Pickpocket - the point is that most of the reload argument is speculative. That's what you just spouted. Hypotheticals and what ifs. None of them are new in the analysis of the reloading debate.
Coincidentally, 95% of the tactics discussions are speculative in nature. You say that there are no new arguments; I agree. However, just because someone can't prove that something DOESN'T work isn't usually the best platform to argue against it. Proving a negative doesn't work out so well, logically.
The thread never asked for an analysis of the Tac Reload. Some people believe it's useful, some don't. That's the way of the world.
One way to resolve such gun forum debates is to see what works under stress in real incidents or well designed studies (which have been used in many, many other stress situations). The gun world just prefers BS endless debates. Once a BSer decides their position is 'truth' - then they denounce the need for actual data or research. What a yawn!
I'm not saying there's no need for research. My point is that while you're saying there's no proof that the Tac Reload holds benefit you should also realize that there's no proof that the Tac Reload has
negative benefit, either.
This is a circular debate with no real universally accepted truth, and you had to know this going in.
If there was a true lull in the fighting - then the difference in the classic tac or retentiona would mean nothing but still folks blah, blah about it.
Truthfully - I don't believe there's much use for civilians to
worry about magazine retention. Both the Tac Reload and magazine retention are really primarily specific to either combat operations or special tactics. However, there is some benefit to knowing what a Tac Reload is....if you care about it, that is. If not, then it doesn't really matter at the end of the day now does it?
Like I said - the proof is in the pudding - let's evaluate cases where the different techniques actually did anything or a realistic simulation where it meant something for the police or civilian.
Let us also then examine the evidence that supports that different techniques did NOTHING. You are firmly on the other side of the fence, so why do you feel the need to seek validation? Would it change your mind if the "proof" you seek suddenly appeared? I imagine not.
Also, if you are an expert - who are you? You claim many incidents. Time to share.
I'm no expert - just a guy who's still alive to tell his stories and has chosen to try to train others from his own experiences.
I spent two years kicking in doors and clearing houses. I have one 11-day continuous operation under my belt - so at the very least I understand the need to not drop your magazines all over the place because you might just want to reload some of them at some point. Suffice it to say that when you're not sure how many rounds you put through the last three guys and you have to kick in another door, you might want to put in a fresh mag - just in case.
My point about the difference between mag safety guns and those without was that all the reload blather impacts gun choice - didn't you get that?
But see, that's the disconnect. You imply that the choice of technique defines the tool. I say that a combination of tool, time, skill, and situation defines the technique.
Please do not take this as insulting, because that's not the intent here, but what I see is that I have formed opinions based on my experience and you seem to be forming them based on the lack of that same type of experience.
I'm not saying that your opinion is invalid, just that the experiences that have formed our respective opinions has been different.
At the end of the day, the Tac Reload is just another tool. It has its pros and cons, just like any tool. It will fail you if used at the wrong time or in the wrong situation, just like any tool. It will seem unecessary until you need it, just like any tool. The central concepts behind the Tac Reload are to minimize the amount of time your weapon is without a source of ammo and to retain the spent/partially spent magazine in case you might need it later. If we can agree that both of those may be important things to consider, then why does it matter what it's called?