Why not tactical?

[TexasBill]

What someone likes is their business: I don't have to pay for it; I don't have to deal with it and they are perfectly free to not care at all about what I might think of it.

However, these days I am neither a cop nor a soldier and I don't feel a need for the tools that they need to perform their duties. I don't have any need for all the extra doodads; I don't have any need for flash-bang grenades or tear gas, either.

IMHO, any weapon can be tactical, assuming one has tactics for using it. "Spray and pray" is not a tactical option in a SD situation; something about collateral damages and liabilities. As for flashlights, as Archie mentioned, we used to call them aiming points. We were trained to hold the flashlight in our right hand extended away from the body. If all an adversary has to do is shoot into the light, attaching one to something in front of my face probably isn't all that good an idea. Just my opinion and I won't put anyone down for thinking otherwise.

In the end, it doesn't make any difference whether you're happy with a 1903 Springfield, the latest evil black rifle with so many accessories that you have to hunt for the actual firearm, or anything else: if it works for you, that's all that really matters.

 

[HammerheadSSN663]

Maybe some guys (like myself) don't think they are themselves 'tactical' but rather just like having the nicest stuff. Just because you buy the fastest commercially available car doesn't mean you know everything about racing cars or how they work mechanically.

Or does that make too much sense?

Personally, I'd rather be around folks like me than those who wear black clothing for a living a get off shooting the family dog.

 

[Ash_J_Williams]

Maybe some guys (like myself) don't think they are themselves 'tactical' but rather just like having the nicest stuff. Just because you buy the fastest commercially available car doesn't mean you know everything about racing cars or how they work mechanically.

Or does that make too much sense?

Personally, I'd rather be around folks like me than those who wear black clothing for a living a get off shooting the family dog.

It makes total sense. You also come into the situation admitting that you yourself may not be tactical and may not know everything. That's an honorable trait the it seems not everyone has.

 

[HarleyFixer]

I spent 35 years in the Army being "tactical", I personally don't need it.

 

[X-Rap]

It's funny that taking a Tactical bolt action military rifle from the last century and scoping it and making it generally more shootable and user friendly is called sporterizing but if you take a present military pattern rifle and do the same it's called tactical. Seems like a matter of perspective to me.
I wonder what they said back in the 1700's when those radical thinkers started to put rifling in those barrels or maybe started using caps instead of flint, wearing earthtones instead of bright uniforms and imagine repeating metallic cartridge rifles. Revolutionary I say.

 

[oldbear]

Why not tatical, better yet Why tatical?

Maybe not having the latest and greatest tactical stuff why Sitting Bull put it to the 7th. Cavalry the way he did. IMHO, having the latest fad gear is no guarantee of success. With all do respect to out brave young men and women who have or are fighting for us right now, we haven’t won a war in a decisive fashion since 1945. I don’t believe any of the “Tac-Cool” set would consider any WW II weapons to be tactical enough for them.
I wish more people would remember the KISS theory, it something has worked and worked well of 50+ years does it really need to be changed?

 

[X-Rap]

Politics has had much more bearing than the tools in our wars since 1945. Take a squad armed, trained and equipped with today's technology and tactics, transport them back to 45 and it would be no different than taking a squad from 45 and sending them back to Custers time. Their performance would probably be spectacular compared to those of the times. This is all hypothetical but the same can be said of police, medicine, manufacturing. The idea that improvements are useless because they supplant current notions and technology is only half right, change just for the sake of change is as ignorant as resisting its benefits when they are apparent..

 

[thorazine]

Why not tactical?

I guess my firearms fall under the tactical category to some.

For I don't like wood.
I don't like revolvers.
I don't like shotguns.
I don't like bullseye shooting or hunting.

I love my suppressors (major mall ninja points).
I love plastic (more mall ninja points).

I keep it mildly simple when it comes to an AR (just red dot and rail).

Label me what you will -- call me tactical I don't care -- but I don't dress or act the part.

