Tactical Reloads--some common sense...

[zombietactics]

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.

... 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.

The logic of this is iron-clad and inescapable, given the arguments offered. nicely done.

[raimius]

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.

[zombietactics]

I can envision a situation where there MAY be another threat, but you don't know if/when it will present itself.

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.

[Derbel McDillet]

Perhaps you should not state all that stuff about bursting mags, over-n-over, if that's not your concern.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

“Robust” means the technique is unaffected by changes in conditions.

Recognizing slide-lock is a trivial, basic skill.

It is unreliable. It is not robust.

Care to document where he advocates tap/rack on slide-lock?

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-Fund...eff+gonzales#_

It doesn't look something they teach in their class. Notice the number of side-lock relaods absent even a hint of TAP/RACK:

That’s an El Presidente drill with defined reloads.

I think you said something about skills that are common between your handgun and rifle, so ....

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?

And golly jee ... here's Jeff himself just pulling that empty mag out and replacing it with nary a TAP/RACK in sight.

That’s a commercial where tap/rack would distract from the product being presented.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

If you're in a situation where you reasonably expect danger to suddenly appear then you shouldn't be playing around with your gun…

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]

Ugh. Too much overthinking for something simple.

You got that right!

[Deaf Smith]

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.

... 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.

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]

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.

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.

I’ve witnessed full/partially full magazines burst apart when dropped onto a hard surface.

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.

It is unreliable. It is not robust.

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’ve been training with Jeff since 2001. You can find it in his book: Combative Fundamentals: An Unconventional Approach

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?

That’s an El Presidente drill with defined reloads ...
... That’s a Navy drill with defined reloads.

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.

But did you notice that Jeff operates the charging handle after the reload just as he would operate the slide on a pistol?

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?

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.

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.

Many people confuse “quickness” with “speed”.

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.

“Fast is slow. Slow is smooth, smooth is quick.” -- Navy SEAL adage.

The saying predates the creation of SEAL teams or even UDT.

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.

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!

[zombietactics]

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?

[JohnKSa]

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.

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.

And as military people have found ever since firearms have been used, topping off ones weapon before advancing...

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.

[RBid]

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.

This reeks so strongly of truth that I am almost choking in my chair.

[Deaf Smith]

Scenario:

You are in a stop-n-rob at 2 AM. 2 punks (you think there are just 2 punks) enter the store with mask and guns. One of 'em starts to shove his gun under your nose.

Fearing for your life you slap his gun aside as you draw and shoot. Moving toward cover you engage the second one. Both of them are down and hors de combat.

After about a minute, with nothing else moving, you decide to break cover and check the scene. Since you armed with a Kahr PM40 with 6 shot mag, you do a tac-load before breaking cover. You perform it with your eyes up and scanning the surrounding (the tac-load is done by feel and memory.)

Now you have a fully loaded Kahr and 2 or 3 shots in the partially spent magazine as you leave cover.

And that is what the tac-load is for.

Deaf

[JohnKSa]

If you're sure there's no one else (and I don't know how you could possible be sure) then do whatever you want. Go to the bathroom to change your shorts, reload while standing on your head, take a drink directly from the slurpee machine.

If you're not sure that the situation is over, stay behind cover, don't play around with your gun unless it's empty and needs to be reloaded and either call the police or wait for the clerk to call the police. Unlike the typical CHL/CCW holder, the police are trained to and get paid to check the scene after a shooting to see if there is another armed punk hiding behind the potato chip display. The officer responding will have a bullet proof vest and an armed partner to provide cover. You will have neither.

In other words, the scenario has the defender doing LE work--clearing the scene in this case. That (or a military-type mission) will be a common theme in any scenario where a tac-reload even makes a little bit of sense.

[James K]

All of which goes to show that one can always come up with a scenario to explain and justify any response to anything.

Jim

[Frank Ettin]

And that seems just the right note on which to end the discussion.