Why is everyone so "anti-tactical"?

[Justin]

I've liked those weapons way before the whole tactical revolution though, and as long as it gives me more products to choose from I don't see it as such a bad thing.

Use of the word 'tactical' by marketing folks has nothing to do with the selection of available guns on the market.

That's like saying that corn nuts taste better because, HEY LOOK! LOOK! They aren't corn nuts! They're EXTREME CORN NUTS! Yeah, EXTREME TO THE MAX!

My tastes in firearms tends to run to black and self-loading. I think that in certain situations, being able to hang a light on a gun can be an advantage. I'm not taking to task the people who prefer such firearms, as that would surely make me a hypocrite. What I despise is the marketing group think that gives rise to over-use of a term, which in the end renders it useless.


/Ever notice that the only place we don't see extreme marketing is in politics?

 

[JPL]

I have the neighbor who gives "tactical" it's bad image.

He's about 5-8, weighs about 400 pounds, and dresses 95% of the time in full camoflage. How he finds the stuff to fit his frame is beyond me.

He's not blending into the countryside, he IS the countryside.

Both my wife and I do truly get a laugh out of him.

At least he's a great neighbor and decent person.

 

[armoredman]

Hmmm, does tactical mean this?


Or this?




BTW, I work in prison, and we have a Tactical Support Unit, that has the fun toys and cool black uniforms, but they do a serious job in a hellaciously dangerous place.

The Mosin Nagant M44 rifle - the first tactical rifle, before we knew what tactical meant!

 

[Preacherman]

I think it may be time to re-define the word "Tactical". I think that in my experience, it means being able to respond decisively and (if necessary) lethally to an unexpected attack - in which the attacker had no idea that his intended victim was a wolf rather than a sheep.

An example from my own experience: a few years ago, I was visiting the family of one of the inmates at a prison where I did part-time voluntary chaplaincy. I was dressed in my clergy clothing, of course: black trousers, black clergy shirt with dog-collar, and black jacket. The family lived in a "bad" neighborhood, so I was carrying at the time.

While I was talking to the wife and two children, one of the inmate's gang-banger buddies walked in, handed me an envelope (from the feel of it, it was full of pills of some sort) and informed me that I was going to take it into the prison for his "homie", without any security inspection. Needless to say, I told him that I wasn't going to oblige.

He then started jumping up and down and screaming that he was going to "kick the @#$% out of me, 'cause he had a black belt!" As I drew my Glock 23, I informed him that "Well, I have a black gun..."

The look on his face was utterly priceless - one of those Kodak moments! You could almost see the thoughts chasing themselves across his face...

Thought #1: "Priests don't carry guns!"

Thought #2: "This one does..."

Thought #3: "Ohhhhh, @#$%!"

He stood not upon the order of his going (at high speed, through a closed screen door, and breaking several Olympic sprint records down the street). I was able to complete my business in peace and quiet.

IMHO, that was tactical...

 

[sm]

You Catholics have all the fun

Cockfights are illegal and quite profitable.
The "element" is dangerous.
I had a friend , UC accepted in this enviroment , part of a Multi-Agency investigation. Which included Preacherman's part of the world. I was there to take some stuff to him - don't ask. Information was... at a certain "bar" out in the middle of nowhere, there was going to be a meeting. What was needed was to "see" if a certain individual was going to attend.

Well these "gentlemen" don't take to well to strangers. I'm sure not going in there. The UC can't becasue it does not fit his "cover". "Gentlemen" no matter what, sometimes think with wrong part of anatomy. We use a Porche [ now po -po property from a drug bust in another state] get the daughter of a LEO to dress like a bad girl with a attitude that hates "daddy" and is rebelling by taking a road trip, shove big old nail in the tire and have her pull up to said bar...cussing and fussing.

Yep the fellow was there all right, he changed the flat, bought the "bad girl" a beer, flirted and all sorts of "suggestions". So with the ID-ing and all he was tailed and so on...

The bad girl...sweet innocent Catholic girl , attending college with 4.0 GPA with a Major in Sociology. I bet Confession was interesting...

"Forgive me father I have sinned...I have a real good reason tho'."..

 

[flatdog]

" The wise falcon hides it's claws."

flatdog.

 

[Nightfa11]

He's about 5-8, weighs about 400 pounds, and dresses 95% of the time in full camoflage. How he finds the stuff to fit his frame is beyond me.

www.bigcamo.com

Just thought you might like to know

Cabelas has some stuff for us big guys as well.

As far as the tactical debate goes, look at the "If I could only have two guns" thread.

I prefer utilitarian to tactical. I carry a leatherman but not a cold steel knife. I have an LED flashlight on my keychain but it's not a surefire or streamlight (it's a 1.00 store special actually..very handy).

My carry gun (if I EVER get my CCW, that is...the 60 day deadline is approaching) is a Sig...no rails, no funny sights (well, Sig night sights but they came with the gun) no scope or aimpoint, just the gun and ~1000 rounds through it without a single jam. 18.00 per 100 UMC JHP rounds feed just fine.

So I'm not sure if I'm tactical or not...if I am it's because tactical is utilitarian, not because utilitarian is tactical.

 

[Warren]

Is that the Fridge off to the side there on bigcamo.com?

 

[4v50 Gary]

I'm just plain cheap. I buy books, guns, bullets but nothing "tactical."