 

[Ky Larry]

I was in my local gunshop a few weeks ago and saw a Ruger 10/22 that had a sign on it that said "Tactical Ruger 10/22." It had a parkerized barrel and receiver, a black synthetic stock, and a 30rnd mag. I laughed out loud. I have no idea what is "tactical" and what is "tacticool." Even more importantly, why should I care? all my weapons fill a perceived need on my part. You may call them what you wish.

 

[Inebriated]

I've gone by two sayings in regards to tactical.
"'Tactical' is a mindset, not a loadout."
and
"Tactical is practical."

 

[stchman]

The use of the word "Tactical" when it comes to firearms, apparel, bags, etc., is for the company selling them to charge more money.

I mean really, is a backpack in digicam really any better than say a blue one? No, but it looks cooler and a company charges more for it.

Also a lot of companies make an item black and them call it tactical.

I recently bought a Ruger 10/22 Tactical, it's all black with a bipod. I'm sure Ruger simply put the word tactical to make money.

 

[MyGreenGuns]

I started a thread asking the difference between "Tactical" and "Mall Ninja" and it turned into a hate thread. The famous "Gecko45" kind of ruined the word "tactical" IMO. Some people truely believe bolting parts onto a gun will make them a more formidable force. Those people tend to be the loudest about how everyone needs to be just like them.

My shotgun has "tactical" stamped on the side of it and I no longer state that when I talk about it. I'd trust my life with this weapon, not because it has accessories, but because I've shot it so much. Its not "tactical" anyway, its green.

I have accessories on two of my guns, ironicly the two I've put the most rounds thru. I think its the training that give me a "tactical" advantage. I'm fully aware that someone shoots better than me.

Bottom line is, we're all a bunch of gun nuts. As long as you are safe when you shoot, I dont care how your gun looks. Just dont judge me when you see me shooting something that has extras on it.

 

[tarosean]

Bottom line is, we're all a bunch of gun nuts. As long as you are safe when you shoot, I dont care how your gun looks. Just dont judge me when you see me shooting something that has extras on it.

Unfortunately this sort of infighting happens in a lot of different activities, not just guns. Motorcycles (Harley vs. Foreign) Bicycles (Rigid vs. Suspended) Bows (Recurve vs. Compound), etc. etc. etc.

 

[tarosean]

"Tactical is practical."

Please expound on that quote...

 

[JustinJ]

I like tactial rifles and accessories because they are cool and fun. I find shooting and training with such guns and accessories to also be cool and fun. In all likelihood i will never need my AR or AK training or their accesories but again, i enjoy them both. Why people always respond to civilians asking about accessories with "spend the money on ammo instead to train with" is beyond me. Maybe tinfoil hats are part of some people's tactical gear.

In regards to what is tactical, I find discussing semantics to be pointless or a dodge to the real topic at hand.

 

[Mike1234567]

"Tactical is practical."

Please expound on that quote...

I think it's pretty clear. Whatever practically meets one's needs is tactically appropriate for those needs regardless of anyone else's opinion.

 

[X-JaVeN-X]

This argument is so absurd....all the "old timers" here joking people for putting a flash light on their shotgun/pistol/ar15 sound just as arrogant as the "youngsters" saying you're stupid if you don't dangle all the latest tacticool stuff off your gun. There is a happy medium and like it or not, some of the "tacticool" stuff does serve a function and if you can wield the weapon just as easily with it as you can without, then why not? This is the same argument probably all of us have made to people who ask us why we feel the need to carry a concealed handgun....something along the lines of "I'd rather have it and not need it then need it and not have it". It's sounds all great and wonderful to say "all I need is training and my 50 year old stripped down revolver", but in reality...if that's all we needed for every circumstance, then our country's military budget wouldn't be so high.

 

[Mike1234567]

X-JaVeN-X... decaf, dude, decaf. But... you're right...

 

[Onward Allusion]

Unfortunately this sort of infighting happens in a lot of different activities, not just guns. Motorcycles (Harley vs. Foreign) Bicycles (Rigid vs. Suspended) Bows (Recurve vs. Compound), etc. etc. etc.

