Trendy gun jargon

What I hate most. Maybe not all jargon but close enough.

When talking about guns;

"entry level"... condescending and who's to say what is and what isn't?
"range toy" ... same as above, I know what is mean't but first of all, guns ain't toys and one man's toy may be another man's go to.
"tactical" ... pretty soon we'll see tactical diapers and tactical toilet paper!
"followed me home" ... why not just say bought or acquired?
"scored"...same as the above, a left over from the 60s/70s :) :)...thanks for letting me get off a rant.
 
"tacticool"

"magazine dump"

"crack-off a shot"

"dressed to the nines"

"Let's make some noise"

"range nazi"

"Let's ring some steel"

"Can't hit the broadside of a barn...that is ten feet away"

"put another round in the pipe"

"space gun"

target pulling --- "working in the pits"
 
Last edited:
"Scout rifle" is another that bugs me.
"Cop Chicks" as an insult to female LEOs.
"Hand crafted whiskey" for illegal moonshine.
 
Dressed to the nines. I never did feel comfortable using that one.

"Mall Ninja"

- which I actually don't have a problem with, it's just not intuitive. I think there was a Reddit thread where someone pretended to be a super special mall security guard who rode around on a Segway. He was asking about various firearms and gear way in excess of his role and bragging about his skills. It was all in good fun.
 
"tacticool"

"magazine dump"

"crack-off a shot"

"dressed to the nines"

"Let's make some noise"

"range nazi"

"Let's ring some steel"

"Can't hit the broadside of a barn...that is ten feet away"

"put another round in the pipe"

"space gun"

target pulling --- "working in the pits"
Click to expand...
^^^^^
All valid under the right - sometimes very broad - circumstances..

Not jargon.

But if you don't like 'gun shop commando' or similar, you may not like "counter monkey" (in reference to the brain-dead, but over-opinionated idiots behind the counter of the average gun shop).
 
"Scout rifle" is another that bugs me.
Click to expand...

I always thought Cooper's concept for a "Scout rifle" was a rather elegant and practical concept. Just 3/4 of a century or so too late for serious consideration by military scouts. And, of course as people started making them, they deviated from Coopers original concepts often.

IF you create something new, you're allowed to name it, anything you want, even if it doesn't make sense to the rest of us.

making up new names for existing things just for their cuteness appeal or shock value doesn't fall in the category of creating a new thing, to me.

Technobabble is a popular pastime for a lot of folks these days.
 
As a sales manager for a small independent shop; I find myself using "platform" in regards to Glock and AR- patterns weapons a lot.

I mean, no it's not an AR-15 cause it's made by BCM, but it is an AR- style rifle.

Same goes for the plethora of non Glock glock copies and parts.

I loathe the name tactical. Loathe it.

If it it is not describing the role of an F-16 versus a B-52, then it ain't tactical.

And speaking of; tactical; when Dad was at Lakenheath; I'm cam to associate pants with what one wore under ones trousers.
 
44 AMP said:
I always thought Cooper's concept for a "Scout rifle" was a rather elegant and practical concept. Just 3/4 of a century or so too late for serious consideration by military scouts. And, of course as people started making them, they deviated from Coopers original concepts often.

IF you create something new, you're allowed to name it, anything you want, even if it doesn't make sense to the rest of us.

making up new names for existing things just for their cuteness appeal or shock value doesn't fall in the category of creating a new thing, to me.

Technobabble is a popular pastime for a lot of folks these days.
Click to expand...
You hit the nail on the head 44....the term Scout Rifle is not jargon but describes a specific weapon. Obviously touted by Col Cooper.

General purpose rifle for the fighter and hunter who might be expected to fire one or two shots then wisely change his venue (in regards to the fighter)

Cooper had very specific criteria and more or less discouraged adulterated (pseudo scouts) versions.

6.6 LBS, Bolt Action
A meter or less in OAL
Chambered short action to more easily make length
.308 was his general recommendation since the cartridge had to be powerful enough for medium large game and effective to at least 450 meters, I think
Iron sights (ghost ring aperture, post front) were a necessity, not an option.
An optional low powered, forward mounted telescope so as not to interfere with the irons and to possibly facilitate the use of stripper clips.

These are just the criteria that I remember, there are undoubtedly others

But "jargon" the Scout Rifle is not, at least as Col Cooper would say "when fully understood" :)
 
I've been building guns for years & never found the need to use any of the chic jargon that all seem to have the need to use to impress others.
The only terms I use is something like "quality in equals quality out" I don't use brand names or numbers like others use. Because a quality part from one company is not much better than a quality part from another. Use & application of the parts is what produces a reliable accurate outcome.
Then the bullet hits the target consistently all the chic jargon that the other shooters were saying tends to fade away fast. LOL
 
SHR970 said:
I must disagree with you here; many are used by those who would restrict our rights and end up as part of the jargon used by fellow shooters. There is a reason there are a subset of owners known as Fudd's.
Click to expand...

Interesting........While we hate trendy gun jargon, we insist on using it ourselves, even tho it alienates us to other, fellow, responsible, gun owners.:rolleyes:
 
buck460XVR said:
While we hate trendy gun jargon, we insist on using it ourselves, even tho it alienates us to other, fellow, responsible, gun owners.
Click to expand...

