HungryHunter
New member
Anybody change camps if said gun is a revolver? Just wondering..I've seen a few guys that could pick a few empties out and reload very quick. Anyway, good thread.
Tactical Reloads--some common sense...
- Thread starter JohnKSa
- Start date
- Status
Derbel McDillet
Moderator
Why would I want to perform a Tactical Reload to restore my pistol to its highest condition of battle-readiness after I’ve fired a few shots? Another situation that comes to mind is I may have had to shoot a bad guy in a sketchy part of town (perhaps a Walmart parking lot or gas station). The immediate danger is over. But the bad guy’s homies may show up shortly thereafter or a brazenly hostile crowd gathers before police (or backup) arrive. I’ve personally been in both of these kinds situations (although no shots were fired.)
So when time and situation permit, I may want to perform a Tactical Reload.
If I were to perform a Combat Reload under the same circumstances then I’d also be dropping a partially loaded magazine onto the ground. Whereas if I were in the middle of a Tactical Reload and danger suddenly appeared then I’d have no problem dropping the partially loaded magazine onto the ground after I seated the fresh one. If this were to happen then the gun might be “down” for a just a fraction of a second longer. I don’t count the time it takes to stow the partially depleted magazine because it doesn’t count as down time for the gun.
That’s not what I’m arguing. But if you do have to perform a Combat Reload then don’t train yourself to get drawn into your gun problem while you stand there like a cardboard target for the bad guy. Your down gun is a problem but it may be lower priority problem at the moment than immediately reacting to the danger. You don’t want to get shot or stabbed or whatever while you’re reloading. The first rule of a gunfight is to avoid getting shot.
BINGO! When time and situation permit a Tactical Reload is the most efficient method for me because it uses the many of same movements as my other gun manipulations.
Last edited:
As far as tack reloads in my opinion, shooting to slide lock is my choice. Under the stress of a gun fight reloading at slide lock if needed will be enough of a challenge. In the gun fight I would not want to "assume" and we all know what that spells out to be that it is safe to take my time and perform a tack reload.
Shooting to slide lock is my choice if and when (hopefully never will be needed)
IDPA rules read for the tack/reload with retention when there is a lull in the action. Poppy-cock if you ask me. The only time in real life I will drop a mag with ammo in it if there is a malfunction and that is the only way to clear it.
zombietactics
New member
So - once again - you're at the mall (your scenario) and have "exchanged shots" with some bad guys, who (oddly weird tactics) simply decide to move on and engage other targets. Somehow you've been "awesome" enough they fear your opposition, but not enough that you require a positive "neutralization".
Your concern at that time is making sure you don't want to break a magazine by dropping it on the floor? THAT is the thing you are worried about?
Please take the following in good humor. We're all friends having a discussion, AFAIK.
I'm a Glock-certified armorer. I've owned Glocks since about the month they came on the market. I still have a couple of no-drop magazines from my first Gen1 Glock 17. I am abusive as hell to my magazines during training and practice, and I train and practice a LOT more than the average person. I've seen a few cracked base plates over the past 25 years. Some were with cheap Korean knockoffs, not Glock OEM, so I don't think that really counts. I've never once seen a Glock magazine fly apart and spill its guts from being dropped to the ground, pavement or floor. Not once. Not ever. I've never even heard of it actually happening "in the wild".
If you are really that worried about it, there are several third-party base plates made of various impact-resistant polymers, hard rubber, aluminum, etc. ... problem solved without having to get weird about it.
I suppose in some broad, theoretical sense, it could happen. Maybe it has happened, but it's very rare. Maybe Bigfoot exists, but I am sure as hell not basing my skill set or training on the notion that he will show up at the mall, lol.
If you have forever to exchange and retain mags, I don't see any reason why you shouldn't do so. I have no idea why it makes sense to practice doing something speedily, for an instance in which you have all the time you need.
You're making a helluva lot of assumptions here, which is not a wise things to do.
