don't shoot it's me
New member
Tactical originates from the Greek word 'Tastical'...which means to make something look ballsier....even if it doesn't perform any better
Why does everything have to be so.....tactical?
- Thread starter dsk
- Start date
Marko Kloos
Inactive
tactical, (adj.):
Black and expensive.
Black and expensive.
MasterBlaster
New member
Why so "tactical"?
Because there is an inherent beauty in form following function. I don't need to see myself in a gun's blued finish, or comb my hair by its chrome reflection.
That's why to me the HK Mark 23 is just about the "prettiest" weapon I've ever seen. Why? Because it's so damn mean. It's all business, no bull.
http://www.remtek.com/arms/hk/civ/mark23/mark23.htm
There is a certain pleasure in owning a true "operator's weapon," even if you're not an operator.
With M1911A1's form no longer follows function; it follows tradition. That's O.K. too, as long as that's what you want. But why should everybody want the same thing? Those who deride "drastic plastic" will never own a Mark 23 which could probably shoot the pants off anything in their much shinier collection.
Is the Mark 23 "tactical?" Yes, to the extreme. Does that make it ugly? Not to me. Quite the contrary. I want one.
Not all of us want a shiny, "pretty" gun. I'd rather comb my hair in the mirror.
This constant "whose gun is prettier" debate is for girls. Guns are machines. They are worthless if they don't perform nomatter how good they look. If some people like me prefer the look of modern, form-follows-function weapons, good for us. If you want a blued, classic-looking 1911, good for you. But neither is superior or inferior based on looks alone.
Because there is an inherent beauty in form following function. I don't need to see myself in a gun's blued finish, or comb my hair by its chrome reflection.
That's why to me the HK Mark 23 is just about the "prettiest" weapon I've ever seen. Why? Because it's so damn mean. It's all business, no bull.
http://www.remtek.com/arms/hk/civ/mark23/mark23.htm
There is a certain pleasure in owning a true "operator's weapon," even if you're not an operator.
With M1911A1's form no longer follows function; it follows tradition. That's O.K. too, as long as that's what you want. But why should everybody want the same thing? Those who deride "drastic plastic" will never own a Mark 23 which could probably shoot the pants off anything in their much shinier collection.
Is the Mark 23 "tactical?" Yes, to the extreme. Does that make it ugly? Not to me. Quite the contrary. I want one.
Not all of us want a shiny, "pretty" gun. I'd rather comb my hair in the mirror.
This constant "whose gun is prettier" debate is for girls. Guns are machines. They are worthless if they don't perform nomatter how good they look. If some people like me prefer the look of modern, form-follows-function weapons, good for us. If you want a blued, classic-looking 1911, good for you. But neither is superior or inferior based on looks alone.
Country Boy
New member
Why can't things be more... Retro
Let's look at four things: plain-jane vs. bells-and-whistles, old collectable vs new shooter, form vs. function, and price.
plain-jane vs. bells-and-whistles
Maybe it is the old-fashioned in me coming out, but I like classics. With aircraft, it is the P51 Mustang. With cars, it is the '66 Ford Mustang or the '57 Chevy Belair. With pickups, it is the '63 Chevy. It can't quite be explained, but there is just something they have in common. They're classics. Now, you can take a classic vehicle, shoehorn in a big-block engine, give it a funky banana-yellow paint job, wire in a CD changer with the highest quality sub-woofers and tweeters, and drop in all sorts of bells and whistles, and maybe that type of vehicle is just what you like. That's fine, but in my opinion, something is "missing". Rather, it has too much. Sometimes, less is more. Now I'm not saying that you can't put on new tires, or tune up the engine, or replace seals or the windshield, but there is a point where you go overboard. My Ford Explorer with it's Eddie Bauer interior can't do anything significantly different than the '63 Chevy pickup I'm always dreaming of owning. Bells and whistles are nice, they do make some things a little easier, but they are not always needed, and sometimes they just add clutter if not done right.
I'll grant that one person's bell-and-whistle is another person's necessity. Do I need a remote start on my vehicle to warm it up in the morning? No. Does an elderly person with arthritic knees need a remote start to warm their vehicle up in the morning? If it saves them a painful trip up and down the driveway, then Yes. Same way with guns. Do I need an amb safety? No. Is it kind of fun to have one? Yes.