Isn't the point of the term fudd that the person isn't a responsible owner in that he irresponsibly endorses restrictions?

If an individual is alienated by an accurate description of his position, who is to blame for the alienation?
 
zukiphile said:
Isn't the point of the term fudd that the person isn't a responsible owner in that he irresponsibly endorses restrictions?

If an individual is alienated by an accurate description of his position, who is to blame for the alienation?
Click to expand...

IMHO, a responsible owner is someone who obeys the law and shoots, hunts and stores their firearms in a safe and responsible way. When someone is next to me at the range, in the field or in the deer woods, I'm more concerned about how responsible they are with whatever firearm they have, than I am in how they feel about high capacity mags and AR type platforms. Can't believe anyone out there would feel differently......and IME, most of those so-called "Fudds" are some of the safest folks in the woods, especially compared to many first time gun owners with their new 15 round Glock. Just sayin'.

Also, even tho they may not see a need for certain platforms/accessories, most would support them, if and when the time comes, that their choices are challenged. Even tho they don't agree with us on everything, they are still our closest allies, and to ostracize then by bullying and calling them belittling names is not helping our cause at all. In the past decade, the most folks I have seen change their mindset about CWCing a handgun or the use of "Black" type firearms, have been those folks, once considered "Fudds". We don't need to alienate them, we need to mentor them. At least with them we have a good chance.
 
buck460XVR said:
IMHO, a responsible owner is someone who obeys the law and shoots, hunts and stores their firearms in a safe and responsible way. When someone is next to me at the range, in the field or in the deer woods, I'm more concerned about how responsible they are with whatever firearm they have, than I am in how they feel about high capacity mags and AR type platforms.
Click to expand...

It is laudable that a person who endorses restrictions on shooting not focused on hunting would handle his firearm safely. That's a facet of responsibility. However, we might agree that endorsing a constriction of the right where they think that constriction will not affect them immediately isn't responsible and lacks foresight; it's a bad behavior. A description of a bad behavior is unlikely to be complimentary.

buck460XVR said:
Also, even tho they may not see a need for certain platforms/accessories, most would support them, if and when the time comes, that their choices are challenged.
Click to expand...

That doesn't sound like what I understand "Fudd" to mean.

A gun-owner who supports traditional hunting guns but favors gun control for other guns such as handguns or tactical rifles.
Click to expand...

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Fudd

For what it's worth, I don't see hunters as the only subgroup of shooters who misconstrue the right to be really only about their chosen activity.

If I proclaim that the 2d Am. protects my right to take my friends on a deer hunt with my bolt action rifle or a shotgun, but only criminals need handguns and a magazine with more than 10 rounds is evidence of poor marksmanship, it is difficult for me to foresee alienation or insult if someone describes me as a Fudd. How can accurate use be insulting?

If someone were to describe me as half blind, low speed, high drag, I imagine my response would be "Guilty".
 
zukiphile said:
Isn't the point of the term fudd that the person isn't a responsible owner in that he irresponsibly endorses restrictions?

If an individual is alienated by an accurate description of his position, who is to blame for the alienation?
Click to expand...
I respectfully submit that whether or not a gun owner endorses restrictions on firearms use or ownership that some other gun owners don't support is not a factor that defines whether or not that owner is a "responsible" firearms owner. Supporting restrictions that you or I don't support is a personal and political choice, but making a choice with which we disagree does not make the person "irresponsible." If you're going to go there, then in any presidential election year roughly half the population of the United States must be irresponsible, because they don't vote the way I voted.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
I respectfully submit that whether or not a gun owner endorses restrictions on firearms use or ownership that some other gun owners don't support is not a factor that defines whether or not that owner is a "responsible" firearms owner. Supporting restrictions that you or I don't support is a personal and political choice, but making a choice with which we disagree does not make the person "irresponsible."
Click to expand...

Certainly. What makes a choice irresponsible isn't the disagreement of others, but the likelihood of a resulting harm. Where a subset of shooters militate for restriction of 2d Am. rights, they risk a harm.
 
zukiphile said:
Certainly. What makes a choice irresponsible isn't the disagreement of others, but the likelihood of a resulting harm. Where a subset of shooters militate for restriction of 2d Am. rights, they risk a harm.
Click to expand...
Again, that's a personal/political assessment. To us, they risk a harm. To them, they are advocating for what they perceive to be a potential benefit.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
Again, that's a personal/political assessment.
Click to expand...

To note that a position or act reflects a personal or political assessment does not mean that it is merely a personal and political assessment. To militate for or endorse the restriction of 2d Am. rights courts a harm.

Aguila Blanca said:
To us, they risk a harm. To them, they are advocating for what they perceive to be a potential benefit.
Click to expand...

That one who courts a harm denies that it is a harm doesn't make it responsible. To a drunk who maintains he can drive home safely, the benefit is that he gets to drive home. That doesn't make it responsible.

The advocate of restrictions on arms except as they relate to hunting sees the benefit of denying criminals pistols, a criminal tool, and poor marksmen and unbalanced individuals "high capacity" magazines with no legitimate use. That he sees a benefit doesn't distinguish him from any other advocate of a restriction of a civil right.

As we see from the English example, shrinking the zone of personal freedoms as they pertain to arms does also pose a harm to hunters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top