Why not tactical?

It's all just another "I like it, so if you don't you're stupid" thing. If you "just don't" like them, that's acceptable in my book. I have a couple of guns that are considered "tactical" although the title still baffles me a little. They're fun to shoot and I wouldn't part with them, but my interests these days are in older guns, mostly WWII military surplus, which a lot of people like to laugh about. Now ask me if I care. The guns are for your purposes and enjoyment. No one else's. If they don't like it, they can move on. If they keep at you, call their tactical gun a "bellybutton" and watch their face turn red. LOL!

Marshall Kane was probably unpretentious, not a trait you can really identify with

Click to expand...

touche'

That said, I am loud and obnoxious...but not pretentious.

Still...your point that Marshall Kane had some characteristics which I do not share is well taken.

I think rails look good on guns that were designed with rails. The SCAR is one of my favorite rifles of all time. But then again, I'm just a purist. I like guns to stay the way they were designed.

I don't understand 'tactical'.

I was doing some practice with my Bullseye 45 at a local range, shooting one handed and such.

Arrives a couple fellows who were with the Coast Guard and did 'boardings'. One of them began blazing away with a high capacity 9x19 pistol. He hit the silhouette most of the time. (Twenty-five yard range.)

During a break we struck up a conversation and it turned to 'accuracy'. At some point, he made the statement his style of shooting was 'tactical'. I asked if I might fire a round or two from his pistol and he agreed.

I loaded his pistol with one round, raised it to eye level and fired - in my mind - the first shot of a timed fire string. It hit his target right smack in the middle of the head portion.

I cleared his weapon, set it down and asked, "Is hitting what one desires 'tactical'?"

He had an odd look on his face.

Archie, modern military tactics basically boil down to throwing as much, moderately accurate lead downrange as you can since studies of WWII showed that the more lead you throw, the more likey you are to win. Getting a lot of lead on the silhouette IS tactically more sound than taking good aim in a firefight.

Basically, quantity > quality. This has been empirically and experimentally proven (in conventional warfare anyway).

As for "tactical" modifications, they exist to make it easier to shoot "tactically". Optics increase target acquisition speed, foregrips give you a more natural grip and allow for easier manipulation, lasers make point shooting easier, flashlights illuminate in the darkness while simultaneously obscuring your silhouette, etc.

Now if only you could dump that magazine into the head like you did with the one round in the bullseye style you would really be tactical.

Hello HDCamel. I carried a gun as a federal lawman for 28 years. "...throwing as much ... lead downrange as you can..." is NOT an option.

The gentleman with whom I spoke does boardings in the Coast Guard, not beach assaults. What he does is far more in the realm of law enforcement than combat. One simply cannot dump a full magazine in the general direction of what may or may not be hostile intent as a lawman.

By the way, in the law enforcement environment, a flash light is the universal sign for 'shoot here'.

X-Rap, do you think he'd stand up that long?

Well, I was just speaking from a pure warfighting perspective. I guess I missed the part about the boat boarding.

Regardless, throwing lead downrange WILL increase your likelihood of "winning/tactical victory" (defined as: threats, either real or percieved, have been eliminated). Whether or not it was legal/necessary is a different question altogether.

That is the difference between "battlefield tactics" and "battlefield politics". People such as yourself have to be more aware of politics than most, but that WILL force you to make some tactically unsound decisions.

Consider it from the Bad Guy perspective. Am I going to wait for you, the lawman, to start firing? Of course not. I don't have the same rules as a BG as you would in LE. I'll swing around a corner with a flashlight to blind you and shoot you while you're trying to see if I'm armed or not.

I actually was asked, in detail, why I don't like tacticool; "I don't" just wasn't enough. I know my reasoning... aesthetics, practicality, whimsy, nostalgia. So what about you?

Click to expand...

Undoubtedly some people would consider some of my guns tactical. I suppose there's nothing I can do to stop them from thinking that. It's probably a good thing that I don't really concern myself with whether other people feel the need to apply marketing terms to my guns.

I buy and modify my guns to fit certain applications. If the form that gun takes fits under someone's definition of "tactical", well, I don't really care.

Well I can't stand the term "tactical". everything now days is tactical and the term is so over used it has little meaning what soever other than the fact that some one decided to call what ever it is "tactical" and now all of the sudden its sell-able to the tacticool crowd. Its has become basically synonymous with the color "black" and usually that is all it guarantees is that the item in question IS black so some one called it tactical. I really hope some day every one realizes how stupid it all is and drops the term. None of my guns are tactical and all of them out shoot most of the "tactical" garbage I see at the range (this may have more to do with the way they shoot and their abilities than a reflection on their equipment, but the results are the same none the less). Quality will always be quality and cheap will always be cheap. Tactical has little to do with whether something is any good or functional.

During a break we struck up a conversation and it turned to 'accuracy'. At some point, he made the statement his style of shooting was 'tactical'.

Click to expand...

it also seems that many of the tactical guys also use the "tactic" of "spray and pray". give me one well placed shot that hits its mark over 30 iffy shots and misses any day.

