VIDEO: How to be Tacticool

Movie/Documentary Recommedations
February 8, 2014
Check out the Class Schedule
February 9, 2014

H/T to SP, via email.

Humor.

Don’t watch if you are easily offended, Β or lack a sense of humor, including towards girls in bikinis! πŸ™‚

 

Now, where is my multicam operators cap? πŸ˜‰

Till Valhalla!

Max

35 Comments

  1. Burt Gummer says:

    Love it.
    Of course that that 1911 was not real or he’s would have just truned it into a SBR (the ATF are not known for there sense of humor).

  2. D Close says:

    I think we just found our first assistant instructor. Yes, the blonde…Max, seriously, consider it. I have an extra Multicam cap if anyone needs.

  3. Skittles says:

    I have a multicam cap…. i love that thing πŸ™ however i second the notion of the blonde being an AI.

  4. ApoloDoc says:

    Funny stuff, especially after I just posted on the class thread about groupies. Personally I would prefer the female groupies to have their natural hair color and natural ‘body parts’, but I am obviously out of step with this culture.

    NOBODY tosses a DWARF! You’re okay Skittles…

    • Thomas says:

      I bet you run iron sights on your M4!

      Enhancements can be good.

      • D Close says:

        Now that was funny.

      • ApoloDoc says:

        Enhancements…yes, like working out, eating well, occasionally getting outside when the weather is sunny. These all incorporate the natural features of the Designer. The more than man screws around with “improving stuff”, the more problems we contend with. GMO crops, anyone?

        I could write a lengthy post relating that idea to why most of us are even on this site and training with Max. A corollary to that relates to population density: the more people you put in a geographic area, the worse they think and act. Look at the beliefs and behaviors of people in rural areas and contrast that with what you see in suburban areas and then in urban areas. The more people per square mile, the worse we get.

        And no, I don’t use iron sights. As I have gotten older my near vision has deteriorated so much that I can’t focus up close. I have even been playing around with a micro red dot on my XDm. Technology can be great. Just think carefully about the why of the proposed tech. Consider that there is a difference of function vs. some bizarre ‘fad’ notion of aesthetics.

        I mean get serious…how badly will that screw up her ability to properly wear body armor? Think of the problem that causes for spacing when performing a tacticool stack. They aren’t even rated for Level II penetration πŸ˜‰

        • Max Velocity says:

          Really? Are we even sure they are ‘enhanced’? Looks like a healthy girl within normal limits to me….

          • ApoloDoc says:

            Contours are all wrong. Far too clearly delineated. Also, there are VERY few women who are genetically designed to have a low enough body fat for that abdomen & rib appearance AND still have that much breast tissue. At the least with body fat that low, natural breasts would have far more ‘blurred’ contours at the boundaries. Look at the contour underneath. That is a DEAD give away.

            100:1 odds against …

          • Max Velocity says:

            I think we officially went ‘off topic’!

          • rob says:

            Seriously…we’re really havin this discussion?

          • Eric says:

            I am with ApoloDoc on this one…

            with his handle, I am sure he must be a medical professional, and knows what he’s talking about. Even to the untrained eye, those things are much too symmetrical and perfectly round, and firm, and, and, never mind.

          • Max Velocity says:

            Yes, we really went there…

          • D Close says:

            Because of Apolodoc’s comment, I spent another 30-60 minutes studying the movie and other screenshots I took. He may be right. I’m still studying. Very interesting tacticool points being raised…

          • Thomas says:

            ApoloDoc and Max,

            I have a serious question because age has blurred my near vision. I am a carbine shooter so sight radius should be considered in this question. What I want to consider is can shooters with near vision problems effectively engage targets with a rifle when suffering degraded eyesight and without using corrective eye wear?

            The proper sight picture brings into focus the front sight while the target and rear appiture are blurred. Sight radius should come into play. Probability of hit would likely drop some.

            I would expect that if the sight radius were long enough to allow the shooter to focus on the front post, target acquisition and engagement should be only moderately affected.

            What do you think?

            I have trained marksmanship in third world countries. What I found was that poor diet led to poor eyesight. But that was different from Presbyopia, which is my problem.

