"Pactical" and "tactical" are two of the most nonsensical words out there, for a pretty simple reason...it's a moving target, not an absolute. Tell the Marine in Iraq using a competition-derived Aimpoint red-dot sight that red-dot optics are not "tactical." Oh, tell one of the top counterterrorist guys in the world, who uses a tiny "competition" red-dot sight on his working Glock, that it's not "practical."
While you're at it, you might want to tell some of the team guys Over There that the modular-framed, high-capacity "raceguns" they're carrying (in a weird 9 X 23 caliber, no less) are neither "tactical" or "practical" — I mean, why would you want to carry a light, 100% reliable, 20-round mag handgun in a caliber that will blow right through your average desert terrorist's improvised armor when you could be carrying a "practical and tactical" issue Beretta in an inadequate caliber with magazines that occasionally seize when they're sandy???
here's a flash — "practical" and "tactical" in the Real World are WHATEVER WORKS. And WHATEVER WORKS BETTER TODAY is going to replace whatever worked yesterday. Yes, the Marines have gone back to 1911 .45s, but it's not because the old warhorse is "tactical" or "practical." It's because the damn things work!
The 9x23mm is a much overloaded .38 Super but without the Super's semi rim. It's similar and based on the case design of other "long" 9mms such as the 9mm Largo(from about the '20s). 9x23 mm design patent held by John Ricco. You get 1550 fps v 1350.
ReplyDeleteSo, in a historical perspective, the good guys are doing the same as they did in the 1930s when they went for a high velocity jacketed .38 to penetrate body armor.
AMEN, Brother Bane!
ReplyDelete