Why not tactical?

Status
Not open for further replies.
critterCQB said:
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.
Click to expand...
See? This is the one of the mindframes of the 21st Century soldier or veteran. I am of the same way. Many of us like to have a couple of M4's from what I've seen --a copy of their service rifle with a few tweaks, and another rifle that they see as the perfect rifle they would have carried if they could have had anything.

Somehow, these guys are getting lumped in with tacticool mall ninjas and I just don't get it. How is it any different than your grandfather that kept a Garand his whole life and got that Thompson he always wanted but never got issued? Never thought of Grandpa as a mall ninja, but by the definitions on here, they would be.

While I like my more traditional arms, I always take my plain stainless and laminated green/grey wood (beautiful) anytime I go shooting. It is everyone's favorites. I have pre-lock 6" 686+, another range favorite. Then I have a bunch of Glocks, 2-3gens. (the ones that actually work). They range from plain stock carry rigs to a nightstand .45 with a laser/light to a couple of competition types that also get carried in the field, a G17L and a G20SF with adj. tritium sights.

Then I have a bunch of rifles that might just make you folks that are real concerned about what others are doing cringe in disgust. I think a lot of you types have more in common with the anti's myself, rather than the rest of us. See, I like the black powder crowd, the old collections, modern collections, all of it interests me to some degree or another. But you guys, you book burners, if you had it your way we'd just get the Clinton ban back (because that would take care of your tacticool problem) right? But I don't care. You guys are either so far and few between and you all live on this board or something, or you don't have the chutzpah to call me out when I'm at the range with my rails and mods and whatever. Either way, the only griping about I've ever heard was on here, so in that light, Jog on!

Like another fellow said above, you guys are reading into this way too much. How about we be firearms owners and collectors that stand together rather than bicker about what is and isn't "cool to own". Find similarities instead of differences, stop giving disparaging monikers to your fellows in arms, to other 2A supporters and Americans.

Please, don't drag my favorite pastime into a shallow pit with the likes of Jersey Shore, MTV, Reality Shows, Paris Hilton and the like.
 
Did my authentic Spanish FR8 Mauser carbine become tactical when it acquired only an original Spanish G-3 sling?:)

Just Enfields, (CMP) Garand, SKS, FR8 for many of us, thank you.
These rifles' prices would be higher were it not for heaps of cash diverted into tactical gear components and the vast numbers of modular rifles attached to them.
Until recently I thought that "Go tactical" was from the flight leader to spread out the wingmen into safer, realistic positions.
 
Last edited:
Seems like some folks are taking this personally. Maybe it's time to tone it down a bit. If anything I wrote seemed inappropriate then please accept my apologies. I only intended to give folks a good ribbing. I did see a couple of posts which one might consider rude but we should just ignore those. ;)
 
Modern weaponry is modern weaponry. In 10,000 BC it was probably a nicely shaped rock.
In 1000 AD a German Broad sword, in 1776 a Musket, and in 2011 an AR/M4/AK etc.
Next year a light saber or whatever.
Sure the person wielding it and why is the more important factor, as the rock
is just as deadly as it used to be.....but remember....if your the guy with the rock
and your adversary has a musket at 50 yards....you loose.
So call it Mall Ninja, TacticalCool or whatever you like keeping up with the times is not a bad idea. Or maybe we should reply to these posts via smoke signals.....Hmmmm. but that would pollute the air....so maybe whistles....Yeah....Whistles.
 
1: of or relating to combat tactics: as a (1) : of or occurring at the battlefront <a tactical defense> <a tactical first strike> (2) : using or being weapons or forces employed at the battlefront <tactical missiles> b of an air force : of, relating to, or designed for air attack in close support of friendly ground forces
2a : of or relating to tactics: as (1) : of or relating to small-scale actions serving a larger purpose (2) : made or carried out with only a limited or immediate end in view b : adroit in planning or maneuvering to accomplish a purpose
Click to expand...


Definition of Tactical, guess I was wrong about the Uzi :eek:
 
I'm not sure I understand why people have divided themselves into the tactical and other(old school or what have you). We can shoot hunt and collect together.

For example I have no kind of training other than growing up shooting cans and this is my first year hunting I prefer the old wood and blued myself. I would prefer most of all a bolt action, in rifles at least. I currently shoot a Savage model 64 semi-auto because its the only thing I can afford this moment in time and a local pawn shop had a good deal on it. I have a scope on it mainly because I wear bifocals and have astigmatism so I can't see so well with iron sites. If my eyes never went bad I would prefer irons.

I hunt with a buddy who is teaching me about hunting. He is an ex-marine and currently works full time as a guard at a local factory and part times for two local sheriff departments. He has an impressive collection of guns, talks about being a tactical shooter and has all the fancy doodads.

I don't feel the need for all that stuff on my guns but he likes it. I like to shoot holes in paper, he likes to shoot holes in paper. I like to shoot fuzzy varmints outta trees and off the ground, so does he. Does it matter that his gun has all the fancy gear and each piece costs more than just my gun? Doesn't to me.
 
