Define: Tactical

[Kaska Czarny]

Okay, so the word "Tactical" seems to be a word used in most firearm circles, but everyone I ask gives it a different definition as to just what the word means. Input? Discuss, let's see what tactical means to you.

[Tsume Xiao]

Paint it black. It is now tactical.

In all seriousness though... That's an interesting one. I'd take it to be the ability to adapt readily to a variety of situations, whether it be by modular design, RAS/RIS, or simply by the design itself.

Examples

Tavor (Design)

ACR (All Three)

XCR (All Three)

P90 (Design)

MP7 (Design)

Carbine + RAS/RIS (Ex: M4A1)

[Guest Afevis]

[Cyphre Iredell]

Tactical is a generic term describing (in the case of firearms) something that adds benefit. That's all it will ever mean, regardless of the subtleties therein.

[Kaska Czarny]

Tactical is a generic term describing (in the case of firearms) something that adds benefit. That's all it will ever mean, regardless of the subtleties therein.

So by your definition, the bottle opener on the Galil ARM could be considered a tactical addition?

[Cyphre Iredell]

I said adds benefit, not adds stupid.

(benefit to the purpose of the weapon or an impending operation)

[Tsume Xiao]

So by your definition, the bottle opener on the Galil ARM could be considered a tactical addition?

I said adds benefit, not adds stupid.

(benefit to the purpose of the weapon or an impending operation)

Kaska...

That was not something added to the firearm as a stand alone. That was just something they did to the front of the bipod, a device already planned to be added to the firearm. :/

[Jayce Iredell]

Tactical bottle opener, in case you capture enemy beer.

[George Reisman]

I think tactical is when you you have 40 shells in your clip instead of 30 shells like in the m16.

[Lanny Ansar]

In my opinion, the term "Tactical" indicates that a weapon can be modified or adjusted to suit a specific purpose, whether it's on the field, or before an operation. In comparison to a more specific design, that's only meant for a single, specific goal.

Example...Ffff it, let's say the M4 / AR15 framework. Depending on the situation you face, there are MANY customizable options to put onto an AR15 body to meet a specific purpose. You need a CQB weapon? install a shorter barrel, foregrip, flip-down sights, EOtech, etc. You need something with a bit more range? Swap to a 7.62 receiver, get a heavier barrel, attach a scope, etc etc. You get the idea.

In comparison to something like...let's say a Barrett M107. Although it's possible that someone out there could make a "Tactical" version of it, it's highly unlikely due to its intended purpose. It serves as an "Anti-Material Rifle", and not much else. Can't really do CQB with it, and it can't really fit the role of a standard infantry rifle or a DMR.

[Cyphre Iredell]

I think tactical is when you you have 40 shells in your clip instead of 30 shells like in the m16.

facepalm.jpg

[George Reisman]

In comparison to something like...let's say a Barrett M107. Although it's possible that someone out there could make a "Tactical" version of it, it's highly unlikely due to its intended purpose. It serves as an "Anti-Material Rifle", and not much else. Can't really do CQB with it, and it can't really fit the role of a standard infantry rifle or a DMR.

I beg to differ. I used to tear ass close quarters with the M107 and red dot in COD.

[Ron Bleac]

Tactical is taking a massive dump mid-battle without getting shot.

[Tsukiyomi Yuhara]

I beg to differ. I used to tear ass close quarters with the M107 and red dot in COD.

Isn't that a war crime? To shoot someone with anti-material munitions.

[Kaska Czarny]

Isn't that a war crime? To shoot someone with anti-material munitions.

I believe it is a war crime to do that. HOWEVER, it's considered okay to shoot at a canteen on someone's belt. At least, as far as I'm told.

[Cyphre Iredell]

That was the general theme of it. Then I believe I have heard that the geneva conventions (or whatever it was under) is something we don't give a shit about in the first place. Not sure its in the same document as typical restrictions during wartime.

[Scarlet Flaks]

Tactical is to War, that Modular is to Engineering. Versatility.

[Huttser]

I couldn't find anything about it in the Geneva Conventions proper, however, if it's anywhere it will be in Protocol I which has some 102 articles which I will read through when I have the time.

[BlackSergal]

This topic readers may enjoy adding this to their Xmas list. http://www.amazing1....sers.htm#_blank

Fully functioning Laser rifles:

"Output is 1 to 3 joules at a 500 usec pulse width equating out to a 6000 watt pulse! This is sufficient to blast small holes in the hardest of metals once the beam is properly focused. Balloons can be popped from a distance or you "sharp shooters" may want to try a hand at popping some flys!