As I said above, a modern Ford Explorer can't do anything significantly different than a classic Chevy pickup. They move people and objects from point A to point B. Sure, there are refinements, but a gun still burns powder to launch a projectile. It doesn't matter how many accessories/crap you put on a gun, the basics are still the same.
original vs. re-introduced
In 1964, Winchester decided to modify their bolt action model 70 rifles by going with a push-feed instead of the claw-extractor. Those pre '64 model 70's eventually came to be great collector items. If I had a pre '64 model 70 in my collection, it wouldn't be a shooter, it would be a collector. Fast forward to a couple years ago when Winchester re-introduced the "classic" model 70 with the claw-extractor. Now you have two of the same type of firearm, one origial model and one re-introduced model.
If I was looking for a collector item, I would go with the original. If I was looking for a shooter that had the same features as the original, I certainly wouldn't shoot my collector, I would go with the re-introduced model.
Sometimes it isn't easy finding a "shootable" original handgun. Whether due to a prohibitive price, unavailability, questionable condition, or amateurish modifications, sometimes the original isn't a best choice to turn into a shooter. If you are able to find a quality original that is safe to shoot, then by all means, buy that original and shoot it! But it isn't always feasable.
form vs. function
Let's say I have a .45 semi-automatic pistol. I can reliably shoot a bunch of bullets accurately with it. Does it really matter what it looks like? NO Is there anything wrong with having it look nice? NO. Granted, the badguy that gets shot isn't going to care, but there is nothing wrong with pride of ownership. I like nice looking things. I could be content with a Buck sheath knife with the "plastic" handle, but I prefer bone or wood handled knives. They both have the same function, but one's form is much more pleasant to my eye.
There are people who prefer the deeply blued lines of a handgun. There are others who prefer the "tactical black" lines of a handgun. And maybe out there somewhere is somebody who likes a "Chia-gun" coated in grass seed. As long as the FUNCTION is the same, who give a rat's behind what the form is? But some like the FORM of a deep blued gun, some like the FORM of a "tactical black" gun. One person's preferred form isnt' the same as another person's preferred form. We have different preferences. I can live with that...
price
As far as the price of the "new" Colt 1911A1's go, if people are buying them, and Colt is happy with the number of sales, then Colt is doing just fine. Are they priced too high? Is Colt making a mistake by charging too much? Get a Vice President position there and let them know. Sometimes people make mistakes and regret it later. Same with businesses. Personally, I don't think a re-introduced/re-creation should cost as much as a comparable quality original, but to each his own. Re-creation Shelby Cobras shouldn't cost as much as the original, but business will charge as much as people are willing to pay. You don't like the cost? Then don't buy it.
Anyhow, I probably didn't make any sense, but I feel better. The "new classic" gun has it's place, but it's place isn't with every gunowner in every situation. Bottom line, buy and shoot what you like.
Let's look at four things: plain-jane vs. bells-and-whistles, old collectable vs new shooter, form vs. function, and price.
plain-jane vs. bells-and-whistles
Maybe it is the old-fashioned in me coming out, but I like classics. With aircraft, it is the P51 Mustang. With cars, it is the '66 Ford Mustang or the '57 Chevy Belair. With pickups, it is the '63 Chevy. It can't quite be explained, but there is just something they have in common. They're classics. Now, you can take a classic vehicle, shoehorn in a big-block engine, give it a funky banana-yellow paint job, wire in a CD changer with the highest quality sub-woofers and tweeters, and drop in all sorts of bells and whistles, and maybe that type of vehicle is just what you like. That's fine, but in my opinion, something is "missing". Rather, it has too much. Sometimes, less is more. Now I'm not saying that you can't put on new tires, or tune up the engine, or replace seals or the windshield, but there is a point where you go overboard. My Ford Explorer with it's Eddie Bauer interior can't do anything significantly different than the '63 Chevy pickup I'm always dreaming of owning. Bells and whistles are nice, they do make some things a little easier, but they are not always needed, and sometimes they just add clutter if not done right.
