Another short article, this time on the huge confusion between Technique and Tactics.
Technique vs Tactics: Why Science Always WinsMore and more often, in everyday language and within training contexts, the concepts of technique and tactics are confused or even merged. In reality, these two terms express profoundly different dimensions. They may orbit in the same system, but they are distinct planets.
The reasons for this confusion are many. Some are simple, such as a lack of knowledge of the subject. Others are more complex, linked to flawed teaching models, institutional procedures, and the global proliferation of courses delivered by improvised instructors or institutional trainers with limited scientific understanding. Even official certifications often turn out to be empty containers, transmitting not a solid technique but rather errors and bad habits passed on year after year.
One of the main reasons is that in this industry an empirical, superficial, and approximate approach dominates a subject that actually requires method, data, research, and objective validation. The result is continuous contamination, amplified by social media, which spreads misinformation worldwide and devoid of scientific basis. To understand where and why this confusion arises, we must first define both terms clearly.
⸻
TECHNIQUE
Literally, technique is “the set of rules on which the practice of an art, a profession, or any activity is based, whether manual or intellectual, as applied and followed.”
In our field, however, this definition is reductive. When we speak of firearms and human performance, we are referring to a system composed of four fundamental elements: the subject (bio-software and bio-hardware), the instrument (firearm), the target, and the environment.
Technique is the ability to correlate these elements within a scientific matrix. It is method, study, and experimentation. It is the integration of biomechanical, neurocognitive, and physiological processes that transform principles into reproducible actions. It does not derive from military or institutional qualifications, it does not originate in operational contexts, it is not inherited through tradition, and it is not equivalent to sport.
Sport, in fact, represents a specialized declination of technique, heavily indexed and optimized to maximize performance in competition, within a single environment: the shooting range. For as extreme as it may be, sports technique is inevitably bound to the context in which it is created. Pure technique, on the other hand, is universal, transferable, and independent of the environment. It can exist on its own, without any need to be linked to tactics.
⸻
THE GENESIS OF TECHNIQUE
Every technique originates from a neutral matrix, built on two components: bio-software (neurocognition, perception, response times, and information processing) and bio-hardware (biomechanics, body structure, motor capacity).
From this foundation, a four-phase process emerges. 1)The scientific analysis phase, involving the study of physical, physiological, and cognitive principles governing movement.
2)The technical development phase, the codification of gestures into measurable parameters such as angles, timing, pressures, and synchronization.
3) The neuro-motor consolidation phase, where structured repetition transfers technique from the cognitive to the procedural dimension.
4) Finally, the adaptive application phase, the ability to transfer technique to different scenarios without altering its scientific matrix.
This sequence is what makes technique an autonomous science, neutral and independent from external conditioning.
⸻
TACTICS
If technique is science, tactics is its contextual application: “the art of applying the most effective techniques according to circumstances to achieve an objective.”
Tactics are always derivative and cannot exist without solid technique to support them. A firearm held without technique represents nothing more than an ineffective and potentially dangerous correlation between a subject and a complex instrument. Tactics without technique devolve into choreography, visually appealing but operationally void.
Tactics are never universal but always indexed. They depend on terrain, environment, and socio-cultural, religious, or even criminal dynamics. They require contextual knowledge, data, case analysis, and planning ability. They are therefore useful, but subordinate, and entirely dependent on the foundation provided by technique.
⸻
THE PROBLEM OF CONTAMINATION
A recurring issue is the contamination of technique with tactics. This happens in both private/civilian contexts and institutional/military ones.
In institutional domains, the confusion often arises from equating technique with procedures. Instead of adapting procedures to technique, technique is forced into procedures, producing incompatibilities that result in operational inefficiency.
In the private and civilian sphere, the problem is even clearer. Tactics allow for an empirical, superficial, and easily accessible approach. They require no scientific knowledge and no objective validation. A YouTube channel is often enough to proclaim oneself an instructor, spreading improbable tactics and passing them off as effective techniques. The result is a saturated sector, filled with improvised methods that create illusions rather than true competence.
Being a certified law enforcement instructor or a military operator does not guarantee the possession of solid technique. Technique is not measured in ranks or titles but in verifiable data such as neuro-feedback and bio-feedback. Over more than two decades of experience worldwide, I have personally witnessed “high speed guys” perform as amateurs. The reason is simple: technique does not depend on labels, but on scientific creation, structure, and validation.
⸻
Conclusions
Technique is science, structure, and foundation.
Tactics are contextual application, adaptation, and planning.
The first is universal and autonomous, the second is contingent and derivative.
To confuse the two is to compromise training and operational efficiency. The principle remains clear and immutable: tactics cannot exist without technique, while technique can and must exist without tactics.
Technique cannot be faked. Either you possess it, or you do not.
⸻
Scientific References
• Schmidt, R. A., & Lee, T. D. (2019). Motor Learning and Performance. Human Kinetics.
• Magill, R. A., & Anderson, D. (2017). Motor Learning and Control: Concepts and Applications. McGraw-Hill.
• Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Ericsson, K. A., et al. (1993). The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance. Psychological Review.
• LeDoux, J. (1996). The Emotional Brain. Simon & Schuster.
• Nibbeling, N., Oudejans, R. R., & Daanen, H. A. (2014). Effects of anxiety on handgun shooting behavior of police officers. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 27(2).
• Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.
