Tacticool, why is it called that?

So I understand the Tacticool bit, but I am interested why all of this new rifles are referred to as ‘tactical’?

Perhaps I have a slightly different context of the term, coming from corporate environment. To me tactical means a quick fix. A bandaid if you will.

Mosin carbines - quick fix to urban fighting and rear troops.
Jungle Carbine - quick fix to dense environments.

I think of tactical as a quick shitty fix that needs to be replaced later.

However, nones of this rifles are ‘quick’ and ‘easy’ - lots of time, R&D effort, marketing, logistics, etc. went into them.

Why are they called tactical?

Marketing dept circle jerk.
The term target was so last year.

Militarisation of our society. Everyone wants to be sn ‘operator’…

" if its good enough for the military its good enough for me "

I do drink the tactical cool aid in certain products i own, but also do alot of research into the product, defence has standards, say example the ip codes, which denote waterproofness, shock resistance and dust sealing abilities etc

In my opinion, ’ tactical ’ denotes a product which contains features that may be required for a certain job say for example an electrically insulated knife handle used to cut live power wires ( true story in iraq )

I know my comments will be picked apart but thats all i got :joy:

Oh I always LOL hard at “if its good enough for the military its good enough for me”. No dude, no, that shit was made by the lowest bidder.

Anyway, I am still not seeing why ‘tactical’. Why not ‘operational’ then or whatever, why is it tactical.

It’s all about the money. A marketing exercise that has some folk wanting to be tacticool. Show ponies.

1 Like

For sure most if not all military equipment is made cheap and is decades out dated!


It’s tactical because it sounds good to mall ninjas…

If its good enough for the military its good enough for me”. This statement ties into my wankfactor comment. It again is simply being misinformed or more to the point not being informed. Yes the items whatever they be are made to a military standard. That standard just means that they all must be the same and pass certain tests. the tests may be to a very low standard. In civilian circles there are also standards about everything from manufacturing standards to nomenclature standards. They are most often to a higher tolerance. Then yes if it is a product to be manufactured or procured they are put out to tender and then “No dude, no, that shit was made by the lowest bidder.”

Have you ever put anything through testing for military use? I’ve been involved with a few projects ,boring stuff not arms (and designed one from start to finish) that have, and its not “easy” or cheap by any means. If we were the cheapest bidder on any of them I’d be amazed.There are more factors in winning a supply contract than merely price ( long term stability of company, ownership, experience in the field, proven success with similar projects etc etc) otherwise everything would just be made in China like most of the retail sector.
I think you may be confusing US military procurement’s reputation with the reality of Australia’s system.
As for stuff being decades out of date, well actually yes in a lot (but not all cases), because that was exactly what was specified.

Not everything military made is shit guys… the bushmasters have one of the highest survival rate of soldiers inside after an IED strike, the mercedes g wagons are a solid capable bit of kit, seen them at a proving ground and the new gear the digs are getting issues like tbas body armour is ace…

Yes I have been involved in testing and producing a items for sale to the Military and I have been on the other side of the fence as well. As in testing the product to meet the standards and all the stuff that goes with that. It can be years of work. Mine was not small arms either.

Not saying that everything made for the Military is shit either. It is more that I get sick of the over use of the term and the implied implications that people try to attach to that.

I was in the Army and we swapped as much of our gear out for good civillian stuffif we could.
Boots, sleeping mats, Runners, webbing, knives, compases, backpacks, water bottles, undershirts, food, mess kit, brew mugs, shaving kit, bush hats, sunnys, and heaps of other kit was all shit and would be replaced .
Some thing’s you couldnt swap.
Rifles ausstyer bought coz m4’s cost money. F88 hates dust, dirt & sand (pronounced australia) and jams all the time but at least it’s cheap.
The land rover, shit 4cyl version that struggled to do 90 on the highway unlike the v8 that nz bought. Only moved to g wagons coz land rover stopped making parts for the old buckets of junk.
Hand grenades didn’t work, literally there was an enquiry into why they sucked so bad. One was dropped in between 6 people and no-one died, and that’s if they even went off.
When we bought artillery to replace the Korean war era m2a2 105mm howitzer we bought hammel guns but then had them rebarreled to shoot the old ammo (cheaper) which then negated any benefit of getting new guns. Took a gun that could shoot 19km and made it shoot 11.4km.
Uniforms used to me made in Bendigo but are now outsourced to China.
We usually had to buy our own zip ties, batterys and electrical tape, things all needed to make or keep junk working.
If I racked my brain I could go on all day.

1 Like

@GUN-DMC not everything, everything being the key word :stuck_out_tongue: a bit id guccie kit goes alllllong hey

The uniform thing is a real shame…

I didn’t mean all things. And I haven’t served so I don’t know. But common sense dictates that privatised business will always make things to higher quality than those that make things at scale for the government. People are selective about what they buy and how much they pay. Also consider competition. Sure, there may be some things that are very high quality. However, on average, something common like a gun or boots or ammunition or clothing… And a decade long contract… There’s just no way a government, any government, would splash out on quality over quantity.

1 Like

To be fair to the Gov and the Military it does have different levels of quality equipment that it uses as well. Sure for the most part it issues and trains with the cheapest and oldest stuff first. It does have special units that get to use the better stuff.

I think the word Tactical is being used by the advertising world to mean configurable, able to be used in different positions can be modified, ect. That is one part I am sure we could make a list of what our personal impressions are that is being implied to us by the advertisers.

Your not wrong, the single shitty most peice of equipment i can remember was my multitool issued to me at kapooka, trying to use it was infuriating, but then we also got ridgy-didge camel baks that were designed to be used in even the harshest of harsh evironments including but not limited to chemical, biological, radioactive and nuclear threats, so it goes either way

To me tactical (as it relates to firearms) means anything that has a military appearance ie looks like a Barrett or is camo’d etc :thinking::grinning:

1 Like

I’m not doubting your experience or first hand knowledge at all. It’s just that mine ( with Army, Navy and Airforce) on the supply side is somewhat different.

Its a shame that even unclassified stuff comes with warnings like this- IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the Crimes Act 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email.

Or I could share some of the hoops I’ve been made to jump through.

Suffice to say everything that my employer has ever supplied to Australian, New Zealand or the American defense forces has been of the highest possible quality.
*The stuff we supplied the Americans (along with specs and drawings) was only samples so they could find an American supplier who could duplicate our solution- it was a refit to some equipment older than me.

To me Tactical means planned rather than expedient. For example - place snipers on high ground with clear fields of fire would be a tactical plan, returning fire when ambushed would be expedient.
A wartime modification of a longarm to be more maneuverable is expedient, designing a system for a specific task at leisure is tactical.