One More TACTICAL and I'll Scream!

Bubblehead · Bubblehead on Thu May 01, 2008 4:11 am

One More TACTICAL and I'll Scream!
Ranting and Raving by Russell Corbitt

If there’s one overused and completely useless adjective applied to 99% of currently available shooting gear, it’s "tactical." A casual nonscientific perusal of ads in gun-related magazines revealed that around 1/4 of them used the T-word. A later scan revealed that almost everything sporting-related is now "tactical" in some way.

"Tactical" guns. "Tactical" ammunition. "Tactical" magazines. "Tactical" stocks, fore-ends, and grips. "Tactical" sights. "Tactical" safeties. "Tactical" knives. "Tactical" flashlights. "Tactical" windbreakers. "Tactical" equipment bags. "Tactical" spent-brass bags. "Tactical" sunglasses. "Tactical" watch bands. "Tactical" do-rags. "Tactical" deodorant. "Tactical" hair-care products. "Tactical" toilet tissue.

Horseshit.

I'm going to make a radical proposition. Let’s call things what they are, without the catchy and inapplicable adjectives. Calling a piece of junk "tactical" doesn't make it any less a piece of junk, does it? ("What’s in a name? . . .") Adding some (arguably) useless "tactical" junk to your collection doesn't mean that you even have the vaguest idea what "tactics" are, does it?

How about starting here:
Tactical adj. 1. Of tactics; concerning tactics. 2. Having to do with direction or oversight of military forces in battle. 3. Organized for action against enemy troops (as opposed to acting against industry or infrastructure, which is strategic). 4. Figurative Characterized by skillful procedure, methods, or expedients; clever.

Tactics n. 1. The art or science of disposition or maneuver of military forces in battle. 2. A method or process of doing this. 3. The operations and/or maneuvers themselves. 4. Figurative Procedures or efforts to gain advantages or success; methods.

These definitions were extracted and condensed from dictionaries of various ages and sources. The definitions were amazingly similar in all. Underlining is mine, to illustrate the salient point: "Tactics" is about means and methods, not toys and gadgets.

While materials and equipment may define or dictate tactics, I'm at a loss to pose a situation where tactics ultimately determine kit. Distilled into its simplest form, this means that one figures out methods of employing tools and resources at hand to increase the odds of survival, winning, or achieving an objective. Rare indeed is the case where someone is presented a shiny new solution and proceeds henceforth to invent the problem. (Those who have served in a governmental capacity will undoubtedly dispute that statement.)

Let’s draw pictures for any who didn't do well in high-school English: Having a flashlight means that you can use certain tactics not available to or practical for someone without light. This does not make the flashlight tactical. Having body armor means that you are able to use tactics that those without body armor cannot use without paying a price. This does not make the body armor tactical. Setting up crew-served machine guns with interlocking fields of fire is a tactic. This does not make the machine guns tactical. Using air and infantry assets to support armor is a tactic. This does not make the air, infantry, or armor tactical.

Still don't believe? I'll pose an example. You have some elite "tactical" warriors with lots of "tactical" stuff, including night-vision (NV) equipment. You’re coming after me, and I don't have significant NV capability. You’re going to kick my butt, right? Ah -- Nay, nay, grasshopper. Even your fancy "tactical" NV gear won't help when one of your operators unknowingly triggers a hidden passive motion detector (such as the cheapo units used to turn bathroom lights on & off), silently alerting a sentry. Suddenly, preplotted mortar or artillery fire starts landing around you. Or maybe some command-detonated mines show you the express route to Valhalla. "Tactics" is about thinking, not about brass bells and chrome-plated whistles. All the fancy gear in the world doesn't mean diddly if you don't know how to use it to your advantage and work it against your opponent’s weaknesses. Superior tactics coupled with better equipment is an almost insurmountable obstacle -- until some clever character finds a new tactic to exploit a heretofore-unseen weakness against you.

Buying a gun, gizmo, or gewgaw with the word tactical as part of its name does not mean it is in any way, shape, matter, or form better than an otherwise identical item without that appellation. It also, by logical extension, does not mean that possession of something with the word "tactical" utilized in its description makes you any better as a shooter, planner, or tactician. In fact, a goodly portion of the things I see advertised as "tactical" are quite obviously made to sell, not to buy. (There’s a subtle difference in application. If I have to explain, you wouldn't understand.)