When used with a simple lens this laser can cut through a rock. When used with a lens system, the air will actually explode at the focus point.

System is designed for very low duty cycle use eliminating the need for large batteries and cooling means. Normal operation from built in batteries (AA Batteries) is usually 20 to 30 seconds between shots. Good quality alkalines will supply 100 to 200 charges. "

Cost? Roughly $2,000 dollars

[Lanny Ansar]

The Geneva Convention has rulings stating that you cannot fire upon infantry / personnel with a weapon above a rifle caliber. However, there have been loopholes around this concept with the idea of "Equipment". Equipment can be shot at with any weapon in the arsenal, as it is not immoral to blow up inanimate stuff. The one loophole is that stuff carried ON A HUMAN TARGET, counts as equipment, IE. Vests, Canteens, Rifles, Helmets, etc.

[Kaska Czarny]

The Geneva Convention has rulings stating that you cannot fire upon infantry / personnel with a weapon above a rifle caliber. However, there have been loopholes around this concept with the idea of "Equipment". Equipment can be shot at with any weapon in the arsenal, as it is not immoral to blow up inanimate stuff. The one loophole is that stuff carried ON A HUMAN TARGET, counts as equipment, IE. Vests, Canteens, Rifles, Helmets, etc.

Unfortunately, this also applies to rulings on WP I believe. You can use it for signaling, because of the pillar of white smoke it creates. It's not your fault if you signal with it and people get caught in it however.

[Deadmon]

That is silly. Dead is dead no matter how it comes. Anti-material would, if anything, make it quicker.

Edited November 13, 2011 by Disembodied Hand

[Kellervo]

Anti-materiel, however, has absolutely horrific results. Even the air 'tunnel' around the round is enough for amputation, decapitation, et cetera. They aren't allowed due to the fact that people can still survive such horrific injuries, and as a result spend their last few minutes in what is probably the most horrific pain imaginable.

And for more nightmare fuel, there are .50 thermobaric / incendiary rounds, which normally would be flatout banned for use against infantry - but are a-ok to use against tanks/vehicles, where they are specifically designed to incapacitate the vehicle by basically covering the occupants in fuel and turning the inside of the vehicle into an oven.

Suffice to say, the Geneva Convention has some big loopholes which are abused in all kinds of nasty ways. :[

[Ron Bleac]

I want to correct a popular mistake/misconception about the Geneva conventions.

Anti-material munitions can be used against infantry troops. The idea of "shooting at canteens" is a myth. Air tunnels can't decapitate or amputate people, this is caused by shrapnel or direct impact and even then, it's rare to see a full decapitation or amputation from something that is still a relatively small projectile. Militaries worldwide care very little about what kind of pain the enemy feels when they are hit. The point is to kill the enemy and when we talk about business like that, even the Geneva Convention has to accept the fact that pain is very much involved with death. Contrary to popular belief the use of incendiary weaponry against infantry is not banned in the Geneva Convention. In fact, the Geneva Convention does not prohibit the use of any kind of weaponry, be it nuclear, chemical, biological or incendiary. The Geneva convention(s) apply to sick and wounded military personnel, with separate articles for prisoners and civilian population. They do not address the use of weaponry. The conventions that you are referring to are known as the "Hague Conventions" and they are not binding in any shape or form. The reason for this confusion is that the Hague Convention has a section referred to as the "Geneva Protocol" which references the use of incendiary, gaseous and asphyxiating weaponry in warfare. But the Hague convention does provide a few standard guidelines. I attached them below.

Art. 23.

In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden -

To employ poison or poisoned weapons;

To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;

To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

To declare that no quarter will be given;

To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;

To make improper use of a flag of truce, of the national flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;

To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;

To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. A belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war.

Art. 24.

Ruses of war and the employment of measures necessary for obtaining information about the enemy and the country are considered permissible.

Art. 25.

The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.

Art. 26.

The officer in command of an attacking force must, before commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault, do all in his power to warn the authorities.

Art. 27.

In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.

It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such buildings or places by distinctive and visible signs, which shall be notified to the enemy beforehand.

Art. 28.

The pillage of a town or place, even when taken by assault, is prohibited.

[George Reisman]

Ron, a saint among men.