I was in a gun store a while back, trying and failing to find anything exciting, when a friend suggested I look at the new Remington 700 SPS Tactical AAC-SD. I thought it was a pretty good deal for a factory threaded .308, until I saw the engraving on the barrel. It said “Tactical Rifling.”
I handed the rifle back to my friend and moved on. Then I started thinking about what actually makes a “tactical rifle.” Is it tactical if you engrave “tactical rifling” on the barrel? I don’t think so. What about a threaded muzzle? Well, the non-AAC-SD “700 SPS Tactical” doesn’t have that. So I guess the ability to mount a can out of the box isn’t required to be tactical, at least according to Remington.
But what about the features of, say, the Mark V Ultra Lightweight I was recently loaned for T&E by Weatherby?
It has a blackened (fluted, hammer forged) barrel “to reduce game-spooking glare,” the stock is a synthetic tan with black web, it has a really nice adjustable trigger, and it’s in .308 Win – albeit with a slightly less tactical 1 in 12″ twist rate. It weighs under 6lbs, or 7.5 with a scope and mounts, which would make it really easy to carry in the field all day.
In other words, it’s a good hunting rifle. And nowhere is it described as “tactical” by Weatherby. But its features – and performance – would not look out of place if it was sitting next to purpose-built tactical rifles. It doesn’t have a detachable magazine, but then again, neither do the “tactical” Remingtons.
If you want a rifle for “tactical purposes,” don’t just look at the ones that have tactical in the name, on the barrel, or in the marketing material. Many times, these are nearly identical to the non-tactical products from the same company, with minor finish, coloring, or laser engraving differences.
Their real-world performance might be identical, buzzwords be damned. Plus, it’s rare for a tactical product to come at a lower price than the same company’s non-tactical products, for tactical is apparently a premium these days.
In the end, a product is “tactical” if the user is skilled enough to employ it in a manner which helps them achieve a specific goal in an expedient manner. All the tactical rifles and gear in the world will not help you if you are clueless and incompetent.
I wrote this a while back as a post on my forum:
Currently, the word “tactical” is being added on to any product that involves a firearm or shooting. This is a limp, flaccid attempt at shoving often horrible and dangerously useless products onto firearm consumers. Thankfully for the manufacturers, most firearm consumers are too ignorant to ascertain this marketing ploy, and actually are gratuitous and appreciate the use of the word “tactical” in the name of the gear or “kit” (a word often used by real military, often cloned to use by non-military users). This makes them feel better about their purchase and shooting ability (or lack of).
Obviously, it wasn’t that well-received. It might be seen as over-reacting by some.
I also like to make fun of the usage of the word “run” or “running”, for no reason. Wherever someone that is tacti-cooler than me might use the word run, I would like to insert “USE/MOUNT” in big, black, tactical font.
Oops, did I say, “tactical”?
Ahhh, limp and flaccid, great verbiage.
“most firearm consumers are too ignorant to ascertain this marketing ploy”
most consumers period are ignorant, heck, they voted for Obama.
Why do you have to bring politics into this?
L-A-M-E
Without just jumping on the “anti-tactical” low hanging fruit, in this case “tactical rifling”, I would say that a tactical rifle is would be one that maximizes efficiency for a given task and environment acting as a “force multiplier”.
I think Andrew is on to something with the skill part of it. A force multiplier by definition requires a base value, in this case, a shooters skill and experience.
****so do they mean “tactical rifling” is a faster twist to stabilize heavier projectiles? What .308 needs a 1/10? M118 175gr LR runs fine out of a 1/12……..
Theoretically, tactical ought to refer to combat, as tactical in this case are referring to the tactics of battle. A tactical weapon aids or at least takes part in tactical applications. It’s true that the word tactical has become a noumenon in the industry, so I always remember that the phrase “combat-oriented” could be swapped with tactical in any instance. That’s how I differentiate. A rifle designed for hunting is not tactical in this sense–even though there is certainly strategy involved in hunting, it is not a tool design for combat. It’s good that most of the folks involved in the community seem to understand when and where to use the word tactical, but I believe there is certainly a time and place for the word. It’s biggest shortcoming, in my opinion, is how vague it is. When I refer to a rifle as tactical, it is effectively a combat-oriented firearm, but that can include almost anything. To me, it’s more of a category than a descriptor.
