|
Post by Cosmoline on Apr 26, 2018 0:31:25 GMT
In one sense, any sword not actually intended to be used as a weapon is not tactical. They're for ceremonial use only. That's true for such pole arms that are still around and being used. That's not to say they can't be used as weapons but usually they aren't sharp and sometimes too flimsy. Such things even existed when swords were still being carried into battle and intended to be used. I don't know about the part about manuals, though. Ordinary soldiers rarely see any manuals in the army. The real stuff you need to know is told to you by sergeants, backed up by mimeographed training schedules. Well yeah, swords are all pretty much antiquated. But if we define "tactical" as being associated with tactics then even old museum pieces are "tactical." You could pick one up and use it as intended in combat assuming you'd been trained for it. As far as manuals, we have a ton. But of course it's mostly an oral tradition, likely passed on in poems and family training long before there were sergeants. Whatever the source you've got to learn the tactical system before you can fight effectively with the weapon. So viking sword and shield would have had a set of tactics associated with it. Probably multiple sets. We know longsword had many different systems associated with it, as did rapier, smallsword, saber, etc. The "tactical" swords are really the only ones that don't have such a system, ironically. The design choices are aesthetic and cinematic rather than being drawn from any particular tactical need. The messer's nagel for example is there to assist in things like inverted parries and allow freer use of the outside flat with less risk of losing your fingers. But dropping all crossguard from a "tactical" blade is done because it makes it look sleek and modern.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Apr 26, 2018 1:29:49 GMT
In one sense, any sword not actually intended to be used as a weapon is not tactical. They're for ceremonial use only. That's true for such pole arms that are still around and being used. That's not to say they can't be used as weapons but usually they aren't sharp and sometimes too flimsy. Such things even existed when swords were still being carried into battle and intended to be used. I don't know about the part about manuals, though. Ordinary soldiers rarely see any manuals in the army. The real stuff you need to know is told to you by sergeants, backed up by mimeographed training schedules. Well yeah, swords are all pretty much antiquated. But if we define "tactical" as being associated with tactics then even old museum pieces are "tactical." You could pick one up and use it as intended in combat assuming you'd been trained for it. As far as manuals, we have a ton. But of course it's mostly an oral tradition, likely passed on in poems and family training long before there were sergeants. Whatever the source you've got to learn the tactical system before you can fight effectively with the weapon. So viking sword and shield would have had a set of tactics associated with it. Probably multiple sets. We know longsword had many different systems associated with it, as did rapier, smallsword, saber, etc. The "tactical" swords are really the only ones that don't have such a system, ironically. The design choices are aesthetic and cinematic rather than being drawn from any particular tactical need. The messer's nagel for example is there to assist in things like inverted parries and allow freer use of the outside flat with less risk of losing your fingers. But dropping all crossguard from a "tactical" blade is done because it makes it look sleek and modern. Yes, tactical is really a term loosely associated with tactics, or a set of various elements (whatever fits the environment) to best achieve a goal. I think tools like machete are tactical because they are utilitarian, so the advantage is you always have them on you, and this actually supersedes the lack of pure weapon enhancements (guard, balance, etc...) of a proper sword. Also, tactically, it was a way societies could skirt certain weapons laws by calling it a "tool". In the end "tactical" is pretty nebulous and can mean a lot of different things. I think using the term "weapon enhancement" (under specific environmental context) is a bit more precise. Or maybe the dudes at the local mall got it right all along (the tactics of selling wall hanging garbage).
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Apr 26, 2018 10:45:12 GMT
Yeah, I heard that many fiberglass stock M14s were being shipped to Viet Nam when the changeover to the M16 began, as the heavier wood became negatively effected by the rain and humidity of the jungle environment. I was unable to find a date as to when fiberglass stocks were first used on M14s. I got out of the army in 1968 and never saw one with a fiberglass stock. Never saw an M16 the whole time I was in the army.