Firstly, you are describing a process called "difference sorting" by which someone determines what something IS by its differences from what it ISN'T. That's not a normal, intuitive mode of recognition, and that's not what is suggested. One learns to recognize "Orange" by being exposed continually to that color, not by being exposed to all the other colors and then concluding that Orange is "the one that's not all the other ones".
Slide lock is encountered regularly, and it's easy to learn to recognize it intuitively. I am familiar with almost every proponent of non-diagnostic methods: Rob Pincus, Gabe Suarez, James Yeager, Clint Smith, Paul Howe, etc. It's a long list and I have trained with many of them. None of them teach a reflexive Tap/Rack in response to slide lock. They teach recognizing slide-lock, and it's a featured part of the course syllabus. It's easily learned by simply doing it.
So, I don't know where this idea of adopting tap/rack on slide-lock as a preferred technique comes from. I would really like to know who teaches it.
Regarding the other point about what stoppages or malfunctions I've personally experienced, that's another case where assumptions are dangerous.
I think I understand where you are coming from. With any modern gun in reasonably well-maintained condition, the standard malfunctions are pretty rare ... far less common than shooting the gun to slide-lock, BTW. There's a point there if you can see it. Should you base your training and skill set around things which almost never happen, or things which happen regularly? Hmmmm.
But keep in mind that I have been at this firearms thing for about 35 years (Glocks 25), and I may have some things at my disposal which aren't common to most.
Among those are things like the aforementioned "no-drop" magazines. I also have mags which won't seat easily, or which have worn followers or springs (which means the slide won't lock back). I have magazines with damaged or worn feed lips, which introduce all sorts of craziness into the mix.
Those magazines are in the "training box" for the purpose of training for worst-case screw ups. Using them (along with dummy rounds), I regularly experience all of the standard malfunctions, and many which are hard to define.
I have no idea where the "stand there like a static cardboard target" comment comes from. I have to conclude that you have a very vivid imagination concerning those with whom you disagree.
But let's take the example you give at face value, and let's pretend that one cannot recognize slide-lock intuitively. You've admitted already that malfunctions are rare, i.e "... How many actual unexpected stoppages ... I suspect it's probably very few", and it's obvious that slide-locks are a normal and expected condition of having shot the gun dry.
So, you are firing away and the gun stops going bang. You've never bothered with learning to recognize slide-lock, and you've made it abundantly clear that you have no intention of diagnosing the problem by looking at it. You are proceeding from a condition of almost zero knowledge about the actual condition of the gun. Does it make more sense to reflexively perform a technique designed to correct (what is by your own admission) the least-likely occurance in such a case, or a condition which is normal, common and expected? That's a rhetorical question of course, the answer is obvious, or should be.
That simple logic dictates that even in the case that you cannot recognize slide-lock, you are far more likely to gain an advantage by training to simply reload than to proceed as if there is a malfunction.
But the simple fact is that people can and do learn to recognize slide-lock, as a part of basic instruction, and it's taught by every proponent of non-diagnostic malfunction clearances I can identify.
I do as I have trained to do, and have practiced regularly. I can recognize slide-lock intuitively without fail. I don't waste time on tapping/racking a gun which is clearly empty.
Last edited:
Derbel McDillet
Moderator
Not really. As I've said time and again in this thread is I may want to restore my pistol to its highest state of battle-readiness when time and situation permit. To quickly do this I simply perform a Tactical Reload and drive-on. No big deal.
As a former LEO my experience is different than yours.
Obviously you haven't seen this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Bby5pOVZJ0
That's all fine and good but I prefer to use a robust technique that increases my probability of success in completing a task quickly in a variety of stressful and possibly unfavorable conditions.
Diagnosing stoppages is not a robust technique. Diagnosing stoppages increases the time it takes to cycle through your OODA Loop. Diagnosing stoppages diverts your attention from the danger.
An as I stated earlier, "slide lock" caused by a stoppage is not encountered regularly and one cannot learn to reliably discern the difference in "feel" because one doesn't acquire sufficient previous experience. In a battle for your life your attention is focused on the danger and the first cue that something's not right with your gun will be when it unexpectedly stops firing for whatever reason.
