"Tactical..."

[sirgiles]

when you are in the business of selling, it is simply a marketing tool.

[anymoose]

Imagine how much better of a shot you'd be if that $480 Eotech scope were converted to 5.56mm ammo.

Unless your day job is putting lead into enemies of the United States in places Rand McNally doesn't have maps for, all that tactical crap is just show. Nothing wrong with having a kitted up AR15, but understand none of that stuff in and of itself is going to make you a better with that weapon.

A "tactical" threat is a guy with 1000 rounds of practice and iron sights. He won't need batteries or dark earth furniture to get quality hits.

simply untrue.

a prime example range scores of Marines with and without ACOGs, the new Marines that are getting to qual with ACOGs are getting way more expert quals than when irons were used.

if optics, foregrips, slings, laser range finders, lights... werent making people using the weapon day in and day out better with the weapon, they wouldnt use those accessories.


do the accessories help people be more proficient at marksmanship? no. but, they do make people better with their weapon. they can shoot more accurately and at further distances, they can make follow up shots faster, clear building safer and more effectively, and maneuver their rifles more precisely...


dont get me wrong, i do think everyone should become very proficient with irons before getting any accessories, but its just silly to say that, "none of that stuff in and of itself is going to make you a better with that weapon." its just not true, and there is proof that its not true.

[cal3gunner]

...

[CK_32]

Apparently, as long as the Otterbox is black, we're good to go.

Yup were good

[SilverTauron]

simply untrue.

a prime example range scores of Marines with and without ACOGs, the new Marines that are getting to qual with ACOGs are getting way more expert quals than when irons were used.

if optics, foregrips, slings, laser range finders, lights... werent making people using the weapon day in and day out better with the weapon, they wouldnt use those accessories.


do the accessories help people be more proficient at marksmanship? no. but, they do make people better with their weapon. they can shoot more accurately and at further distances, they can make follow up shots faster, clear building safer and more effectively, and maneuver their rifles more precisely...


dont get me wrong, i do think everyone should become very proficient with irons before getting any accessories, but its just silly to say that, "none of that stuff in and of itself is going to make you a better with that weapon." its just not true, and there is proof that its not true.

Those guys' and gals' primary job is to make "the other bastard" die for his country. It makes sense thus that their AR pattern rifles would need to be equipped with the red dots/scopes/ etc. File their use under "killing enemies of the United States". I know id want our assault troops to have every advantage over an enemy who's going to have the same type of hardware on their weapons too.

By comparison, the average civilian AR15 is going to spend its days on a static range or in a gun safe. No one's going to be using their S&W or Bushmaster semi-auto to invade a beachhead or kill a terrorist on a special ops mission,"tactical" marketing notwithstanding. The equipment should fit the mission, and a bone stock GI AR15 is quite capable of accomplishing the mission of home defense & range plinking without aftermarket additions.

Note that Im not saying people shouldn't modify their guns;my point is that they should be honest about their motivations when doing so.If you want a tactical AR for looks and cool factor more power to ya and have fun, but don't pitch that tired load of manure about needing an ACOG scope and tactical furniture to defend your home.

[JaMail]

hope your not saying i have to give up my tactical spork.. its the only think that works when my enchiladas start getting attitude. due to the flat black paint, they never see it coming.

i can also use it to gouge out a zombies eyes if im backed into a corner and who doesnt need a screw driver on their spork.. i ask you that?

[64physhy]

simply untrue.

a prime example range scores of Marines with and without ACOGs, the new Marines that are getting to qual with ACOGs are getting way more expert quals than when irons were used.

if optics, foregrips, slings, laser range finders, lights... werent making people using the weapon day in and day out better with the weapon, they wouldnt use those accessories.


do the accessories help people be more proficient at marksmanship? no. but, they do make people better with their weapon. they can shoot more accurately and at further distances, they can make follow up shots faster, clear building safer and more effectively, and maneuver their rifles more precisely...


dont get me wrong, i do think everyone should become very proficient with irons before getting any accessories, but its just silly to say that, "none of that stuff in and of itself is going to make you a better with that weapon." its just not true, and there is proof that its not true.

My score changed very little going from iron sights to the acog. Those who have a hard time focusing on a clear front sight tip instead of the target will see more improvement with the acog. It's also good for longer distances and eliminates the need for elevation changes at different distances. IMO, the ACOG only marginally helps those who are already good shooters, but is more of an advantage to those who need a little extra help.

That said, I would rather have the ACOG in combat for faster target acquisition and the ability to be accurate at varying ranges without elevation adjustments, but when target practicing, I prefer iron sights for some reason. I guess because when I was a kid, my dad didn't let me use a scope, and I was no longer required to qual with the rifle by the time the ACOG became the standard for qualifying.

[m98]

Means EVIL, Only for Special forces swat cops

[DrMoebius]

hope your not saying i have to give up my tactical spork.. its the only think that works when my enchiladas start getting attitude. due to the flat black paint, they never see it coming...i can also use it to gouge out a zombies eyes if im backed into a corner and who doesnt need a screw driver on their spork.. i ask you that?

Pure comedy! You had me laughing my *** off!

[cal3gunner]

hope your not saying i have to give up my tactical spork.. its the only think that works when my enchiladas start getting attitude. due to the flat black paint, they never see it coming.

i can also use it to gouge out a zombies eyes if im backed into a corner and who doesnt need a screw driver on their spork.. i ask you that?

I got that spork at SHOT show. I put it in my backpack and havn't used it since. One day it will come in handy and I'll use it. Its very light weight so I don't mind keeping it in there.

[Merc1138]

Imagine how much better of a shot you'd be if that $480 Eotech scope were converted to 5.56mm ammo.

Unless your day job is putting lead into enemies of the United States in places Rand McNally doesn't have maps for, all that tactical crap is just show. Nothing wrong with having a kitted up AR15, but understand none of that stuff in and of itself is going to make you a better with that weapon.

A "tactical" threat is a guy with 1000 rounds of practice and iron sights. He won't need batteries or dark earth furniture to get quality hits.

1. As already stated, some people can afford the ammo and the gear.
2. Why do you care if I bought a piece of gear that could be taken into combat, but will likely never get used anywhere but the range?
3. Not every change made to the basic platform is to make me better with the weapon, a lot of changes are to make the weapon better for me. Yes, there is a difference.

4. Sounds like someone(you) is jealous that other people don't have to choose between an optic or a couple cans of ammo.

[SilverTauron]

1. As already stated, some people can afford the ammo and the gear.

Gear does not equal competence. The point is that everyone no matter their job or income will improve their marksmanship shooting $480 of 5.56 ammo than they will bolting on a commercial accessory to the weapon.

2. Why do you care if I bought a piece of gear that could be taken into combat, but will likely never get used anywhere but the range?

I do not care about your choice of gear.That is your prerogative.

3. Not every change made to the basic platform is to make me better with the weapon, a lot of changes are to make the weapon better for me. Yes, there is a difference.

Your statement is illogical considering the subject of this thread.The weakest link in any shooter-firearm combination is the mope behind the trigger. WE are the reason our firearms miss a target, not the weapon itself.

If the weapon ergonomically agrees with you, then the next logical step is to take as much error out of shooting as possible. In other words, we must adress the weakest link-and that isn't done by buying "tactical" gear or blaming the gun.

Professional special operations teams get good at shooting by correcting the "mope" problem.

SEALS arent born marksmen any more than we are. At one point in the past those guys were shooting low left too. Quoting Inside Delta Force, the author wrote that the US Army's Delta team spent 8 hours a day for three months straight under guidance of pro instructors shooting. They'd shoot, clean, load, shoot, break a gun, get another one, shoot some more, clean a blister, and do it again the next day. Note that a 250 box of pistol ammo generally runs about an hour of shooting-and those operators went through EIGHT TIMES THAT in ONE day.

With that kind of practice the weakest link with shooting is addressed. You could hand those guys a WalMart sale Bushmaster AR15 with iron sights and they'd still kick ballistic tail with it. Gear does NOT make a shooter, any more than looking at the stars through the kitchen window makes you an astronomer.

4. Sounds like someone(you) is jealous that other people don't have to choose between an optic or a couple cans of ammo.

I in fact pity you. Trusting in gear is a common and understandable mistake shooters make nowadays, and depending on the situation it could be also the last mistake you'll ever make.

[Merc1138]

I never said anything about gear equating to competence. Nor did I ever say that buying gear replaces time spent sending rounds down range. You really do have a problem with others being able to afford gear and ammo. I didn't say that gear made the shooter either.

If you really have to decide between spending $500 on the cool holosight, and being able to actually go to the range, I completely agree that your money would be better spent on ammo so you can spend time at the range. However, that doesn't apply to everyone.

If someone could afford to shoot 1,000 rounds a day, every day, why do you think that person needs to take the $500 they would have spent on some other gear and apply that to ammo? Now that person might want to consider some sort of reloading setup, but that's not what you were complaining about.

Heck, I'll give you a personal example of money spent on gear and not ammo. I just sent off a 1911 to a gun smith to fit a new trigger. Is the new trigger going to make me a better shooter? Nope. I got a new trigger because the face of the stock trigger bothered my finger. Would I be better off saving that money and spending it on ammo? Nope, already have ammo. That money is completely separate from an ammo budget. Is it frivolous spending for something that wasn't an absolute necessity? **** yes it was, but that's none of your concern and your "opinion"(more like jealous complaints) don't mean squat.

Are you going to complain about highpower shooters wearing fancy jackets and gloves next? Going to go tell them that they're better off spending their money on ammo? Go take your misplaced pity elsewhere.

[Squidward]

Total tactical with price breakdown.

http://youtu.be/FrAIFP2pfew

[anymoose]

I never said anything about gear equating to competence. Nor did I ever say that buying gear replaces time spent sending rounds down range. You really do have a problem with others being able to afford gear and ammo. I didn't say that gear made the shooter either.

If you really have to decide between spending $500 on the cool holosight, and being able to actually go to the range, I completely agree that your money would be better spent on ammo so you can spend time at the range. However, that doesn't apply to everyone.

If someone could afford to shoot 1,000 rounds a day, every day, why do you think that person needs to take the $500 they would have spent on some other gear and apply that to ammo? Now that person might want to consider some sort of reloading setup, but that's not what you were complaining about.

Heck, I'll give you a personal example of money spent on gear and not ammo. I just sent off a 1911 to a gun smith to fit a new trigger. Is the new trigger going to make me a better shooter? Nope. I got a new trigger because the face of the stock trigger bothered my finger. Would I be better off saving that money and spending it on ammo? Nope, already have ammo. That money is completely separate from an ammo budget. Is it frivolous spending for something that wasn't an absolute necessity? **** yes it was, but that's none of your concern and your "opinion"(more like jealous complaints) don't mean squat.

Are you going to complain about highpower shooters wearing fancy jackets and gloves next? Going to go tell them that they're better off spending their money on ammo? Go take your misplaced pity elsewhere.

Not to mention the fact that some gear really does make a shooter better in some regards.

Take a guy to the range that has never shot a gun before, give him basic instruction and have him shoot 10 rounds at 100 yards, slap a zeroed scope on and hive him another 10 rounds. I can almost guarantee that he will be more accurate with a scope.

That doesnt mean hes a better shooter, it means his gear made a difference and let him shoot more accurately.

Again, i agree that new shooters should use irons and ammo to get accurate and proficient, but the fact remains that optics and gear DO allow people to use their weapon better.