Granted, this is a somewhat pedantic exercise in semantics, but words mean things. We in the gun world have allowed control of the lexicon to slip away, and now the non-shooting world is defining our words for us. Examples? Look at the hype, pap, and awful offal surrounding the "assault weapons" nonsense. We've lost the meaning of "armor-piercing" as well. "Ballistic" has long since been surrendered to the arena of pencil-necked, pointy-headed advertising-copy writers. I managed to endure the "ballistic" onslaught in silence, but enough is enough! Remember that? Ballistics, as in "the study of a non-powered, non-guided projectile or missile over the course of its trajectory." Internal, external, and terminal. Which of these applies to something that is not a projectile or missile by design, over the course of a non-trajectory while attached to someone's belt? The only time I have seen actual "ballistic nylon" is during the brief interval the "ballistic nylon" object is flying through the air -- between my hand and the trash can. Hmmm . . . Using this line of reasoning, I've seen ballistic leather, ballistic wood, ballistic paper (junk mail), and many other "ballistic" materials. They were ballistic because they were following an unpowered and unguided path through the atmosphere, not because some keyboard-twiddling goofball who has never even seen a real gun thought it sounded like a cool name.
Does anyone notice that there are no "plastic" objects any more? They’re all "polymer" now. Sure, it’s a lot better than plain, old plastic. Why? How? Well, it’s proprietary. Top Secret. Code-word stuff. Biometric validation required. Just take their word for it. They'd have to shoot you.
Whatever happened to "aluminum?" It’s all "space-age alloy" or "lightweight alloy" or some such thesaurus-dodging term now. "Zamac" is a "high-tech alloy" today, not the "pot metal" it was called 25 years ago.
"Magnum" used to mean that something was larger than the standard size. Now we’re trying to deal with "Super-Short Magnum" cartridges. Pardon? Is that a giant midget or a dwarven giant? Am I to infer it’s a small large cartridge or a large small cartridge? Is it "super" and "short" or is it "super-short?" If it’s "short" or "super-short" in size, how can it be "Magnum?" Mind you, I'm not criticizing the cartridges or their performance -- they'll survive or die off according to their merits -- only the contradictory and non-informative nature of their nomenclature.

If this trend continues, what can we expect in the future? One has only to look to the recent past to get a real-life preview. What about the oxymoronic "Short Magnum" cartridges? "TURBO?" (Turbo vacuum cleaners? Turbo car washes??) "HI-FI?" (OK, I'm giving away clues about my age.)

This is a hard reality that many either won't face or won't acknowledge: Superior tactics defeat gadgets or hardware almost every time. (There's still luck, but no thinking, rational creature with survival instincts depends on pure luck.) For those still having trouble with the big words, it’s this simple: I'd much rather have the man with the well-worn weapon and 150 rounds of FMJ ammo on my team than the man who has every possible "tactical" gadget attached to his pristine "tactical" weapon and 1000 rounds of "tactical" ammo. The person who has practice and experience (even with "obsolete" guns like revolvers, P-38/M1911A1/TT-33 Tokarev/Helwan autoloaders, 98 Mausers, or #1 Mk. III 2A SMLEs) will beat the person who has a whole pile of "tactical" guns and thinks that 50 rounds (total) fired annually guarantees proficiency.

No toy, gizmo, or gadget can replace hard work and disciplined training. I've taught many people to shoot rifles and handguns. I've been an NRA Highpower Rifle competitor and a Certified Rifle/Pistol/Shotgun/Self-Defense Instructor. Without exception, the hardest people to teach are those with a truckload of dot sights, lasers, scopes, flashlights, GPS gear, umbrellas, coffee makers, and other unnecessary paraphernalia bolted to their guns. People who go out and shoot a box of ammo, hit nothing, and then take the gun in to "get it fixed." Any time a target is missed, it’s always because "the (insert item name) messed up." Iron sights? Clicks? MOA? NPOA? Offhand? Range estimation? Wind doping? You can use a sling like that?

Both of my sons, several of my shooting friends, and I know how to shoot rifles from the four military positions, with and without slings. We can shoot handguns with one hand or two, supported or unsupported, Weaver or isosceles. (Note that I have not made any marksmanship claims . . .) This means that IF we have any of these "tactical" thingamabobs, we can do better. The toys serve to improve ability, not provide ability. To me, it’s not even a fine line -- the difference is stark. So take the "tactical" nonsense off your guns and go out and learn to shoot them. Then (and only then) are you capable of using advantages granted by superior equipment, because you are now in command of the basics.