 

[Warren]

Practical over tactical, eh?

 

[GSB]

Anti-tactical is the new tactical.

 

[Nightfa11]

Is that the Fridge off to the side there on bigcamo.com?

Sure is

Practical over tactical, eh?

Pretty much. Here's an example from an unrelated field that applies.

I used to be big into the video game scene. Upgrades once or twice a year (usually a new computer or major new parts) etc etc.

But I NEVER got the whole neon/customized case thing. All I ever cared about was how well the computer functioned when I was gaming. Why not take the 100 bucks you just spent on neon and a custom case and buy more ram, bigger hard drive, faster processor, graphics card, SOMETHING that makes a difference.

The philosophy is the same with "tactical." If it makes what "needs to happen" occur faster, more reliably, more often, or more conveniently, then yes. Most of the "tactical" stuff I see does not accomplish these goals, and therefore I dismiss as unnecessary.

 

[Boats]

I can attest that at least in my case, "tactical" marketing is going to cost a sale to a company.

I have been mulling over which "assault 9mm" to buy for when the AWB expires. On its merits, Springfield's XD was on that list. One of the few reasons I have since come down on getting a CZ-85B is the thought of what "XD" stands for.

I just couldn't own a pistol called the xxxtreeme dooty. I won't even go on that this silly marketing name has a "tactical" variant already. Somehow, an extra inch in the barrel is even more extreme and tacticalicious than a standard model.:banghead:

I guess my taste for extremity and tacticality is frozen circa 1985.

 

[JohnBT]

XXTREME DUTY wouldn't bother me so much if they hadn't misspelled it.

Which way to Ye Olde Tacticalle Shoppe?

John

 

[Boats]

There is a valid reason not to call the XD the ED

In medical lingo that acronym is for Erectile Dysfunction. The jokes would be endless.

 

[Archie]

CZ52...

Tactical shooting vs. attire...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What's so un-tactical about being able to hit what you shoot at?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing, as long as we all realize that effectivity against stationary targets that aren't shooting back is a sign that...we are capable of hitting stationary targets that aren't shooting back.

CZ you have to realize that the skills involved in placing a round where it should go is paramount and preceeds all other considerations.

My club has both Bullseye and IDPA programs. While there is some debate about the relative merits of each, I wouldn't say one discipline can claim ultimate superiority over the other.

Been there, done that. I've been shooting bullseye since 1973 or so, and 'free-style combat' since 1974. Long before either IPSC or IDPA. Less rules than either. Bullseye shooters (with some exceptions) transition to 'combat' much faster and with greater sucess than 'combat' shooters pick up bullseye. I would go so far as to say 'combat' shooters are generally much poorer marksmen over all, even in their own discipline. The absolute best general handgun shooters started as bullseye shooters.

I find the Bullseye shooters to be excellent marksman, but that IDPA presents a challenge in that you aren't allowed the luxury of getting the perfect grip, taking the perfect stance, and getting the perfect sight picture. I'm not aware of any rapid reload requirements in Bullseye shooting, or contorting your body behind cover either. Shooting while moving is also something I believe IDPA requires that Bullseye shooting does not.

One trains to acquire a 'perfect grip' while the sidearm is still in the holster; if you don't do that, you're training wrong. Perfect sight picture is acquired instantly. Stance is probably not as important as the rest. The accuracy requirements for self-defense are looser than bullseye.

Looking at real shooting episodes, one sees the absence of the IDPA 'requirements' you list. I've never seen a real life shootout that required a reload; many had no cover to take; and typically movement was futile. Examining the mechanics of gunfights, most were solved by the winner planting him or herself and shooting their opposite. The one exception to this was the Miami FBI shootout, where the officers took cover, and one of the villians found them all and shot them.

The other side of the coin is that I've found that IDPA shooters often fall into the trap of shooting too fast, and missing shots that they should be able to make...-0 is 8" in diameter...even the Head Box is 6" square...most shots in IDPA are taken in the 7-12 yard range...with some extended range shooting thrown in to keep things interesting.

Something about "... can't miss fast enough to win ..." applies in gunfights as well. Perhaps especially.

I think a good Bullseye shooter has the advantage of a solid foundation to build upon...the "Tactical" skills can be learned...fundamental accuracy can be difficult to acquire if you've become accustomed to a "rhythmic cadence"...harder to slow down and become more accurate than to incrementally improve speed.

Yes, and this is the crux of the matter.

Bottom line, the 15 rapid shots to the torso are likely to have the desired effect as much as the single shot to the face.

Absolutely not! I work in an area where I have something on the order of 250 to 600 non-participant bystanders. The more shots fired, the greater the likihood of a miss. I cannot afford to miss, end of that discussion. Whatever happens, if I must shoot, I must deliver one well placed hit. "Collateral Damage" is not a sad posibility, it is unthinkable. Unallowable.
Please note I am not arguing shooting main body mass. I am saying one good hit is more desirable than a volley.

Is there anything "un-tactical" about being able to hit your target? Only if precise conditions and sufficient time are required to do so which exceed that of the threat that may present itself. A fast draw, quick presentation and rapid trigger work won't help either if you can't hit the threat.

Which is exactly my point. Under no circumstances in the 'US law-enforcement/self-defense' scenario may precision be replaced with volume of fire. Not with any legal or moral justification.