I like foreign bikes, fixed frame bicycles, and compound bows. Of course, if you like a different combination different - I'm right and you're wrong!

 

[Inebriated]

Please expound on that quote...

I think it's pretty clear. Whatever practically meets one's needs is tactically appropriate for those needs regardless of anyone else's opinion.

Exactly.

Whatever gear that you find to be a practical piece, that will help you complete your job/task/goal will give you a TACTICAL advantage within that situation. It could be a better way to grab your magazines from your pouch in the middle of a firefight, or a very heavy shotgun for controlling those Turkey loads. Anything to give you benefits or an advantage in whatever you are doing.

Of course, the majority of the term's use is in the MIL/LEO field, and then companies find that Joe Triceps will buy it because it's labeled as tactical (for MIL/LEO), so it starts getting diluted in it's meaning. For example; Notice my MagPul reference? Yeah, that is a practical product designed to give a tactical advantage. But since every guy with an AR sees MIL using them, he wants them.

But like I said, it's all about what the item does for you and your role. Not whether it's black polymer and has a rail, like so many have come to associate it with.

 

[JohnBiltz]

Maybe not having the latest and greatest tactical stuff why Sitting Bull put it to the 7th. Cavalry the way he did. IMHO, having the latest fad gear is no guarantee of success. With all do respect to out brave young men and women who have or are fighting for us right now, we haven’t won a war in a decisive fashion since 1945. I don’t believe any of the “Tac-Cool” set would consider any WW II weapons to be tactical enough for them.
I wish more people would remember the KISS theory, it something has worked and worked well of 50+ years does it really need to be changed?

I don't think anybody ever go so many wrong things in one post. The Indians had the more modern weapons having Winchester and Henry repeaters while 7th Cav had single shot carbines. Ever hear of the 100 Hour War? Most tacticool guys would love a Thompson, because they are just plain cool. If something is 50 years old and still works doesn't mean something newer doesn't do the job better and more efficiently. Some pretty bottom line businessmen understand this principle.

 

[Mike1234567]

I wants me a Tommy gun wif a quad rail!!

You know I'm just playing, folks!!

 

[youngda9]

I don't teach my friends to rely upon gear or accessories to be tactical. I have told them: "You can be the most tactical, elite operative in nothing but your boxers and a scarf."

So that explains why you train in just your underwear...

 

[mortablunt]

This argument is so absurd....all the "old timers" here joking people for putting a flash light on their shotgun/pistol/ar15 sound just as arrogant as the "youngsters" saying you're stupid if you don't dangle all the latest tacticool stuff off your gun. There is a happy medium and like it or not, some of the "tacticool" stuff does serve a function and if you can wield the weapon just as easily with it as you can without, then why not? This is the same argument probably all of us have made to people who ask us why we feel the need to carry a concealed handgun....something along the lines of "I'd rather have it and not need it then need it and not have it". It's sounds all great and wonderful to say "all I need is training and my 50 year old stripped down revolver", but in reality...if that's all we needed for every circumstance, then our country's military budget wouldn't be so high.

The military budget has grown over time because war has become disproportionately more expensive. Back in the day, such as in WW2, the standard infantry weapon was the same as any bog standard rifle you could get at a store. They also didn't have things like JDAM, cruise missiles, ICBM's, computerized anything, or anything that had to be made through super secret processes.
Explaining why I own a gun never goes down well with those who refuse to understand. They simply will refuse to accept the idea that safety cannot be guaranteed.

 

[CraigC]

I recently bought a Ruger 10/22 Tactical, it's all black with a bipod.

Again, so-called "tactical" rifles are undeniably of a different configuration than traditional sporting rifles. Hence, they 'should' have a label applied to them to differentiate them. Since "tactical" gets so many panties in a bunch, what would you guys rather call them???

I'm sure Ruger simply put the word tactical to make money.

Why is that? They are no more expensive than any other comparable model. Actually, you're referring to the "target tactical" and it is only slightly more than the regular Target model, which doesn't come with a bipod. The "tactical limited" is actually less.