Former Navy SEAL Jeff Gonzales, Trident Concepts - http://www.tridentconcepts.com/
Tap/rack is the immediate action performed whenever the gun stops firing. It's performed intuitively and takes about a second to perform. It's a conditioned response that can quickly clear a multitude of stoppages.
If tap/rack fails to get the gun running then I have one decision to make: Do I have to do something to keep from getting hurt or does the situation allow me to immediately progress to my next immediate action (Combat Reload)? That's the only decision I have to make in that moment in time.
Until you incur injury, fatigue, you're in a physical scuffle, or the situation isn't ideal.
So what do you do when you're in the open and your gun doesn't fire when you press the trigger? Do you stand there while you attempt to perform a Combat Reload (with the expectation that the problem is just an empty magazine) or do you quickly move off the line of attack?
When reality doesn't meet your expectation (you have a stoppage other than an empty magazine) your OODA Loop resets and your attention is dangerously diverted to the gun.
"Recognizing slide lock" is not a robust and reliable combative technique under stress in a variety of conditions.
Combative manipulations may take a a little longer to perform but they're designed to be robust and reliable in a variety of conditions. It may take a little longer to do it right the first time but it takes a lot longer if you have do it over again (OODA Loop reset). Combative manipulations are designed to be performed quickly with a high chance of success.
zombietactics
New member
Ummm ... OK, glad to know that. Perhaps you should not state all that stuff about bursting mags, over-n-over, if that's not your concern. People have a bad habit of thinking you mean what you say (joke). Glad to have that cleared up.
That's interesting, but being that something like 95% of LEO (Fed, State, County & Local combined) never fire their sidearm in the course of duty, I'm not certain what that is actually supposed to mean. I make no "claims of awesomeness", but I do know that I train far more than most LEO, and I have been at this for decades.
If you have specific instances in mind, please detail them. Perhaps we can learn from your experience. (And I do mean specific. There is no reason why matters which are public record should not be discussed. Department and case number should be minimally mentioned)
Cute. Interesting technology. But that's not how the human mind works. Are you a cyborg?
That's wonderful jargon but how is a technique based upon lowest-likelihood occurrences increasing the probability of success? That's like saying "you should train for the thing which never happens, because it'll probably be the thing that happens" That's contradictory nonsense.
And (as has occurred several times now), you're simply making statements with providing any intervening logic. You've provided no reasoning as to WHY the technique you suggest is "robust", you simply keep stating it or words to the same effect.
I think it's been stated a couple of times that nobody is suggesting "diagnosing" ... certainly not in the old-school Gunsite fashion. Recognizing slide-lock is a trivial, basic skill. I don't know why it should confuse you or elude you, especially given your stated background.
Care to document where he advocates tap/rack on slide-lock? Is that your one source? How does he (or you) account for doing something so differently than everyone else, including the current SEAL training standards?
It doesn't look something they teach in their class. Notice the number of side-lock relaods absent even a hint of TAP/RACK:
CLICK HERE FOR VIDEO
I think you said something about skills that are common between your handgun and rifle, so ....
CLICK HERE FOR MORE, WITH RIFLE
And golly jee ... here's Jeff himself just pulling that empty mag out and replacing it with nary a TAP/RACK in sight.
CLICK HERE FOR AWESOMENESS
Pincus has one or two former Seals as CFS certified instructors ... they don't teach it that way, FWIW. Paul Howe is former Delta ... same story. Like I said earlier ... the list is pretty long.
Why does this question come up in this context? I don't think we're discussing movement or tactics, so it seems like an attempt to muddy the waters more than anything else. Regardless of how one is reloading, they shouldn't be standing still unless they are behind hard cover.
Except we've established that an empty gun is far more likely than a malfunction. You've said as much yourself. If you can't recognize slide-lock, and instead perform a technique based upon your expectation (that it's a malfunction) then the reality that it is far more likely simply an empty gun runs counter to your expectation.
Whatever that does your OODA loop, I suspect that you are just throwing that in as hand-waving jargon. Your logic does not hold, even given your premises.