I'll grant that one person's bell-and-whistle is another person's necessity. Do I need a remote start on my vehicle to warm it up in the morning? No. Does an elderly person with arthritic knees need a remote start to warm their vehicle up in the morning? If it saves them a painful trip up and down the driveway, then Yes. Same way with guns. Do I need an amb safety? No. Is it kind of fun to have one? Yes.
As I said above, a modern Ford Explorer can't do anything significantly different than a classic Chevy pickup. They move people and objects from point A to point B. Sure, there are refinements, but a gun still burns powder to launch a projectile. It doesn't matter how many accessories/crap you put on a gun, the basics are still the same.
original vs. re-introduced
In 1964, Winchester decided to modify their bolt action model 70 rifles by going with a push-feed instead of the claw-extractor. Those pre '64 model 70's eventually came to be great collector items. If I had a pre '64 model 70 in my collection, it wouldn't be a shooter, it would be a collector. Fast forward to a couple years ago when Winchester re-introduced the "classic" model 70 with the claw-extractor. Now you have two of the same type of firearm, one origial model and one re-introduced model.
If I was looking for a collector item, I would go with the original. If I was looking for a shooter that had the same features as the original, I certainly wouldn't shoot my collector, I would go with the re-introduced model.
Sometimes it isn't easy finding a "shootable" original handgun. Whether due to a prohibitive price, unavailability, questionable condition, or amateurish modifications, sometimes the original isn't a best choice to turn into a shooter. If you are able to find a quality original that is safe to shoot, then by all means, buy that original and shoot it! But it isn't always feasable.
form vs. function
Let's say I have a .45 semi-automatic pistol. I can reliably shoot a bunch of bullets accurately with it. Does it really matter what it looks like? NO Is there anything wrong with having it look nice? NO. Granted, the badguy that gets shot isn't going to care, but there is nothing wrong with pride of ownership. I like nice looking things. I could be content with a Buck sheath knife with the "plastic" handle, but I prefer bone or wood handled knives. They both have the same function, but one's form is much more pleasant to my eye.
There are people who prefer the deeply blued lines of a handgun. There are others who prefer the "tactical black" lines of a handgun. And maybe out there somewhere is somebody who likes a "Chia-gun" coated in grass seed. As long as the FUNCTION is the same, who give a rat's behind what the form is? But some like the FORM of a deep blued gun, some like the FORM of a "tactical black" gun. One person's preferred form isnt' the same as another person's preferred form. We have different preferences. I can live with that...
price
As far as the price of the "new" Colt 1911A1's go, if people are buying them, and Colt is happy with the number of sales, then Colt is doing just fine. Are they priced too high? Is Colt making a mistake by charging too much? Get a Vice President position there and let them know. Sometimes people make mistakes and regret it later. Same with businesses. Personally, I don't think a re-introduced/re-creation should cost as much as a comparable quality original, but to each his own. Re-creation Shelby Cobras shouldn't cost as much as the original, but business will charge as much as people are willing to pay. You don't like the cost? Then don't buy it.
Anyhow, I probably didn't make any sense, but I feel better. The "new classic" gun has it's place, but it's place isn't with every gunowner in every situation. Bottom line, buy and shoot what you like.
Last edited:
Abominable No-Man
New member
I agree with fix.
Maybe we should try to figure out what is "tactical" (i.e. military) and what is not, as it relates to gun features:
A ramp-and-throat job isn't tactical- it's good sense; by using the
word "tactical", it seems to imply that a ramp-and throat job is
being used on every issue weapon, when in fact, issue weapons
are restricted to ball ammo.
A flared or lowered ejection port isn't tactical either, in that respect, for the simple fact that the military doesn't care what shape the brass is in.
Front cocking serrations aren't tactical, because no soldier in his
right mind would put his hand near the muzzle of a weapon to
see if it's loaded; I know people "press-check" 1911 pistols, but
it hasn't been taught anywhere I've been.
