200. I work up handloads for those rifles just like everybody else . I spent a day at the bench a couple months ago to see exactly how much my point of impact changed with an AAC M4-2000 suppressor mounted (about 2 MOA low). A couple weeks before that I fired groups on paper using an Aimpoint ML3 at 200 yards off a bench just to see what kind of groups I would get. Does this mean that I can't make a shot off-hand ? According to some guys on this board I guess it does.


Congrats, you are using your equipment. That was not my complaint. My wish was that people would do just what you claim you do. I also did not imply that iron sights were more accurate than a scope. That would be a silly arguement. I simply said that this was my preference due to the type of shooting I enjoy. The point I was trying (apparently unsuccessfully) to make was that I think it is a waste of money to spend that much money on equipment and not use it. When I do break down and buy some optics for my AR-15s I will be chomping at the bit to see how it does at the 300 and 600 yard line. It simply mystifies me to see others who never leave the 25 yard line.

The only time I have ever used optics was on an M2 50 cal. in a helicopter. That experiment didn't work for us. Tracers worked better at the time.

Just my opinion.

But back to the subject of this thread....Has tactical gone too far? Hey what ever gets you excited. It's fine with me. I'm happiest to see others interested in the same hobby as me. And that hobby is shooting, whatever flavor you are into.

444
January 17, 2006, 12:22 PM
No, I understand completely what you are saying. What I have a problem with is the implication that just because someone has something more than a barebones carbine that he automatically can't shoot it.
Not that this means anything, but I know a lot of people that own AR15s. I am constantly surprised by people I work with who are only into guns in the most casual sense, yet they mention to me that they own an AR15. But, I don't know anyone other than myself who has ANY accessories on them. By the same token, I have now taken five formal carbine classes: two at Gunsite and three at Frontsight. At these classes, quite a few people are shooting a carbine just as it came from the box. Very few have more than an optic and vertical foregrip.
When I took Gunsite's Basic Carbine class, I overheard two student's having a discussion between themselves: they were both shooting iron sighted AR15s and they were saying: "There is no way we are going to be able to keep up with the guys that have optics". But the real eye opener is during the night shoots. When the iron sight shooters realize that they have no way to aim, every one of them intend to buy an optic as soon as they get back home.
Obviously, the US Military is fully aware of this situation also. After using iron sighted weapons since the American Revolution up until maybe 10 years ago, the vast majority of US fighting men are now carrying rifles equipped with optics. Night vision is becoming much more common. They arn't doing this to purposely hamper their own efforts. They don't want to brag that they beat the enemy with one arm tied behind their back. They are using this stuff because it works and gives them a big advantage.

TechBrute
January 17, 2006, 12:33 PM
By the way, who gives a crap if someone buys a Colt LE6920, puts an ACOG on it, a railed foreend, a light, laser, bipod, can opener and cup holder, and just sits at the 25 yard line? It's their money! I bet if they looked at you they could find something they don't like.

USMCRotrHed
January 17, 2006, 12:40 PM
When you look at the mission of the military, they are using the equipment their job requires. That means night sights, NVGs, scopes, and even IR sensors in some cases. I doubt you will see a grunt carrying anything on his rifle he doesn't use.

When you look at my mission, it is to shoot in a certain class of rifle. The one I choose happens to only allow iron sights. If I were shooting in a 3 gun match, you better believe I would be investing in a scope or a red dot. I just like to see people use what they have, and have what they will use. IMHO it is just a good use of resources.

USMCRotrHed
January 17, 2006, 12:42 PM
By the way, who gives a crap if someone buys a Colt LE6920, puts an ACOG on it, a railed foreend, a light, laser, bipod, can opener and cup holder, and just sits at the 25 yard line? It's their money! I bet if they looked at you they could find something they don't like.

You're right. But we can still express our opinions can't we. This place would be real boring if we all thought the same thing all the time.

rbernie
January 17, 2006, 12:49 PM
This is a never-ending argument on every board I've ever been on, in every community that I've ever frequented, and for every sport that I've ever enjoyed. There will always be those with enough money to buy more than they need or can use, there will always be those who actually need and use what they buy, there will always be those who can't afford the farkles but want them, there will always be those that mimic the more experienced in the community and buy into fads, and there will always be those who engage in some kind of class warfare based on all of this.

In the end, it's kinda like that white-haired old dude driving a Ferarri around town; he may be Paul Newman and blow your doors off, or he may be a tyro with nothing more than the means to fulfill a lifelong fantasy. Most times, you don't know which it is. Frankly, I can't think of a time when it's any of my business. My job is to worry about nothing more than my own self, and let water seek its own level.