So you say. I hope you realize that repetition does not make it anymore so.
Except that earlier you were telling us that it was all about doing things "quickly". Yes, you are contradicting yourself. There's nothing "robust" or reliable about adding unnecessary steps to a procedure.
Perhaps you have not thought this through as carefully as you imagine. If you are trolling ... well played, sir ... well played.
Last edited:
"Tactical Reload" in this context at least, is reloading before you run dry, but specifically keeping the partial mag, correct?
I could be reading things wrong, but it seems like some people are referring to reloading before the mag runs dry in general, and others are referring to keeping the ejected mag.
So, for those of us that carry revolvers, would you have to try to poke the shells back into the speed strip, or could you just pocket them?
Silliness aside, if it's a requirement for IDPA, and people compete with revolvers, how does that work?
There's a club about an hour from me that has IDPA matches, but they require a sponsor to join, and I never seem to get around to driving down to their local gun shop and making friends.
As far as practical purposes go, while there are times I can see wanting to reload before my gun goes dry, I can't see needing to do it quickly. At least not within the context of self defense.
I'm not sure how much weight my opinion - as a largely self-trained, back-woods math teacher - brings to the discussion, but there it is none the less.
I could be reading things wrong, but it seems like some people are referring to reloading before the mag runs dry in general, and others are referring to keeping the ejected mag.
So, for those of us that carry revolvers, would you have to try to poke the shells back into the speed strip, or could you just pocket them?
Silliness aside, if it's a requirement for IDPA, and people compete with revolvers, how does that work?
There's a club about an hour from me that has IDPA matches, but they require a sponsor to join, and I never seem to get around to driving down to their local gun shop and making friends.
As far as practical purposes go, while there are times I can see wanting to reload before my gun goes dry, I can't see needing to do it quickly. At least not within the context of self defense.
I'm not sure how much weight my opinion - as a largely self-trained, back-woods math teacher - brings to the discussion, but there it is none the less.
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
Review and edit posts before hitting the Submit button, and make sure there's no snark.
No prizes nor awards for Snark of the Day.
No prizes nor awards for Snark of the Day.
Playing the scenario game is often a way to try to make the simple complex.
If there's an imminent threat then reloading should only be done if it's necessary and then it should be done as rapidly as possible. Dropping a mag, partially loaded or not, whether it's likely to break on impact or not, doesn't rate as a priority in the face of an imminent threat.
If there's no imminent threat then reload however you want-time is not an issue.
That's simple.
Trying to explain why it's critical to reload in the face of an imminent threat when you don't have to and then that it's also important to take more time than is really required in order to accomplish the procedure--now that's complicated.
Of course not. It would make it impossible to reasonably argue that they both take essentially the same amount of time if you did. But the fact remains that retaining the loaded mag is the entire point of doing a tac-reload as opposed to a speed reload.
If you're in a situation where you reasonably expect danger to suddenly appear then you shouldn't be playing around with your gun, reloading it when you don't need to. You're WAY more likely to get shot because your gun isn't working when you need it than you are because you dumped a partially loaded mag that you could have otherwise retained.
BUT, if you DID choose to do something as ill-advised as to take your gun out of the fight when you didn't need to, you should reload as rapidly as possible rather than taking extra time to get your gun back up and running again.
This is part of the contradiction.
If the situation is so critical that retaining half a magazine is actually likely to make the difference between life and death, then it's also so critical that taking your gun out of the fight when you don't have to doesn't make sense.
This is what I've been trying to get across. The doctrine of the tactical reload demands that there is a threat (so you can't waste even a single round) but that there's also not a threat (so it doesn't matter if you reload when you don't have to and take more time doing it than necessary) . It should be done when the situation is so critical that you can't afford to drop a partially loaded mag for fear of running out of ammunition before the scenario can be resolved and yet it's not critical and therefore you can afford to take the gun out of the fight even though it's not absolutely necessary to do so and then use up more time getting it running again than is actually required.