When I was a young hunter with my father, wood & blued shiney finishes were all we needed. Then, after 4 years of Marine Corps Infantry, I'm tactical. I have no desire to kill animals. I can buy them at the grocery store. But when It comes to defending me, my loved ones, and my country, I need man slaying weapons. Tactical is practical. Having said all this, I have a Ruger Red Label and a Rem 700BDL that could be in a museum. I love them. Every wooden bit of 'em.

During a break we struck up a conversation and it turned to 'accuracy'. At some point, he made the statement his style of shooting was 'tactical'...

I loaded his pistol with one round, raised it to eye level and fired - in my mind - the first shot of a timed fire string. It hit his target right smack in the middle of the head portion.

Click to expand...

If that shot was the first of many in a timed string, why did you not follow it up with 5 more, dead center? That would have showed him. (And us).

Otherwise, I think he has a point. If he were shooting at you "tactically" and "mostly hitting the silhouette" (which is pretty darn good if it were actually at a full 25 yards, rapidfire, which you didn't exactly specify) with squad mates doing the same, I imagine it would be difficult to return fire with perfect headshots. Unless you're Clint Eastwood on a movie set.

In a firefight, I do believe near misses count for something, psychologically, as long as you follow them up with more shots. Not that you should practice spray and pray for self defense in a urban environment.

Thank you Cocked and Locked. Very nice. Very nice.

Gloob you made my point well. I have come to realize that extremes and generalizations often rule the day here especially when one is trying to drive their point across.
There was a time when nearly all LE practice and training was done in the bullseye style now even Coopers Modern Technique is largely in the ash heap, speed and effective accuracy can go hand in hand and and in defensive/combative shooting we should all strive for the best combination of each. That is not to say great accuracy should be a lost art but rather that the two can live side by side even within the same shooter.

Ash_J_Williams said:

I got into a discussion after posting my firearms on another forum about the fact that none of my firearms are tactical... I don't think I even have anything but wood furniture and grips. I actually was asked, in detail, why I don't like tacticool; "I don't" just wasn't enough. I know my reasoning... aesthetics, practicality, whimsy, nostalgia. So what about you?

Click to expand...

I tend to be the same way. Old school firearms are just more appealing to me.

Is an Uzi considered tactical?

I like a variety of guns. I like an old M1 Garand or Mosin just as much as an AR 15 with rails that have a light, optic, and grip mounted. I like an AK that has traditional wood furniture just as much as an AK that has a collapsible stock and rails.

Tactical? To me, it means that it's particularly designed/outfitted to provide a competitive advantage in a fight (rugged/reliable, fast handling (lightweight, balanced), efficient to operate, no unnecessary features/accessories, etc.).

Whereas the purpose of tactics is to affect human perception. See - Tools of Tactics

My right foot is tactical. It's the one I use to kick a bad guy's byootox. But the last time I did that I broke my shin-mounted red dot so I might not be as accurate next time. My tennis shoes are absolutely laced with tactical coolness though.

Is an Uzi considered tactical?

Click to expand...

Guns aren't tactical.

I don't know why we in the gun community divide ourselves into these "camps" (for want of a better word) of "old school," or "tactical," or whatever. To most of the gun grabbers, who vocally object to and constantly attempt to curtail or ban this-type-of-gun-or-another, it's a divide-and-conquer technique aimed at getting us to turn on one another.

I'm sure most of us have heard the term "Fudd" used in a negative fashion to describe the "old school" type gun owner, with his trusty deer rifle and turkey gun, who gladly and willingly signs onto the Assault Weapons Ban, or Handgun Bans, or Large Capacity Magazine bans, because in his eyes, he sees no "need" for any of "those plastic guns," or "portable hand-cannons."

I hear a lot of the same condemnation (in tone, is what I'm saying) of the "tacticool fools" on this board, and see the division it induces.

I say we'd do better to mind our own business, and let other people buy what they want to with their money, and let them practice their shooting sports (whether it's tactical competition course, skeet/trap, hunting, competition target shooting, or just plain old plinking) in their own manner.

And if it seems to some that one type or another of gun owner is more-or-less safe than others, take responsibility and step up and politely counsel safe firearm handling and shooting.

And while we're doing that, let's stick together as gun owners, and not let the anti-gunners convince us that some guns are okay, and some are not based upon cosmetics, and thus preserve all of our Second Amendment rights for everyone.

Because in the final analysis, the Second isn't about hunting, or shooting sports. The guy who likes AR-15s tricked out with geegaws and doodads is just as right, and should be just safe in his right, as is the folks who like old Garands or '03s, or Mossins, or Mausers, and just as much as the folks who like old wheel- and lever-guns.

ExTank... I haven't taken the banter here as you describe. As far as I can tell it's all just fun ribbing. Next thread will probably be by younger tactikids making fun of us old pharts.

Okay... read a few more posts and, indeed, some are verging on disrespectful. I hope my posts don't seem that way. FWIW, I like tactical provided is not way overdone. In fact, I own several Saigas and my nightstand pistol has a light/laser combo which I'll never do without for HD.