Tactical Pants - A rip-off or do they improve tactical ability?

I'm probably not gonna gain any new friends with this opinion piece...but as someone who has trained and worked "tactically" in jeans, trainers and a t-shirt, for most of their career, I'm inclined to say that the tactical "style", the military "look", the operator-type "fashion", is probably one of the worst things to have happened to the tactical training industry.

Let me say one thing, before I start - Tactics are sets of procedures that are taught. To move "tactically" is to move using these tactics. To be "tactical" (moving or thinking) is to be mindful of these tactics, when moving or planning - Tactics/tactical/tactically - have no place in the fashion industry.

On our website, in the "clothing required" section, we tell people:

"...Please avoid wearing expensive clothing on the range as there is a risk of it being ripped, torn and/or damaged..."

The only caveat to that, is when we are training units/organizations, who have an operational dress-code.

So why are people paying, in excess of, $200 for a pair of tactical pants? What do they do? What benefit do they have? What do they provide the wearer with, in terms of improving their tactical training threshold, that a cheap pair of jeans, do not?

Or...

Has it got absolutely nothing to do with training to a higher standard, and more to do with appearing that you do? Looking as if you do, because of the pants you're wearing?

Every single tactical pant advert I see, on instagoogletweetface, has the wearer taking part in some sort of "tactical" activity, on a range. I understand what the subliminal message is - "...wear these pants and you'll be a better operator..." and it is a very clever, and successful, marketing approach

However, is that message, even close to being true? Does it make a person "better" when they are training tactically? Do they make a shooter a better or faster shot? Do they make a breacher a more efficient breacher? Does wearing them, mean that a person will miraculously, absorb training information better/quicker?

Surely, what makes a person better at all of that, is the training they receive? Not the clothing they wear, whilst receiving it? Or am I completely missing something?

Now, I'm not talking about military personnel here ok? They already have their own issued, role-specific clothing - I'm talking about the ex-military, the ex-cops, and civilians, who, for various reasons, buy into the "tacticool" lifestyle - the military combat "look" - just add beard and a military-style, grab-bag, for a more fully authentic effect.

Not only is this "style" a regular occurrence on most ranges, it is also a freakishly regular occurrence in the street or at airport departure gates and airport bars.

***Back in the good old, bad old days, I can remember seeing security contractors cutting around Dubai Airport, on their way home, still wearing their fire retardant flight suits, complete with patches on the arm, and desert boots - they wore it to look tacticool; so that everyone would look at them and go "....Ooooooooh, he must be a special something...". The reality of what everyone was thinking, was probably somewhat different.***

A quick look on the internet will confirm just how exploited the "tactical look" has become:

• Practical Tactical - not sure what that means.
• Tactical Patrol Pants - for patrolling only? Or for other uses? Who knows.
• Non-Tactical Tactical Pants - Yep, that's a thing - the semi-non-tac-tactical pant.
• Professional Tactical - For Tier 1, steely-eyed killer types only - not you non-tactical, practical, tactical patrol, pant wearing amateurs.

Most tactical pants have multiple pockets and ultra durable hooks and rings - this is sold as a good thing. But why?

In the same way that having a bigger rucksack, will generally result in the packing of absolutely non-essential items - having multiple pockets in tactical pants, generally forces the wearer to pack them full of stuff that they do not need nor will they ever use - knife, spare knife, knife sharpener, spare knife sharpener, gerber, "tactical" pen-torch (sorry...couldn't resist), and all manner of other "stuff" hooked onto the handy hooks: tactical gloves etc.

Anyway, back to the point - am I going to buy a $250.00 pair of tactical pants, and then wear them on the range, doing vehicle extraction drills? Fuck no...

From a "practical" perspective, I'm wearing a cheap pair of trouser/jeans, because I don't want to have to worry about ripping my brand new, $250 master-blaster tactical pants.

From a "training" perspective, it makes absolutely no difference what I'm wearing - what trousers a person wears, does not improve ability - only training does that; the trousers have more to do with style, ego, or being more concerned with looking the part - I have yet to see anyone on the range, improve their tactical ability, because of the trousers they wore.

"...wow, yesterday I wore my old jeans on the range, and today, in my brand spankers-new tactical pants, I feel as if my tactical knowledge and ability has improved..." is a sentence you are not likely to ever hear, unless you already fall for the "...take these diet pills and lose 25kg overnight..." snake oil pitches.

When I lived in rural Scotland, I was a regular, winter hill walker, and would think nothing of spending £500.00 on a puffer jacket, or £300.00 on a certain pair of walking boots or £300.00 on lightweight sleeping bag, and my reason for that was performance, comfort/warmth and safety - I never ever wore denim on the hills, that's a hanging offence (or should be) - so I get the desire to have the "best" gear.

However, my clothing didn't make me a better hill walker (I would hill walk in shorts in the summer)...it was more hill walking made me a better hill walker...steeper inclines made me a better hill walker...progressively increasing the hours spent on the hills, made me a better hill walker...my pants didn't. Plus the fact, hill walking and running, gunning, clambering out of vehicles, scurrying around on the knees, are two entirely different past-times.

I've seen guys train on the range in expensive tactical pants, and throw a wobbler because they get ripped, torn or burnt.

I've seen guys on the range, training in tactical pants, but they wear jeans in their professional capacity - please make that make sense?

In conclusion, feeling good, when training, can definitely have a positive impact on performance - looking good? Well, that's entirely in the eye of the beholder and, from personal observations, as a tactical firearms instructor, has absolutely no impact on the person's performance - the only difference is that the more "tacticool" the gear - the better the photo looks on Tik-Tok, which just results in the beast being fed.

If you wear jeans and trainers in your professional capacity, then wear jeans and trainers when you train. If you wear a suit, shirt and tie, in your professional capacity, then wear that when you train.

Looking cool, has no correlation to improving performance - The only thing that makes a person better, more efficient, better prepared, more skilled, more competent, is training to as close to your "professional" reality as possible - pants lives don't matter.