Justifying the tac-reload requires that contradictory circumstances exist simultaneously.
Ugh. Too much overthinking for something simple.
Accuracy has nothing to do with it since we cannot control the initial circumstances of the fight, though it behooves the shooter to avoid missing. However, the bad guy(s) get a say in the outcome, so misses are going to happen.
Reloading is dictated by the urgency and tactics. A tactical reload is not appropriate when bullets are incoming. A tactical reload should be performed when no immediate danger is evident. It should not be performed when holding someone at gunpoint, when moving to cover, or performing some other action that requires your full attention while the possibility of lethal force is imminent.
Accuracy has nothing to do with it since we cannot control the initial circumstances of the fight, though it behooves the shooter to avoid missing. However, the bad guy(s) get a say in the outcome, so misses are going to happen.
Reloading is dictated by the urgency and tactics. A tactical reload is not appropriate when bullets are incoming. A tactical reload should be performed when no immediate danger is evident. It should not be performed when holding someone at gunpoint, when moving to cover, or performing some other action that requires your full attention while the possibility of lethal force is imminent.
zombietactics
New member
The logic of this is iron-clad and inescapable, given the arguments offered. nicely done.
Well, I don't know that I'd go that far. I can envision a situation where there MAY be another threat, but you don't know if/when it will present itself. In that case, I would want a topped-off firearm and not be magazine out for very long.
...still, I'd favor reload with retention over two mags in my weak hand at the same time.
...still, I'd favor reload with retention over two mags in my weak hand at the same time.
zombietactics
New member
Without necessarily disagreeing, I'd phrase it differently: I can envision a situation where I believe the fight is over, but acknowledge that I could be wrong. I don't think I'll need more rounds, but acknowledge that I might nonetheless.
In such a case, "topping off" makes sense, and I have time to do so without risk, assuming I've gained some combination of distance, cover and/or concealment ... or other circumstances convince me I am safe to do so.
While I have my own preferences, if the above is true, I don't think it especially matters what technique one uses, as long as it isn't fumbling or unusually slow.
Last edited:
Derbel McDillet
Moderator
I simply mentioned it as a hazard I wish to avoid. I wasn’t the one who made a big issue out of it. I merely explained my rationale when asked.
I’ve witnessed full/partially full magazines burst apart when dropped onto a hard surface. That’s my experience. So it goes to reason that if I want to top off my gun and retain the partially full magazine that I just removed from it then I’m not going to use a technique in which I drop it onto the floor/concrete/asphalt. I’m going to simply perform a Tactical Reload.
The incidents I’ve witnessed have happened when the magazine was accidentally dropped, either during training or other (non-emergency) times when it was being handled.
I randomly put a dummy cartridge in every magazine I use during training. When my pistol doesn’t fire I automatically tap/rack (well, I actually tap/roll & rack). So I’ve conditioned myself to perform tap/roll & rack every time my pistol fails to fire. It's ingrained. I perform it very quickly without thought (Observe-Act).
Why do I tap/roll & rack first? Because it will quickly clear the majority of stoppages I may encounter.
If the magazine release got bumped when I was sitting in a car, in a restaurant, at the movie theater, or while I was rolling around on the ground in a scuffle, then tap/roll & rack will reseat the magazine, load a cartridge in the chamber and the pistol is ready to fire.
If the cartridge in the chamber is defective and fails to fire then tap/roll & rack will extract and eject that cartridge and load a fresh one and the pistol is ready to fire.
If I experience a stovepipe then tap/roll & rack will, more times than not, clear the spent case from the action and the pistol is ready to fire. (Sometimes tap/roll & rack will induce a doublefeed.)
If my grip on the pistol is compromised (maybe my hands are wet/bloody and the pistol shifts in my grip) and I inadvertently engage the slide lock then tap/roll & rack will get the gun running.
If I experience a feeding failure then tap/roll & rack will, more times than not, clear the failure and the pistol is ready to fire.
If I’ve emptied the magazine and the slide failed to lock open on the last shot then tap/roll & rack will lead me to a Combat Reload more quickly than diagnosing the stoppage.