Personally, I have no great love of blue steel and wood. I like rust resistant coatings on my metal and stocks that are stable and impervious to weather. The move away from both was not about tacticool. It was increased durability. It happened with traditional blued and wood weapons that began to be modified by owners aftermarket and manufacturers responded to the market. I'm old enough to have been an adult when it happened and I remember what the gun rags were saying at the time. I consider blued and wood to be very similar to the tacticool crowd. Its more about appearance than how it shoots or performs and are willing to spend ridiculous amounts of money for their fetish. In between the two is the preponderance of gun owners who want durable, inexpensive and reliable guns and don't care much how they look. Those guys were around in the days of wood and blue greatness as well. They made do with non premium wood and probably their guns were not as highly polished and reblued as needed. I have Glock pistols and black rifles and shotgun. I retired from the Army in 99, I suspect I have a lot in common with a guy in the fifties who bought a 1911 or Garand.
 
I have a safe full of weapons...only one is a "battle rifle", and its your basic A2-style AR15. I figure folks got by just fine with a ring & post for decades, so I don't need a M4gery with carbine barrel, forward grip, light and combat optic. If I was involved in urban combat or CQB I see where it would be helpful...but I'm not...so all that $$$ is better spent 1. earning interest and 2. in extra ammo for marksmanship practice.

IMO, tacticool is *grossly* overrated.

That said, there's absolutely nothing wrong with someone wanting/owning a weapon similar to what they were issued in the military...especially if it was carried in combat.
 
I'm starting to understand the mentality of the other forum, and it's not very mature or informed. I think I'll stick to here.
 
Point taken from the couple of guys that have made the observation that we are one and need to stand as such.

I would like to say this, I quite obviously from my previous post am not fond of most "tactical" stuff. And its mostly because I have to hear about it all the time; how much better this or that is, and "why don't you have an AR?" a whole bunch of the same "why don't you...." questions over and over. Show offs drive me away, especially when they are showing off mediocrity. I don't shove my revolvers and lever actions down any ones throat, so I don't want anyone shoving theirs down mine. I have had the same thing happen with guys that like the obscure or uncommon cartridges. One in particular I met on a deer hunt went on and on about how much better his 257 Ackley Improved was and more efficient than my 257 Weatherby. no I can't stand the "one uppers". their are some like this in every group I suppose but I will say this; while I may not like the stuff you cover your gun with or all your gadgetry I have no use for, I will fight to the death with my revolvers and bolt/lever actions for your right to have them.
 
My only real bone to pick with Tactical (besides the overused part). Is that its getting harder to find new model auto pistols without a rail. I'm sorry but the rails ruin the look of the gun with what appears to be a lego block welded/molded to it...

I own one handgun with a rail (Beretta 92A1) and thats all Ill ever need. Even that one, I dislike the fact that the ruined the classic look of my 92FS.
 
captain awesome said:
Point taken from the couple of guys that have made the observation that we are one and need to stand as such.

I would like to say this, I quite obviously from my previous post am not fond of most "tactical" stuff. And its mostly because I have to hear about it all the time; how much better this or that is, and "why don't you have an AR?" a whole bunch of the same "why don't you...." questions over and over. Show offs drive me away, especially when they are showing off mediocrity. I don't shove my revolvers and lever actions down any ones throat, so I don't want anyone shoving theirs down mine. I have had the same thing happen with guys that like the obscure or uncommon cartridges. One in particular I met on a deer hunt went on and on about how much better his 257 Ackley Improved was and more efficient than my 257 Weatherby. no I can't stand the "one uppers". their are some like this in every group I suppose but I will say this; while I may not like the stuff you cover your gun with or all your gadgetry I have no use for, I will fight to the death with my revolvers and bolt/lever actions for your right to have them.
Click to expand...

That seems very much the mentality with these guys. Continued to repeat, every time I said "I don't have interest in it," "if you can't afford it, just say so, that's fine," etc. I have plenty of guns, and I'd say the money spend on them coulda purchased a lot of tacticool... but I don't have an interest in it. Apparently that's not acceptable to some crowds.
 
That seems very much the mentality with these guys. Continued to repeat, every time I said "I don't have interest in it," "if you can't afford it, just say so, that's fine," etc. I have plenty of guns, and I'd say the money spend on them coulda purchased a lot of tacticool... but I don't have an interest in it. Apparently that's not acceptable to some crowds.
Click to expand...
By the same reasoning the money spent on ARs would have bought a lot blued steel and wood, if they had an interest in it.
 
I believe that tactical is an action/ behavior not a bolt on accessory or color scheme. Tactical is how you use the tool. Yeah a black rifle with a mounted flashlight might help you be more tactical in you maneuvers but it doesn't make the firearm any more lethal.
 
JohnBiltz said:
By the same reasoning the money spent on ARs would have bought a lot blued steel and wood, if they had an interest in it.
Click to expand...