…as tactical in this case *is* referring…
The word is applause lights for shallow gun idiots.
It does not actually mean anything in a marketing context.
More correctly, “an applause light”.
Referenced phenomenon here:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/jb/applause_lights/
One difference is that your Weatherby has a skinny barrel. Most “tactical” barrels have a heavier contour. It sounds douchey, but with respect to bolt guns, the phrase “tactical” denotes or implies a certain feature set, one you’d expect out of a sniper rifle as distinguished from a hunting rifle, like a heavy barrel, matte finish, “tactical” style stock, scope with exposed turrets, etc.
In the bolt gun world, “varmint” means basically the same thing, and some of the best setups I’ve seen for precise shooting without trying to limit the weight are marketed as varmint guns, not “tactical,” even if they are chambered in .308 Win or sometimes even .300 Win Mag…. both of which are a tad large for prairie dogs.
Does this mean that we can expect a full Vuurwapenblog writeup on the T&E Weatherby? Maybe some slow-mo video of Captain Vuurwapen doing a Run-n-gun course with the Weatherby. Lets see those Rifleman Skills!
The tactical rifling refers to the different twist rate that allows for the stabilization of heavier loads with the use of a suppressor as well as subsonic rounds that require quicker twist rates. In a sense the rifle is tactical because its purpose built for a niche role in silent long range offensive action as opposed to a standard rifle pressed into such a role. But then again I cant confirm the advantages of such twist rate variations.
I don’t think your understanding of external ballistics is as complete as you think it is.
Inconceivable!
A ‘sniper rifle’ isn’t a sniper rifle if it isn’t used by a sniper. I’d imagine then the ‘Tactical Rifling’ could only be used by individuals during a situation requiring tactics of some sort. Much like only ‘professionals’ can own and purchase ‘Professional Grade’ tape measures and safety glasses.
And this isn’t only an issue with rifles. I was shopping for a cut off saw for my teams breaching unit…I found a commercial Husquvarna for 1.3K. A “tactical breaching saw”?…4k. The only difference I found was a coat of black paint.
I always assumed the liberal usage of the word “tactical” was just part of a larger marketing strategery.
Pretty much avoiding products so mislabeled these days where possible.
Best post I ever saw on this topic was — oddly enough — on a car forum where people endlessly debated the effectiveness of different mods, chips, air intakes, etc etc. Post in question was short: “Best mod is a well trained driver.”
I’m going to start writing “STRATEGIC” on all my gun-related stuff, since as anyone who’s heard of the USAF knows, strategic > tactical.
On a more serious note, and surely preaching to the choir, in the context of merchandise offered for civilian purchase, I don’t think tactical means anything any more. Further, I think it shows the complete absence of context for such marketing, since the best tool for a given small-scale military situation is not automatically the short, expensive one in all black, but might instead be something quite different. If you have a particular application for it. But your application is somewhere past the orbit of Pluto, it’s hard to know what tool will be best, so you’d better just buy whatever says “TACTICAL” in the biggest, darkest letters.
STRATEGICAL!
Wait… you mean the difference between a regular rifle and a tactical rifle is more than a can of Krylon in flat black?
Dann in Ohio
The points about political correctness may be simply unfounded. Happy rifling makes for a happy firearm! Please do not allow such comments on PC to limit your choice of words, freedom of speech, or pray, cause you to become niggardly with your prose.
Couldn’t have said it better myself. Hundreds of products, firearm and otherwise have been adapted for use by operators on the field, and have thus earned the moniker “tactical” whilst still maintaining their original “non-tactical” function. We tend to get wrapped around the axle of the “tactical” name without really understanding that the mindset of the user and application of the product are really the determining factors of what makes a thing “tactical.” bear in mind that even infantry battle rifles (until a certain point in very recent history) were really purpose built hunting rifles adapted for tactical use. Beware the company that rebrands a product as “tactical” in order to appeal to the pretelictions of our industry. These are the same companies that laser etch the word “competition” or “collectors” on a receiver just to upcharge a couple of dollars from the unwary.