If there’s low light/no light then tap/roll & rack will clear these stoppages without me having to look at or feel the gun to diagnose why it stopped.
Tap/roll & rack is performed in the blink of an eye. If I’ve emptied the magazine or experienced a doublefeed then tap/roll & rack doesn’t allow me to become preoccupied with my gun. I know my next immediate action is going to take more time and effort. If tap/roll & rack fails then it triggers me to immediately move off the X (or take a different defensive measure) when the situation requires.
Tap/roll & rack is one immediate action that quickly clears many problems. When the unexpected happens it’s much faster than diagnosing the problem or performing a Combat Reload.
“Robust” means the technique is unaffected by changes in conditions.
It is unreliable. It is not robust.
I’ve been training with Jeff since 2001. You can find it in his book: Combative Fundamentals: An Unconventional Approach - http://www.amazon.com/Combative-Fun...id=1385215106&sr=1-1&keywords=jeff+gonzales#_
That’s an El Presidente drill with defined reloads.
That’s a Navy drill with defined reloads.
But did you notice that Jeff operates the charging handle after the reload just as he would operate the slide on a pistol?
That’s a commercial where tap/rack would distract from the product being presented.
I’ve researched many others’ manipulation techniques and Jeff’s are the most well thought out and robust. I’ve also tried to improve on Jeff’s manipulation techniques myself and I keep reaching the same conclusion – Jeff’s technique is the best.
Combative manipulations are all about tactics. If they’re not integrated with your other actions then you’ve simply cobbled together a bunch of stuff.
Tap/rack gets you off the X more quickly than diagnosing your pistol. Tap/rack can also get you back into the fight more quickly than diagnosing your pistol.
Many people confuse “quickness” with “speed”.
“Fast is slow. Slow is smooth, smooth is quick.” -- Navy SEAL adage.
Of course I’d like to do things as fast as possible. But I prefer to use techniques that don’t fall apart under stress when the unexpected happens in a variety of conditions.
Derbel McDillet
Moderator
I perform a Tactical Reload and drive-on in less time than it takes to for you to read this sentence - it’s THAT simple.
I agree. Pay attention now – “WHEN TIME AND SITUATION PERMIT I MAY PERFORM A TACTICAL RELOAD…”.
There may be uncertainty. That means it’s a judgment call depending on the circumstances.
Derbel McDillet
Moderator
You got that right!
Deaf Smith
New member
Uh, that is IF the 'doctrine' is what you say it is.
The tac-load is best if you have a lower capacity gun, such as a 1911 .45 or single stack 9mm. Those with 15 to 20 shot weapons don't need to worry so much.
Jeff Cooper's tac-load was there because he was a 1911 man, and most of the time he carried just a single spare mag. Thus ammo conservation played on his mind and the 'doctrine' of the tac-load.
And as military people have found ever since firearms have been used, topping off ones weapon before advancing and not being ABSOLUTELY SURE there is no more threats, is a wise idea.
Add that and the lower capacity handguns and one sees why they want to keep the remaining rounds.
And that is why the tac-load is a valid concept.
If you are behind cover after a confrontation and you decide to break cover, then it is wise to top off your weapon regardless if you know there is a threat or not. And if your weapon has a limited capacity, keep the partially spent magazine just in case.
Deaf
zombietactics
New member
It was the first and only reason you initially gave for not wanting to drop a magazine. If it wasn't a big issue, then you've taken a long time getting to that statement.
If you say you've seen it. I'm not going to be the one calling you a liar. I have several decades of not seeing it. Perhaps Bigfoot will be shopping on Black Friday.
Why the long litany regarding malfunction clearances? I've already stated that I am a adherent to the concept of non-diagnostic malfunction clearances. We aren't even talking about a malfunction, but rather the ordinary behavior of a a pistol when it's out of ammo. Noting all the malfunctions which are addressed by this method, says nothing about why you are performing extra, unnecessary steps to reload a gun which is operating correctly.
So you say. Again, you offer no explanation as to why this is so, you simply keep repeating it like some religious mantra. The experience of thousands of people over decades of time indicates that recognizing slide-lock is a trivial skill, easily-learned and presenting no special disadvantages.
If you are the special outlying case where this doesn't work ... fine. Credit goes to you for adapting around your particular issues. I'd never criticize anyone for recognizing that something just doesn't work for them, and opting to do something else.That's not a rationale for trying to convince people that they can't do something which they clearly and demonstrably can do ... reliably.
I'll have to read it again, as I must have missed it. Even so, why does one man's opinion in this regard hold special sway over that of dozens of other similarly experienced individuals?
Soooo ... a technique is taught in class, but then they drill using different techniques? Why would someone want to get reps in "doing it wrong"? Something is horribly inconsistent here ... something about "train how you fight" applies.
Of course, but what's your point in this context? That's how I do it too, and how dozens of instructors teach it. What does it have to do with whether or not one taps/racks in response to bolt or slide-lock?
The first part is just off-topic hand-waving, The second part is silly. You keep pretending that somehow it's being suggested that one should "stop and diagnose". Nobody has suggested any such thing. If you keep harping on "diagnosis", it's reasonable to conclude that you aren't paying attention.
Since mentioned "getting off the X more quickly" (boy are you full of out-of-context jargon), I'd submit that dropping a mag, putting a fresh on in and racking a round into the chamber is quicker than doing all of that plus initially tapping racking.
This assumes that you intuitively recognize slide-lock. I can. Thousands of people can, and demonstrate it regularly. If you can't, then I once again applaud you for working around that problem.
So does the dictionary. This suggests that perhaps you are a little fuzzy about who is exactly "confused" in this respect. It's going to be very difficult to have any kind of discussion if you insist on using words in special ways, with definitions known only to you.
The saying predates the creation of SEAL teams or even UDT.
That'll come in very handy for those special cases where bad guys read that sentence before trying to kill you. I sure HOPE it takes you less time than I can read that sentence!
Last edited:
zombietactics
New member
Derbel McDillet:
I think it's possible to clear up some things pretty easily if you'd work with me on a brief "thought experiment". If nothing else, it would clear up my understanding of your reasoning, and/or perhaps your understanding of mine.
I've read Jeff Gonzalez' book, but I don't want to put words in your mouth. Since you've trained with him and I have not, can you explain to me how Jeff (and presumably you) clear a Type3 malfunction? I'm assuming it starts with a tap-rack, but what do you do then?
I think it's possible to clear up some things pretty easily if you'd work with me on a brief "thought experiment". If nothing else, it would clear up my understanding of your reasoning, and/or perhaps your understanding of mine.
I've read Jeff Gonzalez' book, but I don't want to put words in your mouth. Since you've trained with him and I have not, can you explain to me how Jeff (and presumably you) clear a Type3 malfunction? I'm assuming it starts with a tap-rack, but what do you do then?
Last edited:
Well, everything is a judgement call depending on the circumstances. What I'm talking about, in particular, is "practical" competitions which force competitors to tac-reload while threats still exist--while under the gun/on the clock. That and trainers who teach the tac-reload as if it's a reasonable option during a civilian deadly threat scenario.
In reality, it might be a reasonable option AFTER a deadly threat scenario or perhaps between the clear end of one and the beginning of another, but it is never a reasonable option DURING a civilian deadly threat scenario.
Right. I agreed in an earlier post that a tac-reload can make sense in a military situation. As civilians we don't get to rely on cover from professionally trained/armed persons with whom we have practiced and worked. In addition, the occasions where we make a conscious decision to advance on a second deadly threat after having already resolved one (or to voluntarily re-engage after disengaging) are not only rare but are potentially problematic from both a legal and tactical standpoint.
IMO, the only reason tac-reloads have lasted as long as they have within the civilian community is because they are a carryover from military (where they make sense) and, to a lesser extent, from the LEO community (where they might make sense in some circumstances).
That's probably why we see folks like Shawn, and others with an LE background, acting as strong advocates for the procedure.
- Status