You should read this guy's posts sometime. He's the biggest blowhard at that forum. If you're not into tacticool, you're a fool, and if you're not listening to his ramblings and soaking it in like an education, you're not on his good standings.

Someone recently disagreed with him and he posted a rant about them "eating the teacher." He's convinced he's the educator of the forum on firearms.

http://www.allthingszombie.com/mb/index.php?/user/329-bob/

Dude's name is Bob. Any of his comments are pretty hysterical.
 
I like tactical devices but, for me, just a little goes a long way. For example, my nightstand pistol has a rail with a light/laser combo. My HD shotgun is a S-12 with light and laser and, after I convert it, will use 12 round drums. For SD against feral hogs and feral dogs I'm going to "try" a reflex sight on a revolver to help my weakening eyes for rapid sight acquisition. For short range rifle hunting I'll go with a red dot or reflex sight. For medium range hunting and and varmint control my scopes have illuminated mildot reticles. For concealed carry my little LC9 will have one of those new side-mounted lasers. That's about as tactical as I'm likely to get.

"Tactical" can mean "simple" too. For instance, if one expects to be alone in a jungle for 2 years then he'd better not be dependent on electronics and better have the most reliable (simplest) gear he can find, e.g. AK47 with iron sights. So the ultimate in simplicity is tactical also.
 
Seems like some folks are taking this personally.
Click to expand...

There's no shortage of ninjas who buy black rifles, drag them to the range once a year and blaze through 500 rounds of ammo without being able to really hit much.

Just like there's no shortage of Fudds who drag their bolt-action hunting rifle to the range once a year and can't seem to hit a standard bullseye at 100 yards while shooting from the bench.

It's quite irritating to have your marksmanship skills judged by someone who can't see past the finish of your gun.

It's even worse to have someone from one particular shooting discipline pass judgement on someone from another discipline by making the assumption that the standards from their sport are somehow universally superior and therefore applicable to every situation.
 
Well, you got tactical and tacticool, and then you also have folks sitting at computers making the calls on who and what qualifies as which --and that is just as bad.

If you've never kicked in a door or cleared a room and don't know what that rail or flashlight is for, then it probably wasn't meant for you no matter what you call it. As for me, I can nail a target just fine with an M4 and iron sights out to 600m --or with an ACOG, PEQ2A, Surefire light, and Harris bipod on an army issue KAC rail system and burst trigger, which is my preferred setup but with a 2 stage trigger instead. In fact, I'd feel a little naked with anything less. Much the way an old timer feels about his issue M14 or Garand.

You may like those blued and polished revolvers, they sure look pretty, but you'd feel pretty stupid with one in the sandbox. Likewise, I'd feel kind of stupid deer hunting with my M4. Different tools for different jobs, different strokes for different folks.

So stop worrying about what I'm doing and keep your eyes downrange. I could care less what you think about my gear anyway, I get what works for me, and tactical is just a state of mind as I taught it. You act tactical, you can't buy it, but I guess you can sell it, so go figure...
Click to expand...
Exactly!


If tactical is a mindset, and has nothing to do with tools, what is the term for firearms specifically made/designed/upgraded for combat use?
Click to expand...
Excellent point! Lots folks grumble about the word "tactical" and often sling insults starting with "mall ninja" but we never really hear another word put in its place. IMHO, too many are hung up on the label.


There's no shortage of ninjas who buy black rifles, drag them to the range once a year and blaze through 500 rounds of ammo without being able to really hit much.

Just like there's no shortage of Fudds who drag their bolt-action hunting rifle to the range once a year and can't seem to hit a standard bullseye at 100 yards while shooting from the bench.

It's quite irritating to have your marksmanship skills judged by someone who can't see past the finish of your gun.

It's even worse to have someone from one particular shooting discipline pass judgement on someone from another discipline by making the assumption that the standards from their sport are somehow universally superior and therefore applicable to every situation.
Click to expand...
Very well stated!
 
Last edited:
That seems very much the mentality with these guys. Continued to repeat, every time I said "I don't have interest in it," "if you can't afford it, just say so, that's fine," etc. I have plenty of guns, and I'd say the money spend on them coulda purchased a lot of tacticool... but I don't have an interest in it. Apparently that's not acceptable to some crowds.
Click to expand...

Seriously, who cares? If one likes tacticool, great. If one likes walnut stocks and bolt actions, more power to 'em. I'm just thankful that there are hordes of us who enjoy firearms and provide the NRA with enough resources to keep the antis at bay. It's like saying "I prefer blondes.".
 
Define "tactical".

A 14ft. lance was tactical... for a Comanche warrior in the 1840s. It pefectly matched his requirements in his tactical situation. Not so much in my two bedroom apartment in Ohio.

If YOUR gun meets YOUR needs in YOUR tactical situation, it's "tactical", be it a flintlock horse pistol or a Mk19Mod3.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top