Has Tactical Gone Too Far?

[Fred Fuller]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 “tactical”. Whatever. I’ve 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, don’t assume that he doesn’t know how to shoot better than you do with a blued steel and walnut stocked pump gun. And don’t assume the opposite, in that if somebody has nice gear, he must know what he is doing.

The most fun I’ve 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, I’ve had days where I’ve used cool guy guns, with good optics, and been absolutely smoked by a guy with an iron sighted Colt SP1 older than me.

Gear doesn’t 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 doesn’t. Discard that which does not, and practice with what does.

In the meantime, I don’t pay any attention to anybody who can’t outshoot me. So I’ll continue to have a great deal of fun with lights, and EOTechs, and magazine fed shotguns.

 

[KriegHund]

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]

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!!

 

[USMCRotrHed]

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]

A few random comments

"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]

No.

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


Yet.

+100000

 

[1911 guy]

Two camps on this discussion.

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]

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!!

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]

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]

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]

Congrats

"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]

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]

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]

optics vs iron sights

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]

Isn't America great

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]

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]

.

 

[444]

"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.

 

[TechBrute]

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.