It’s not neccisarily what the military in general wear.
There’s a particular aesthetic drawn from Special Forces and supposed black ops “operators” that has become a thing. Especially influenced by prominent former military who present themselves as such (true or not), Chris Kyle being the big celebrity of that sort.
It involves longer hair, beards, and non-standard military dress. Typically T-shirts and baseball hats, cargo pants. It’s a casually militarized looked, rooted in the looser standards of military and intelligence staff acting as advisors in places we’re not full on deployed to. Or (supposedly) off the books stuff in ultra manly places.
It’s had some pull among actual military members when off duty or after they leave. But the far right and antigovernment sets have adopted it heavily, and are absolutely obsessed with the swirling sea of macho bull around it.
I mean hell that camo cap with it’s thick raised American Flag is a direct pull from military caps, where there is a big ole Velcro patch on the front to accommodate various patches. Often filled with a flag patch from their fatigues.
We probably have stacks of them in the basement from my brother. Who stopped wearing them a bit before he took a medical retirement from the Army last year. Apparently they’d caused a couple of people to assume he was in a militia.
If muted colors is a “military aesthetics” to you, then ok. But I think that says something about you, more than the world at large. I don’t think the Army has a monopoly on “olive drab”. This look is common aesthetic you can find in Target, Kohls, and other normal retailers, as well as places that sell outdoor and camping gear. Plenty of people wear it who don’t even own firearms. (further thoughts on this to another reply below).
Does he? Do they? I had no idea if I put on a grey or olive drab shirt it meant I wanted to be perceived as a solider. Certainly this statement is true for SOME people. But not ALL, and I’d argue not the majority.
What other things can you deduce by the way people dress?
This is why I don’t watch most youtube gun channels, they are mostly entertainment “what happens when we shoot X with Y”. Or worse, a video going on 10x too long on some sort of kit they like or don’t like. The only one I listen to with any regularity is Forgotten Weapons because I will learn a bit of history and how things work, generally. Youtube is helpful with taking things apart, and putting them back together.
Fun fact, that little Gatling gun is made by one of the Tippmanns. They made a neat little scaled down M2 that shot .22lr, whose business was shuttered after the 1986 FOPA that didn’t allow new machine guns to be registered. They went on to be hugely successful in paintball, making the Tippmann 98 among others which were known as true workhorses; often they were rental guns. I believe some of the sons went on to make this as well as replicas of the old rolling block single shot rifles.
The hardest part would be sourcing or making the projectile. Tungsten is hard to work with and making the sabot. Though as I said up thread, it is possible someone got a hold of projectiles and then some brass and put it together.
But yes, there are hundreds of obsolete or obscure rounds that aren’t made any more. But MOST of them can be created using the proper parent brass, the right dies, and cutting/shaping them down to size. The projectiles, for the most part, can be sourced from modern ones, or in the worst case, can be custom cast out of lead. There is a whole subset of people who find old/rare guns or guns in old/rare calibers, and get them working again with correct ammo. And wildcatters. Wildcatters are the ballistics nerds of firearms. They have an idea for a new ammo, cut and shape the brass, get a barrel made for that dimension, and then go work up a load that shoots well. If it works well and people like it, they can create a new SAAMI listed round.
I don’t believe there is an regulation military baseball style hat, nor one with an open patch. The closest thing is a patrol cap, but they don’t have velcro IIRC. But yes, you can find people wearing non-regulation gear on active duty. And certainly many people selling such hats have either military or patriotic themes.
You’re probably right that such images proliferated that style - but there were people dressing that way before the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And even though that look as proliferated into popular culture - origins of fashion do not mean anyone using that fashion has any direct link to that origin. (i.e. not everyone wearing muted colors and a hat with a patch wants to be a soldier) And I contend a simple shirt, hat, pants is not “tacticool”. Open up a Bud K catalog and start adding accessories, or a vest and helmet, and then I’d agree.
Lots of things people wear today got their start from prison or gang fashions, punk, retro, sports teams, etc etc. Am I supposed to assume anyone wearing certain fashions are doing so because they are this or that? Or want to be? It is ridiculous. For a site that typically reminds people not to lump in everyone with stereotypes (like not all southerners are racists hicks), I find it pretty funny some people are quick to lump everyone in to categories based on dress.
What does a futuristic style, non-military camo hat with a patch say about me? I want to be a solider? A soldier from the future? An inter-stellar bounty hunter? A samurai? Does it say Star Wars nerd or Militia member? Am I cool? What if I swap in an American flag? Do I become something else suddenly? I will probably let my beard get bushy again this winter - will I be an operator then?
I don’t really need an answer, as I don’t care. I wear it because I like it.
Thanks. TBH I keep thinking about it and going back and editing it more. I’m pretty much at the point where I think the hardened cap acted as a broach and sheared the threads off the breech.