I blame society. Our country has reached a low in terms of people having the intestinal fortitude to do anything. Everyone wants to be military “lite” because soldiers, Marines, etc are the cool thing to be now. Unfortunately for them, they grew up mollycoddled and won’t actually do it. Companies market all these things to people who are complete poseurs and who want to pretend they are something they are not, and they eat it all up.
This theory can be further reinforced by the huge influx of people on various web sites, often having to do with a certain black rifle, discussing all these possible “SHTF” scenarios, dumping hundreds of dollars to go to “carbine courses” and showing up dressed the part as well. They want the fantasy but not the actual danger.
Mike
“poseurs and who want to pretend they are something they are not…They want the fantasy but not the actual danger”
I don’t want to pretend to be anything, nor do I dream of some fantasy where I’ll be running through the streets defending the weak/avenging wrongs with my AR or even my SPS “tactical”. I enjoy shooting and I enjoy learning. If spending my money to learn to be more efficient with my firearms, but never having served, makes me a poseur so be it. You are right on one thing though, I DO NOT want actual danger. Unfortunately that is not the world we live in(’65 Watts riots/’67 Newark riots/’68 MLK assassination riots/Rodney King riots/’99 Seattle WTO riots/ Katrina aftermath and on and on).
I wrote a similar article regarding “tactical knives” and the sillyness in labelling and marketing around nowadays on the Edge Observer. While a bit rough (I’m just starting out with this writing lark) I do believe we come to the same conclusion: WTF, over?
The article:
http://www.edgeobserver.com/what-is-a-tactical-knife/
Also, at least in my language (Swedish), “Tactics” is something that you do at the company- to brigade-level and in no way, shape or form related to your socks, knife, belt, boots or frickin’ rifle.
Well, I must say, as someone with a vested interest in the “tactical course” culture, as both an instructor and as a vet (my credentials are available on http://www.1moasolutions.com for those who want to sharpshoot me) there is something to be said for those who are willing to take “tactical” or “defensive” classes. The guy who buys a tactical rifle, pistol, plate carrier, holster, optics, and all other craziness but only shoots at paper, every other month, from a bench without any attempt to induce stress or actually train is at a distinct disadvantage compared to any person, regardless of background who takes the time to seek out training from people / organizations with a pedigree.
My TRP has “Tactical” on the Frame and “OPERATOR” emblazoned on the slide. But it shoots really friggen well. Who cares what is written on the weapon.
Andrew, I think you mentioned this item in a wish list you made awhile back. A lightweight 5.56 bolt action rifle with a faster twist rate of 1:7 or 1:8 for heavier weight bullets. I’ve looked for one of these for years and have not yet found one. I could live with them stamping it tactical on the barrel, although I agree the tactical thing is being overused. Bub
The Tikka T3 is available with a 1/8 twist in .223 and is under 7lbs. Also only around $600 and they get great reviews. The standard version is not marked “tactical” either.
Zach, thanks for the heads up. I’ll check it out. Bub
It would be nice if it used a ghillie black hogue stock intead of the green one…we all know black is the only color of tacticality. Maybe they could use some tactical magic on it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK2WKSg8KQg
I thought tactical was just tacticool spelled wrong.
Difference between tactical and non-tactical – My 13 year old daughter takes 10/22 to range.
Tactical: Wears Noveske T-shirt plus steel lips 25 round mag.
Non-Tactical: Wears Taylor Swift T-shirt plus factory 10 round mag.
My 700 SPS AAC does not have that on the barrel. Could it be part of an after market mod?
This is one of my current pet rants. As the word is commonly used today, one might expect that the root word evolved from some ancient language where (for example) TAC meant “colored in various shades of green, brown, and black” while TICUS meant “priced 30% above market value”.
After discovering this blog, I was actually inclined to suggest an entry on the topic of “‘Tactical’ doesn’t mean it will make you a badass”, and perhaps a follow-up to “I’m Not a Sheepdog” entitled “I’m not an operator, and neither (I suspect) are you”.
What really sticks in my craw is that some things bearing the “Tactical” name really are properly described, and have specs and feature sets that would be more useful in a combat environment than (say) a prairie dog hunt. Others are just painted flat black and sold at a premium. The buyer really needs to do some research and discern which is which, and whether a can of flat black Krylon is worth it.
The Tikka T3 is a good example of “Tactical as accurate description” and “Tactical as price premium”. The difference between the Scout and Tactical versions is an adjustable comb and a threaded muzzle (for suppressors, etc). And about $500.
While I agree the industry has taken the whole “tactical” and “operator” thing way too far I am surprised at your reaction to this rifle.
The words engraved on the firearm don’t in any way impact its effectiveness. You’ve long struck me as someone who looks past marketing BS and gun forum group-think. To have such a strong gut reaction to something as silly as the word “tactical” and decide the firearm isn’t worth your time because of it seems unlike you.
I admit I would cringe at the thought of purchasing a gun with a silly name. However if the “Deer Assassin El-Supremo” was the best value accurate hunting rifle available in the caliber I wanted I’d still buy it; then mock it’s name every chance I got.
That which is tactical is that which is used for direct engagement in a conflict.
The words of a debate are tactical. How they are used are tactics. The topic and outlying content and method are strategic.
A weapon is by definition tactical, though a rifle is not neccicarily a weapon. A weapon is a tool used tactically. And a warrior is one who can turn any tool into a weapon.
To make a rifle tactical, one needs only to weild it. Just as the violin becomes a fiddle in the hands of a fiddler, a tool becomes tactical in the hands of a warrior, and a rifle becomes a sniper rifle in the hands of a sniper.
These words are special, they discribe not only an object, but illustrate and describe a relationship between it and the weilder.
Ok so a question from a member of the ignorant whole. I currently own one rifle. A browning XBolt 25-06 used only for hunting up to this year. This year I started getting into target shooting at different distances. I am up to a consistently accurate shot at 400 yards. I would like to advance beyond that distance but need a more suitable gun. If my goal is long range precision ( would prefer to have option of using a suppressor) do I need a tactical rifle or simply a long range rifle? Looking at .308 cal or .338 lapua. Distance goal is 1000 yards or more. Look at McMillan long range vs their alias series – what’s the performance difference?
Yes….yes…”tactical”….a marketing ploy, a catchword for the low of intellect, and wannabes, BUT, I would contend that the term CAN, be a propper term for a firearm. Semi-automatics do not interest me, so for this argument, bolt rifles are the subject, and most of the principles stated apply to autos as well. So….Tac gun (rifle)….I would describe like this – a rifle capable of high accuracy, with a scope capable of “in close, urban action, shorter ranges (read variable power down to 3-4.5x), AND capable of come-ups allowing for 600 yard shooting, as well as 16x or more top end, for fine resolving of small targets . The platform should be “militatry rugged”, with a shorter heavy barrel, for better ease of transport, operating in tighter environs, and ease of handling should a suppressor be employed. Detachable magazine for quick reloading, yes, speed IS tactical (see Napoleon , or Sun Tsu) – life or death yours or his can come down to seconds). So….what’s the diff vs. a “sniper rifle”? More, barrel length to take advantage of more velocity, for longer shots, more “stand-off”, more powerful cartridges (needing longer barrels)…..face it, a dedicated “sniper rifle” is a “stand-off” weapon, not an efficient “battle rifle” (which is indeed handier in urban/shorter range “work”). Each had it’s place, and advantages – Tac gun has mobilty advantages, both in weight and physical size (for speed), while the Sniper rifle is more suited to long range stand-off and first shot hit probability (usually the time, or ‘speed’ of infiltrate/exfiltrate/set-up is not critical). That’s my two cents worth – I think “tactical” is a real concept (0-600 yards with exceptional mobility), same as I think “sniper” (long range – 600 through 1000+ yards) is a real concept. I now await the inevitably criticisms.