Ironically, the AR-15 was introduced in 1956 (based on the AR-10) and the M14 was adopted in 1959. The army, by the way, does not used the terms "battle rifle" or "assault rifle." Those are invented definitions that are meaningless.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2018 12:31:24 GMT
if those terms were meaningless then there'd be no problem banning them.
"Tactical" is an aesthetic. Dark grays and black color scheme + stripped down minimalist design = tactical. That's why you can have a tactical flashlight, tactical spoon, tactical floor mat, and tactical socks.
|
|
ChrisA
Member
Senior Forumite
Posts: 1,240
|
Post by ChrisA on Apr 26, 2018 12:38:11 GMT
if those terms were meaningless then there'd be no problem banning them. I agree. Ban those terms!
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Apr 26, 2018 12:56:43 GMT
I wouldn't include stripped down. Many objects described as tactical have a lot of bells and whistles, some of which are really useful. For example, optical sights on rifles are commonly used in the military now and they greatly increase hit probability. And if you don't think a tactical video game isn't particularly realistic, then you should see what the gunner's position in a tank looks like. The loader still has to do all the heavy lifting.
Sportsman's Guide has 861 items that come up if you enter "tactical." They aren't all black, either. Coyote brown is currently a popular color but black is cooler. To be honest, though, some items are suspect. Tactical key chain?
|
|
|
Post by wlewisiii on Apr 26, 2018 13:11:46 GMT
Anytime I my ears hear the sound "tactical", my brain translates it to mean "mall ninja". Tactical does tend to become Tacticool all too quickly today. But I think the idea of a modern sword as a useful "tactical" weapon does have some merit. What you want to do will determine what style of sword you use and then you can go from there. If I were still in the military, especially after I went from Armor on active duty to an Infantry battalion's scouts in the National Guard, I'd be happy to carry my Windlass/Cobra Steel Kindjal. If I wanted something more than a last ditch cut & thrust short sword, I'd have to go custom because none of the current sabers is quite right to me. Give me the blade of the D'Capitain with a proper guard made out of steel. It could be done as a single piece from the blade, but I'd still rather it looked like the hilt of a 1796 Light Cavalry Saber with none of the spikey points anywhere. Rubber or other synthetic gripping is fine & finally a parkerized finish. Not as pretty as polished steel or even a proper rust blue but much more practical. Kydex scabbard too. Combine with appropriate firearms (carbine & handgun) and possibly a buckler and you'll have an interesting take on a light dragoon/skirmisher for the modern back country.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Apr 26, 2018 14:46:05 GMT
After I got out of the army, I was also in the National Guard, the D.C. National Guard, no less. It was an MP battalion, so the thing that would have been appropriate for me, probably, would have been a Cold Steel baseball bat. They come in black.
|
|
|
Post by wlewisiii on Apr 26, 2018 15:37:33 GMT
Bluetrain, where's the like button here? We really need like buttons here!
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Apr 26, 2018 16:45:54 GMT
After I got out of the army, I was also in the National Guard, the D.C. National Guard, no less. It was an MP battalion, so the thing that would have been appropriate for me, probably, would have been a Cold Steel baseball bat. They come in black. Now THAT is tactical. Interestingly, I've noticed more and more LEO's dumping the telescoping batons in favor of old-school hardwood.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Apr 26, 2018 19:26:59 GMT
Yeah, I heard that many fiberglass stock M14s were being shipped to Viet Nam when the changeover to the M16 began, as the heavier wood became negatively effected by the rain and humidity of the jungle environment. I was unable to find a date as to when fiberglass stocks were first used on M14s. I got out of the army in 1968 and never saw one with a fiberglass stock. Never saw an M16 the whole time I was in the army.
Ironically, the AR-15 was introduced in 1956 (based on the AR-10) and the M14 was adopted in 1959. The army, by the way, does not used the terms "battle rifle" or "assault rifle." Those are invented definitions that are meaningless.
