Yeah that’s been a very controversial topic for some time now. I've even gotten in a few arguments myself about this same topic over at other forums :roll:
.
Now I do agree with you that if the new design has changed in a "bad" way, it doesn't make it "Tactical" at all really. Most of the guys' I've talked to thinks that it should be called "Modern" instead of "Tactical".
BUT if you think about it, most of the time the new modern styled designs have improved the design in some way.
Examples:A traditional style katana is made up of a lot of different parts that need to be tended to and cleaned a lot, almost after every use. Now back then it definitely was "Tactical", seeing how much it changed the world of combat. But now with the technology and resources that we have today allows us to improve the design in a number of ways. Like the overall geometry of the design for better chopping slicing or even stabbing, being able to use a better steel that is less likely to rust or distort the metal, less parts means less cleaning and tending to on the field, and even improving on the parts of the sword. Like instead of using a wooden handle wrapped in nylon that is held on with pegs, you can use handle scales (like G10, Micarta, polypropylene, etc...) that is held on with some sort of screws that allows it to be more permanent, so you have one less worry. And that handle would more than likely be wrapped in paracord, and we all know the almost never ending possibilities of paracord from survival to combat scenarios.
(A katana "might" not be the best example, because it is VERY hard to improve on this design as it is, but it is possible.)
Then you have a traditional tomahawk that has a steel head on a wooden shaft. Compared to a modern style one, tat is made out of one piece of better steel. A better design that makes it easier for chopping, slicing and a lot better for throwing too.
We just have better materials now, and since the first designs of these traditional weapons, the weapons themselves have been able to evolve with the always changing world around us.
So like you said...
"for something to, by the definition of the word, be considered "tactical", it has to improve on the original design in some way/shape/form as to provide a
tactical advantage in combat.
If it doesn't provide this, the word "tactical" means nothing.
Just being different than the traditional weapon doesn't make it tactical if it's different in a bad way."
Only if it’s changed in a "bad way", but you have to know what to look for in order for it to be a good or bad change.
So people think to end this controversy to just start calling these weapons "
Modern" instead of "
Tactical", I don't think it’s that simple though, because in my opinion most of the time "modern" does make something a bit more "tactical". So I think the ONLY way to stop this, is to start being picky with the word "
TACTICAL", like pointing out the features that would make it more Tactical.
Now I'm not saying that I'm right, because I could very well be wrong. I've done ALOT of research and gathered alot of information, but it still doesn't mean I'm right.
Sorry I've gone rambling on about this, I'm just trying to get this thing cleared up.
Ps. I'm not trying to attack you either man, I'm just stating my own opinon(s)
So I apologize if I may have came off the wrong way.
Thanks for listening if you were able to get through this WHOLE thing
-Only_Solo-