444
January 17, 2006, 12:56 PM
.

444
January 17, 2006, 12:58 PM
"he may be Paul Newman and blow your doors off, or he may be a tyro with nothing more than the means to fulfill a lifelong fantasy. "

Along the fantasy line of thought: when I was a kid, I had toy guns just like I saw in the movies. At various times I had six shooters, a 1911 that doubled as a bank, a Thompson, and a Mattel M16 Marader. We played with them and mimiced what we saw on televison (there was no movie theatre where I grew up). As adults we frequently talk to people who collect guns for the same reasons: they saw them in a movie, or TV program. This is what their dad carried in the war. This is what the doughboys used in WWI. This is the same revolver carried by Union Army officers in the civil war............etc. We even have whole sports (Cowboy action shooting) that is based on guns and fantasy. We have guys that dress up like mountain men who shoot muzzleloaders and throw tomahawks. We have guys that reenact Civil War battles as well as reenactors that buy all the gear of soldiers of other time periods. I personally shoot in Vintage Bolt Action Military Rifle matches and Vintage Semi-Auto Military Rifle matches where we shoot as-issued, pre-1950 military rifles: and you can get a point or two bonus if you dress up in period clothing (I don't , but some do).
But, if you want a gun just like our soldiers are using now, you are a geek. :confused:

TechBrute
January 17, 2006, 01:05 PM
You're right. But we can still express our opinions can't we. This place would be real boring if we all thought the same thing all the time.
I agree, discussion is good. Constant whining, however, grates on ones nerves.

USMCRotrHed
January 17, 2006, 01:07 PM
I think we would be good friends if we ran into each other on the range, if you don't mind a little debate every now and then. Just a feeling.

444
January 17, 2006, 01:08 PM
No doubt.

Strings
January 17, 2006, 05:16 PM
>One flashlight, one red dot, and a forward grip, im fine with.
However, red dot and laser, that seems a little pointless.<

That was actually something i had thought about doing whenI finally build up my carbine: optical site for standard ranges (75-100 yards), laser for closer (less than 25 yards) and "hip-shooting". Although probably more than needed, still didn't seem like a BAD idea... ;)

Deathrider1579
January 17, 2006, 05:45 PM
One AR-15 plane jane 16" Post hitler Clinton ban so no flash supresser. 3 point sling, VFG, Aim point knock off. Why? cause I like it!
Tacticool marketing has gone over the top but if it gets more people shootinig I am all for it!

-DR

KriegHund
January 17, 2006, 05:47 PM
>One flashlight, one red dot, and a forward grip, im fine with.
However, red dot and laser, that seems a little pointless.<

That was actually something i had thought about doing whenI finally build up my carbine: optical site for standard ranges (75-100 yards), laser for closer (less than 25 yards) and "hip-shooting". Although probably more than needed, still didn't seem like a BAD idea... ;)


Mm, true. Or if you used the laser as a backup.

chrisTx
January 17, 2006, 10:02 PM
the last department i worked for issued an M4 with lights, holo sights, forearm grips, and all sorts of gadgets on it. i get to carry my own M4 now and it's an A2. it's loaded up with a specter gear sling...that's it. i found those gadgets useless and opted for simplicity.

when you're standing around for a while holding it ready, the forearm grip hurts your wrist. the magazine makes a better forward grip.

the eotech took time to turn on. quite a few times i had to grab the gun and run. it seems minor, but i don't have time to stand around and get shot.

when i had the rifle slung over my shoulder, the light would bang on corners.

my experience taught me that stuff has it's place, but not on my rifle.

pete f
January 18, 2006, 01:53 AM
to me it is the adverstising that has gone overboard. have you looked at some of the catalogues for some of the rifles and autoloaders around.? Geeeez it is as if everyone who is buying a rifle is on the lookout for tango's and MZB's with the need for 1000 yard kills on hardened and night optic equiped targets. Ads for knives where a guy with a M4 and a thigh holstered muffled SIG reaches for his fast-out,double-wave, have-to-send-it back-to-the-factory-to-shapen $ 485 tactical folder, Really now.

I recently saw an ad for a AR forarm that has 6 piccatiny rails on it. 6 of them.

LAK
January 18, 2006, 07:40 AM
I want to know your opinions on the matter. Has the tacti-cool fad gotten out of hand? At every gun show I see ARs decked out in all sorts of fancy lights, lasers, collapsable stocks, holographic scopes, grips, mag couplers and other junk. Now I could see the use of a light or laser on a pistol or carbine, in fact I want to put one on a Hi-Point .40 S&W Carbine, but what they got now seems to much to me. Any other thoughts?
In this context it has purely been reduced to a new marketing term. Since tactical is a word pertaining to tactics; deliberate or planned action with a particular outcome desired - actual or theoretical. It is not a color, or a type of bullet or boots.

Yes, it is out of hand. The perversion of language is very rarely, if ever, a good thing. It nearly always serves to simply cause confusion, and that manifestation is very evident in this case.
--------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Geno
January 18, 2006, 08:05 AM
All I "NEED" is my laser/light" on my Warrior, and that for practicality. I prefer to shoot two-handed, and so the "tactical rail light/laser give the benefit of not having to hold a light in one hand and a gun in the other. Also, it illuminates any potential "bad-guy" for proper identification. Helps assure that family, friends, guests are safe.

On a recent trip to the gun store/indoor range, I noted a MASSIVE change in advertising. No longer was it sufficient to have the "Tac Toys" in the show case. They had added this toys to every rifle on display! The boxes where in the case, the toys were on the guns. I must add, that, well, it was REALLY overkill! As I stood and looked at it all I could think was "marketing at its worst". It also took the average price of a Bushmaster from $1,000.00 to $2,400! For what? To make it look cluttered.

For me, it would not work. I prefer to keep it simple!

Doc2005

KriegHund
January 19, 2006, 10:25 AM
I recently saw an ad for a AR forarm that has 6 piccatiny rails on it. 6 of them.

:p

If you enjoyed reading about "Has Tactical Gone Too Far?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!