Those are generalized slang terms used to describe rifles, but, as you say, are not technical definitions. "Battle Rifle" describes a semi that can shoot full auto and uses a full size rifle cartridge. "Assault Rifle" describes a semi that can shoot full auto and fires an intermediate cartridge. Based on a rifle made by Germany and perfected by Kalashnikov in the Soviet Union, the intermediate cartridge gives you more power and range than handgun cartridges, and the ability to fire full auto with much more control, which is why they are so abundant. Now..."Assault WEAPON", a term created by anti-gun politicians on the left to make people THINK a SEMIAUTO (with scary features like bayonet lugs, folding stock, etc...) was a "machine gun" and "weapon of war". What a truly vile, evil, fiendish term Assault Weapon is, and such a clever way to ban semiautomatic rifles from the law abiding public.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Apr 26, 2018 20:37:42 GMT
So the M1 was not a battle rifle (wasn't full auto)? What was the M1 carbine? The M2 carbine was select fire but the .30 carbine has been chambered in handguns. Most M16s in the army do not have full-auto capability, you know, although they do have three round burst selection. So I guess they are select-fire. If an AR-15 clone (beware of copies and patent infringements) is pink, is it still an assault rifle? Or more to the point in the context of this thread, is it tactical?
|
|
|
Post by howler on Apr 26, 2018 21:19:25 GMT
So the M1 was not a battle rifle (wasn't full auto)? What was the M1 carbine? The M2 carbine was select fire but the .30 carbine has been chambered in handguns. Most M16s in the army do not have full-auto capability, you know, although they do have three round burst selection. So I guess they are select-fire. If an AR-15 clone (beware of copies and patent infringements) is pink, is it still an assault rifle? Or more to the point in the context of this thread, is it tactical? M1 Garand was semi auto rifle, like civilian M1a. M14 in full auto was battle rifle. M1 carbine (similar to) assault rifle, if full or partial (burst) auto. As you stated, not technical definitions, but generally used terms to describe attributes (used to get a loose idea of nature). If full or partial auto, its an assault rifle regardless of color...but loses mall ninja tactiCOOL points.
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Apr 27, 2018 1:49:05 GMT
Anytime I my ears hear the sound "tactical", my brain translates it to mean "mall ninja". Tactical does tend to become Tacticool all too quickly today. But I think the idea of a modern sword as a useful "tactical" weapon does have some merit. ...... When I was younger I was all into the picatinny rails, extended mag, collapsable stock, "tactical" flashlight stuff, but I found it to be unsatisfying. All the "tactical" stuff did, at the end of the day, was add weight, complexity and expense but didn't add any real functionality as far as "war fighting" was concerned. And is there any real need for anything tactical in a civilian context? I guess I burned out on it. On my last deployment before I retired from the Army they gave us 3 point slings, stubby barrels for the SAW, IR beacons and all that jazz. Left it all at the base camp and went bare bones. Anything with a battery can fail, and anything stuck on the weapon that isn't directly useful for shooting a bullet just gets caught on stuff and adds weight. And worse of all, you can start to rely on the gimicks and forget how to do the basics- that can get you killed. Nope. Nowadays I care nothing for "tactical" or "tacticool" or "zombie" whatevers- not saying it's wrong, I just look at it with a bit of amusement and walk away. I'm much more interested in the story something can tell rather than the mall ninja crap attached to it. My favorite item in my collection is an RPK from the Balkans wars that earned a battlefiled name (lawnmower)- not "tactical" per se, but it can certainly tell a story. My favorite sword in my collection is a Vietnamese Dha that my dad brought back from 'Nam and I played with it since I was old enough to walk- not "tactical" by any means, nor is it a sword you would be likely to grab when the revolution starts, but to me it tells more of a story than a blackened blade, composit handle modern sword that just came off a shelf at some store. To each his own. If a tactical or tacticool or mall ninja sword brings a person enjoyment, then I support that 100%. It's just not for me.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Apr 27, 2018 10:08:25 GMT
The M14 I had in the army sure wasn't full auto. It didn't have a plastic stock, either. Real nice rifle, though.