Beavertail grip safeties aren't tactical, either, because if you
actually have to go into combat with only a pistol, you're screwed
anyway, and as far as drawing blood (which I know happens; it's not a USELESS feature, just not "tactical" in the classic sense),
you'd be wearing gloves to protect your hands anyway, for all
soldiers know that their two most important body parts are their
feet (with which to attack and retreat) and their hands (with which to fight).
High-profile sights can go either way. Who wouldn't like to ber able to see their sights more clearly? On the same note, though,
have you ever seen the original sights on a Army-issue .45?
Parkerizing is tactical- it protects the gun in harsh environments.
'Nuff said.
Lasers and flashlights and all the other doodads that people like
to hand on their guns aren't IMHO tactical either, although they are used by some elite units, because A) they are just more crap
to carry and get in the way when you ARE "tactical" and B) how
long would a laser or flashlight -or their batteries- last in a "tactical" situation.
Lots of checkering could go either way again- everyone like to
have a good secure handhold on their pistol, but how much was
actually on the issue .45's or even on the Berettas now? Besides,
like I said before, if you have to go into combat with a pistol, even
a custom wondergun, you're in serious trouble.
Trigger jobs- again, not really tactical, in the sense that you could
break open your issue weapon and fiddle with the insides, but
honestly, do you know how it would benefit you in combat? Or would you end up breaking something?
My favorite "tactical" gun would be a box-stock (on the outside)
pistol that has been tuned on the inside. That way, when the
movie bad guy terrorist shows up with his "tactical" hi-cap H&K
.45, complete with silencer, laser, flashlight, aimpoint scope,
bayonet lug, and fitted stock (and after he spends ten minutes
putting the thing together while trying to remember what all the
buttons and levers are for), I'd have plenty of time to find some
cover and get my shotgun
Sarcasm mode off.
ANM
Maybe we should try to figure out what is "tactical" (i.e. military) and what is not, as it relates to gun features:
A ramp-and-throat job isn't tactical- it's good sense; by using the
word "tactical", it seems to imply that a ramp-and throat job is
being used on every issue weapon, when in fact, issue weapons
are restricted to ball ammo.
A flared or lowered ejection port isn't tactical either, in that respect, for the simple fact that the military doesn't care what shape the brass is in.
Front cocking serrations aren't tactical, because no soldier in his
right mind would put his hand near the muzzle of a weapon to
see if it's loaded; I know people "press-check" 1911 pistols, but
it hasn't been taught anywhere I've been.
Beavertail grip safeties aren't tactical, either, because if you
actually have to go into combat with only a pistol, you're screwed
anyway, and as far as drawing blood (which I know happens; it's not a USELESS feature, just not "tactical" in the classic sense),
you'd be wearing gloves to protect your hands anyway, for all
soldiers know that their two most important body parts are their
feet (with which to attack and retreat) and their hands (with which to fight).
High-profile sights can go either way. Who wouldn't like to ber able to see their sights more clearly? On the same note, though,
have you ever seen the original sights on a Army-issue .45?
Parkerizing is tactical- it protects the gun in harsh environments.
'Nuff said.
Lasers and flashlights and all the other doodads that people like
to hand on their guns aren't IMHO tactical either, although they are used by some elite units, because A) they are just more crap
to carry and get in the way when you ARE "tactical" and B) how
long would a laser or flashlight -or their batteries- last in a "tactical" situation.
Lots of checkering could go either way again- everyone like to
have a good secure handhold on their pistol, but how much was
actually on the issue .45's or even on the Berettas now? Besides,
like I said before, if you have to go into combat with a pistol, even
a custom wondergun, you're in serious trouble.
Trigger jobs- again, not really tactical, in the sense that you could
break open your issue weapon and fiddle with the insides, but
honestly, do you know how it would benefit you in combat? Or would you end up breaking something?
My favorite "tactical" gun would be a box-stock (on the outside)
pistol that has been tuned on the inside. That way, when the
movie bad guy terrorist shows up with his "tactical" hi-cap H&K
.45, complete with silencer, laser, flashlight, aimpoint scope,
bayonet lug, and fitted stock (and after he spends ten minutes
putting the thing together while trying to remember what all the
buttons and levers are for), I'd have plenty of time to find some
cover and get my shotgun
Sarcasm mode off.