          • Max Velocity says:

            I don’t know.
            Straight up.
            Get a bifocal optic?
            Sorry!
            Anyone who does know, chime in – this is important because ‘military aged males’ of the freefor type have redefined the age category to include grumpy old men.
            Witness the lechery over Sara on the tacticool video, as evidence.
            Heh πŸ˜‰

          • Grumpy Old Man says:

            W/respect to old man eyes (I have them), I use a red dot and also use bifocal safety glasses (can’t read sh*t w/o them). You can get them from many online occupational safety equipment websites. My sight picture w/ irons gets progressively more blurry, but can still get hits. I just accept the blur and do the best I can (or use a red dot or scope).

            P.S. Definitely inflatables on the pretty girl in the video (not that that is necessarily a bad thing….)

  5. Diz says:

    That is some funny shit.

    He left out MARSOC cuz they were out training getting HARD.

    • Eric says:

      My eye doctor told me that I could use my contacts, (-1.25) with +1.0 reading glasses and would be somewhat of a compromise. I would guess that you could get shooting or sunglasses in a +1.0 prescription as well.

      • Thomas says:

        True, Oakley and others will produce corrective lenses for shooters that fit their interchangeable frames. Vets can get them for a reduced cost. So it is possible, now, to get clear and tinted lenses.

        What I want to do is use the irons and red dot optics without corrective lenses. Technically, if near vision is good enough, the shooter should be able to clearly see the front sight post or dot clearly enough to make good hits. This becomes critical to a shooter whose corrective lenses are broken or lost.

        I need glasses to read most documents. That means map details, compass faces and such are difficult to see in daylight and impossible to see at night. While age limits our vision, it should not stop us from functioning all together. I want to learn to compensate for reduced vision without corrective lenses.

        • Joseph Fahy says:

          Thomas, red dots work very well for people with distance vision which requires no correction. I am farsighted. Red dots, without a diopter correcting 3x or 4x magnifier, or my glasses, are a blur as the red dots focus out at “infinity”, not really but O(100yds), where I need distance correction.

          The problem I have had with glasses is when trying to use them from the prone position. My experience is that the new fashion of small lenses which yield a smaller sweet spot for distance correction, requires that I change my cheekweld to accomodate my glasses. It ends up being pretty difficult and very fatiguing. Bifocals, which I have tried, were worse for me.

          Helen used to wear “Progressive” lenses, and found that she was constantly moving her head searching for the sweet spot of the lens to look through. In the process she lost her cheekweld.

          With a scoped bolt rifle, I don’t wear any correction or protection. I use the scope diopter correction and have one less piece of glass between me and my target. Semiauto rifles, I use eyepro with a correction insert. They are Revision brand and the correction is only for distance, no bifocal. The lens size and the snug fit of the goggles has not been a problem when going prone. Helen has done the same.

          Our Optometrist did encourage us to measure the distance to the front sight post, and she would correct to that distance. Between rifles and handguns, the standard distance correction worked for us, with no need to customize for firearms.

          For the near portion of my vision, I do have some prescription readers, but I find that the cheap dime-store magnifier glasses work just about as well.

          Joe

          • Thomas says:

            I think I am going to go the Oakley route and get corrective shooting glasses for clear and tinted lenses.

            Thank you for the input. Your comments were very helpful.

  6. rob says:

    Now that’s F’n funny…

  7. RobRoySimmons says:

    Well after watching a few of their videos and the Costa video whatever your opinion of them it can be said at least “we” are becoming media makers not takers.

    As for the eternal question of the young lady’s primary identifying things I’m going to do the unthinkable and politely ask.

  8. LoL
    I saw this yesterday, and immediately thought “now here’s on for Max”. I almost sent the link over- glad you found it on your own… πŸ˜›

    As for the boobage- my vote is for “enhanced”- they’re too tight and to roundly defined at her chest.

  9. Chuck says:

    After observing the “Squirrel!” effect of the attractive and shapely young woman on this blog thread, I’ve decided that sending a bikini clad woman ahead of your patrol would be a very effective counter ambush technique. The OPFOR would be so distracted you could probably walk straight through the kill zone unscathed before they even noticed.