|
|
|
Post by wlewisiii on Apr 27, 2018 14:26:29 GMT
The M14 wasn't supposed to be, in the end, and they locked out the selector switch due to it being utterly uncontrollable in full auto. The M15 was the Squad Automatic Weapon support weapon similar in purpose to to a BAR crossed with the modern SAW. It failed even more miserably (only 20 rnd mags & overheated badly as well) and I don't think it was ever used in Combat. The lies behind the adoption of the M14 series killed the Springfield armory and the US Army was better for it. I have a copy of the 1960(?) second edition of Hatcher's Notebooks and his rah-rah-rah support of the M14 over the M16 is an interesting read in the light of history.
I dislike the AR series of military weapons after 16 years of dealing with them but they were a real improvement AS MILITARY RIFLES over the M14 series.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Apr 27, 2018 17:49:33 GMT
There was a select-fire version of the M14 that was fielded and actually used in combat, the M14E2. I did see them in use and as far as I know, they were only used in infantry squads. It had a different stock. However, M60 machine guns became more widely distributed and were sometimes used at squad level. I fired the M14 quite a bit and liked it. But I also owned an AR-15 and liked it, too. In the early part of WWII, some liked the Springfield bolt action over the M1, because it was more accurate. Everybody has their own idea of what they liked best but you don't get your first choice in the service.
The M1 and BAR were still in use in the 1970s.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Apr 27, 2018 19:05:32 GMT
Nope. Nowadays I care nothing for "tactical" or "tacticool" or "zombie" whatevers- not saying it's wrong, I just look at it with a bit of amusement and walk away. I'm much more interested in the story something can tell rather than the mall ninja crap attached to it. My favorite item in my collection is an RPK from the Balkans wars that earned a battlefiled name (lawnmower)- not "tactical" per se, but it can certainly tell a story. My favorite sword in my collection is a Vietnamese Dha that my dad brought back from 'Nam and I played with it since I was old enough to walk- not "tactical" by any means, nor is it a sword you would be likely to grab when the revolution starts, but to me it tells more of a story than a blackened blade, composit handle modern sword that just came off a shelf at some store. I've come around to the same conclusion for my own firearms. So for bear defense I've gone back to a very bare-bones (ha ha) Mossberg 500 with a side shell holder, sling, clamp-on light and nothing else. Just bead sights, standard stock etc.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Apr 27, 2018 19:58:24 GMT
The M14 I had in the army sure wasn't full auto. It didn't have a plastic stock, either. Real nice rifle, though. Yeah, real nice semi rifle. Pulled out of mothballs and used in recent conflicts due to greater punch and distance. I think it is great when basic, simplified, also with the wonderful iron sights. One of the reasons it works so well, I think, is that it retained the basic (think hunting and historic) rifle shape. Too bad about scope mount issues. AR10, FAL, others made better "battle rifles" due to the ability to better control recoil when in full auto.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Apr 27, 2018 20:13:12 GMT
There was a select-fire version of the M14 that was fielded and actually used in combat, the M14E2. I did see them in use and as far as I know, they were only used in infantry squads. It had a different stock. However, M60 machine guns became more widely distributed and were sometimes used at squad level. I fired the M14 quite a bit and liked it. But I also owned an AR-15 and liked it, too. In the early part of WWII, some liked the Springfield bolt action over the M1, because it was more accurate. Everybody has their own idea of what they liked best but you don't get your first choice in the service. The M1 and BAR were still in use in the 1970s. For pure accuracy at distance, and without real need for suppression, the bolt (Springfield) will always have the advantage. M1 Garand destroys it in all other tactical spheres, according to General Patton anyway.
|
|