ANM
MasterBlaster - on a 1911, what needs to be changed for functionallity?
I don't disagree that there are good plastic guns. I think that it is possible to make a working gun that looks good. That is how I pick most of mine.
And the issue is not that plastic guns exist, it is just that things are being made ugly just to call them "Tactical".
Yes, tactical is an overly used marketing term.
I don't disagree that there are good plastic guns. I think that it is possible to make a working gun that looks good. That is how I pick most of mine.
And the issue is not that plastic guns exist, it is just that things are being made ugly just to call them "Tactical".
Yes, tactical is an overly used marketing term.
MasterBlaster
New member
Nothing; IF you get a reliable one. And if you don't want "tactical" add-on's to your 1911, that's fine. Chances are you won't need them. But other people don't want to take that chance, and that's fine for them too.
But for some reason there seems to be a huge bias among many 1911 owners against other models, especially foreign-made Wunderpistoles. I don't understand why. I think there's a lot to be said for parts that don't need to be hand-fitted to make them work right. And if they happen to come in an "ugly," foreign-made package, that's fine with me. I'm not saying ALL moderately priced 1911's are unreliable, but there seems to be too many that are.
It's just that not everyone, myself included, believes that 1911's are a perfect, timeless design and the pinnacle of aesthetics. I don't believe such a thing exists. Others are free to disagree.
Country Boy
New member
gyp
Could you repost you photo? I couldn't see the image.
Could you repost you photo? I couldn't see the image.
If I understand what you are saying, I agree. There are obviously several different camps in the shooting world. There are people who view firearms as something strictly for self defense/military/police (tactical). There are also those who see guns as a source of recreation, personal satisfaction etc. (sporting purposes). Then there are those who own a little of both. These different schools of thought are often reflected in the posts made on this board. I often find myself starting to read a thread and quickly realize that everyone else is on a totally different train of thought. For example someone will ask about a certain gun and most of the posts reply something like, I wouldn't carry that-you ought to buy a Glock. I find myself having a difficult time understanding the idea that people don't just own guns for the pure pleasure of owning them and shooting them with no specific designated purpose. I guess I belong to the later camp. I own guns that would be my SHTF guns and I also own guns that I view as strictly sporting. I personally have almost no interest in "tactical" stuff. I own a "carry" pistol and as far as I am concerned, that issue is closed. I own a "tactical" shotgun, and for me, that issue is closed. I have only minor interest in discussing those aspects of firearms ownership. What pulls my chain is all the rest of the field of shooting. Hunting, competition shooting, firearms history, plinking etc. When someone shows me an AR-15, my first thoughts are, what a great coyote rifle that is. When someone shows me how fast they can empty a 30 round mag, I think, I wonder how much barrel life he just wasted ? When someone shows me a "sniper rifle" several thoughts run through my mind; man is that thing heavy, I wonder how accurate that is and can this guy actually shoot other than off a bench with sandbags, that rifle is just like my deer rifle only they charge an extra $300 because they call it a sniper rifle....................
The important thing is that we all can pursue our own interests in firearms. With everyones' support, we can continue to enjoy this freedom.
The important thing is that we all can pursue our own interests in firearms. With everyones' support, we can continue to enjoy this freedom.
Ah, come on. Pistols are like cars. Some guys like installing loud radios in them, low-riding shocks/springs, wide rear tires, nitrous oxide injectors, special fuel injectors, air-scoups, two mufflers, paint fire down the side and two fuzzy-dice from the rear-view mirror.
Me, I drive a Jeep Cherokee basic in the woods (I'm a Forester) that gets scratched up. It is 2 wheel drive with factory cassette, cloth seats, straight-6 engine, four doors and the rims that it came with. The vast majority of police officers and combat soldiers carry what comes out of the box. They don't "trick" it out. To them, it is a tool and nothing more. The fellow who puts the laser, the flashlight, the ambi-safety, the front serrations, etc. is a pistol enthusiast. I won't blame him for it. But don't tell me you do all those things because it's a tool. It's the Tim Taylor more horsepower for the lawnmower.
The REAL tactical pistol is what comes out of the box in its basic, issue state. Mirror finishes are for lovers of art, lasers and the like are for lovers of gadgets.
Me, I drive a Jeep Cherokee basic in the woods (I'm a Forester) that gets scratched up. It is 2 wheel drive with factory cassette, cloth seats, straight-6 engine, four doors and the rims that it came with. The vast majority of police officers and combat soldiers carry what comes out of the box. They don't "trick" it out. To them, it is a tool and nothing more. The fellow who puts the laser, the flashlight, the ambi-safety, the front serrations, etc. is a pistol enthusiast. I won't blame him for it. But don't tell me you do all those things because it's a tool. It's the Tim Taylor more horsepower for the lawnmower.
The REAL tactical pistol is what comes out of the box in its basic, issue state. Mirror finishes are for lovers of art, lasers and the like are for lovers of gadgets.
Blue Duck357
New member
Only two kinds of people in the world, those who like shiny things and those who don't.
Ok, you're not defining "Tactical" the way I do.
"Sporting", means it is designed to shoot at [fill in your favorite game animal] or paper.
"Tactical", means it is designed to shoot at people.
A "Tactical" firearm can be GREAT at shooting at paper or the animal of your choice, but it's kinda funny to be shooting geese with an 18" barrel and a surefire forend.
Now, some are saying that the police and military ONLY use "stock" firearms. I say, "Horse-hockey!"
You're going to tell me that your local SWAT team is carrying stock 870s for "entry guns?" No way- they're carrying "tactical" 870s, the ones with the shorter barrels, the full-length mag tube, ghost ring sites, etc...
Their sidearms are not Target 22s, but HK MP5s, which ARE Tactical right out of the box. SWAT sharpshooters aren't using Biathalon rifles, instead they are shooting rifles that were "designed" to shoot people (who might be shooting back!), not paper.
As for the military, if an ACOG isn't "Tactical", I don't know what is!
"Sporting", means it is designed to shoot at [fill in your favorite game animal] or paper.
"Tactical", means it is designed to shoot at people.
A "Tactical" firearm can be GREAT at shooting at paper or the animal of your choice, but it's kinda funny to be shooting geese with an 18" barrel and a surefire forend.
Now, some are saying that the police and military ONLY use "stock" firearms. I say, "Horse-hockey!"
You're going to tell me that your local SWAT team is carrying stock 870s for "entry guns?" No way- they're carrying "tactical" 870s, the ones with the shorter barrels, the full-length mag tube, ghost ring sites, etc...
Their sidearms are not Target 22s, but HK MP5s, which ARE Tactical right out of the box. SWAT sharpshooters aren't using Biathalon rifles, instead they are shooting rifles that were "designed" to shoot people (who might be shooting back!), not paper.
As for the military, if an ACOG isn't "Tactical", I don't know what is!
I was waiting for the SWAT comparison. I kinda liked the SWAT portrayal in Die Hard. SWAT wears kneepads, runs about in goggled helmets, gloves, black outfits, elbowpads, face-masks, gear-vests, etc, more than what a Storm-Trooper wore in Star Wars. But look at the Army, Navy, Marines, FBI, State Highway Patrols, National Guard, Local police and sherriff offices, boarder patrol, etc. They don't get all superswat. The vast majority of professional firearms users use them right out of the box, they sure as hell don't stick lasers or flashlights on them. They use a specific model that passed their specifications. If the pistol (or revolver) submitted for their tests did not pass, they did not decided to super-sport it. Indeed, they expect the standard, out-of-the-box pistol to perform as well as the test models, with an established reliability, trigger-pull, weight, magazine quantity, etc.
Now, if we want a SWAT pistol, then by all means go all out. Sometimes, I wanna play Robert Urich myself
Now, if we want a SWAT pistol, then by all means go all out. Sometimes, I wanna play Robert Urich myself
Ummm, operators in the military branches you mentioned use all those items on a regular basis with the exception of black outfits and face masks. The face masks are pulled out for riot control...and I'm sure there are some high speed units that wear black occasionally. The Aimpoint sights are pretty widespread, and NVGs combined with laser sighting devices tend to help reduce the need for weapons lights. Now, what was your point?