If someone is faking it, they’re not selling it into a military procurement system that “will hunt you down, and will find you”, they’re selling to people like this, or the ones stockpiling it for the day that they have to hold off a US light armor company.
The proliferation of the “operator” look has been widely commented on. In two separate streams. Criticizing the military for slightly adopting some of it’s elements, and the unofficial proliferation of it among soldiers. Most recently the Airforce seems to have officially allowed such ball caps in uniform. They’re explicitly referred to as Tactical caps and “operator caps” in military circles. I do not believe there is an official adopted version of any of them, but they are popular among enlisted soldiers and directly derived from hats worn by special forces.
They’ve become increasingly common among Police as well, and from there have jumped to a major thing in the Blue Lives Matter horse shirt. Black versions with the Blue Line Flag have become very common.
So the other major stream of criticism is the expanding marketing of it to the general public, and it’s particular popularity as a social marker on the far right. Which is often explicitly predicated on their tactical nature, and is deepest in militia and hate groups.
It might be better to read up on it. Rather than deploying dogwhistles or what about mentions of gangs and prison.
I would say maybe, it’s certainly signaling something even if you’re not clear on what. But aside from the fact that that hat is resolutely not the same thing as the specific kind of hat that guy is wearing. Which is a very specific hat.
That Boba Fett hat is pretty obviously a good example of the deliberate marketing of this aesthetic and the ideas around it to the general public. Which is itself disturbing. And is likewise typically targeted at a white, red state demographic that is disproportionately interested in some of these same ideas.
There is a metric shit ton of difference between stereotyping people on dress. And identifying documented shibboleths, in particular those increasingly associated with hate groups.
Shirt, hat, pants might not be “tacticool”. But specific hats, pants, and shirts sure as shit are.
Just because you don’t know what it means. Does not not mean it doesn’t mean something.
It has all the “fun” things like guns, tacticool gear, combat LARPing, and hero fantasy. In these guys’ world, everybody gets to be special forces without needing to earn it, or gets to play PMC.
There’s none of the “not fun” stuff like inflexible and harshly enforced rules and regulations, forced conformity, discipline, chain of command, rules of engagement, and getting shot at for real.
I don’t even know what to say to that. Of course olive and khaki clothing come from the military and if you wear them in civilian life you want to associate yourself with that culture. How can that be disputed? Are you saying if I wear a business suit I don’t want to associate myself with business culture? If I wear a leather jacket with spikes I don’t want people to think of me as connected to punk?
A whole lot. Signalling identities and status are one of the main functions of clothing.
ETA:
Really, what our exchange has shown me is that there is a deep cultural disconnect between us. As an outsider looking in I can see maybe more easily how deeply steeped in military symbolism US culture is. Maybe you’re so used to it that you really don’t perceive it that way, but for example when you say hunters use camo as well and its use is therefore not military virtue signalling I will say that the hunting aesthetic in the US also goes back to military worship.
This isn’t what hunters, even American hunters, used to look like:
I have several pairs of olive drab and camo shorts just because I like the way they look and from a purely practical stance they are good at hiding stains and wear ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (and I hate shopping for clothes). It has nothing to do with associating with military or hunting culture.
But you do realise that you are still being associated with that in the eyes of other people when you wear them, right? Maybe not by all of them (see my above point about the normalisation of such clothing) but certainly by some.
On the other hand, their record in the case described suggests that it’s a dick move with useful military applications; but minimal standard gun violence potential compared to either small caliber semiautomatic rifles or to pistols.
The damage to morale caused by the constant knowledge that someone a fair distance away might try to kill you, and have a fair chance of succeeding even through body armor, light cover, or lightly armored vehicle, appears to have been significant; and they had a lot of people bogged down in trying to hunt them down; but they also killed 9 people in seven years with support from a nontrivial team of collaborators in support roles.
That’s less than you’d see in a handful of minutes in one of the ‘guy with semiautomatic rifle shoots up the place for reasons’ cases; and a pretty low average rate compared to the impact of people having pistols readily to hand when it’s time for rash aggression.
Perhaps I’d feel differently if I were one of the people whose executive protection team transports them around in an up-armored SUV; but in my capacity as a squishy random person of no particular interest I strongly suspect that I’d be safer if the domestic gun supply skewed far more in the direction of ‘heavy, cumbersome, expensive and relatively slow firing; though very hard hitting’ and far less toward the various cheap and very convenient or quite rapid firing and fairly ergonomic; all frequently hard-enough hitting stuff we have now.
Yup, completely intentional and relevant to the discussion IMO. There was actually a BB post a while back about the video series sampled in this track:
The “Guns” companion track to “Now” from my earlier post is “Then”, which harkens back to the “good old days” brought about by the fantasy of the Wild West perpetuated by Wayne, Reagan, Eastwood, and others. Also relevant to the discussion here given the laments I’ve seen in this topic about how gun culture now isn’t “like it used to be”:
