Double Tap, Triple Tap, or Until Empty


PDA






earlthegoat2
March 4, 2010, 10:35 AM
Every once in a while I am reading on here things that bring up a new idea to my little brain.

During my self guided training sessions I usually triple tap a target before going on to the next. (we are talking handguns here) I am using a 9mm or 38 Special all the time. My question or general point to this thread though is to ask whether this is sound training or should I train for the unlikely event in which I am confronted in a deadly scenario by more than two assailants?

With my 5 shot revolver and a triple tap just done I am down to 2 rounds which will sort out a 2nd assailant but then what about the third? Should I go 1 and 1 and run or should i have gone 2 and 2 and 1 and run or maybe just run?

Anyway, I am curious on the thoughts of other members regarding the double tap, triple tap, or if you just fire until empty.

If you enjoyed reading about "Double Tap, Triple Tap, or Until Empty" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
RippinSVT
March 4, 2010, 10:42 AM
Two shots to center of mass automatically, or until threat is incapacitated. A reload drill might help too.


But you'll get 100 other opinions where people argue over the little details. :)

steveracer
March 4, 2010, 10:43 AM
What I tell my people when conducting small arms training and deadly force training is:
Nobody pays you extra to turn in unfired ammo.
If faced with a threat that needs to be cancelled by shooting, no amount of shooting is ever enough. Controlls pairs might do it, but 17 unsurviveable hits and the bastard might take four minutes to stop fighting. If you run dry, and the smoke clears, reload and wait for the cavalry. NEVER holster an empty gun. NEVER.

silversport
March 4, 2010, 10:51 AM
'til you feel safe again...(written a bit tongue in cheek but I bet you get the idea ;) )
Bill

mcdonl
March 4, 2010, 11:14 AM
If faced with a threat that needs to be cancelled by shooting, no amount of shooting is ever enough.

Ok... what about this... man walks towards you, pulls knife and says I am going to cut you. You pull your gun, shoot him once and he drops the knife and falls down screaming... ok ok... dont kill me.

Do you just go ahead and keep shooting until he is dead?

ambidextrous1
March 4, 2010, 11:55 AM
I don't think so; the threat has been stopped.

Regarding multiple assailants, I favor "Boarding house rules": Everyone gets served once before anyone gets a second helping.

This rule is subject to modification if one of the wounded assailants is getting in your face.

Quoheleth
March 4, 2010, 12:15 PM
Regarding multiple assailants, I favor "Boarding house rules": Everyone gets served once before anyone gets a second helping.

That's classic...deserves to be a sig line somewhere.

Q

Gunfighter123
March 4, 2010, 02:00 PM
The school of thought is to " shoot untill the threat is DOWN " ---- if you have to shoot someone and they are still on their feet -- more then likely , THEY ARE STILL A THREAT.

Now I already see the replies and so ------ IF you shot them and they drop the weapon or stop their life threatening actions --- you would ORDER them to lay prone with hands empty etc. and NOT KEEP SHOOTING THEM till they are down !!!

As to how to "train" ---- you NEED TO VARY IT --- learn to shoot close to far targets , far to close targets , multiple targets { a 3 foot lathe with paper plates spaced out" , left to right , right to left ---- one shot on each target , Mozie Drill 2 to the body and then 1 to the head {BGs do wear BP vests} --- again , be creative in your training.

earlthegoat2
March 4, 2010, 02:29 PM
I understand the shoot to stop philosophy but what about a preemptive shoot to stop by shooting 3 times before surveying whether they have indeed been stopped or not?

possum
March 4, 2010, 03:01 PM
shoot to stop the threat only. in training i don't shoot the same amount of rounds everytime. sometimes it is 2-3, then others it is 4-6 rds. i even do "won't stop drills" which is baasically a faliure to stop, but it consist of 4-6 rds in the high center chest 2-3 rds in the pelvis and then headshots. why the pelvis instead of the head to begin with? the pelvis is bigger, the head moves and bobs, in the context of self defense, there is most likly gonna be innocent bystandards around. plus there is alot of nasty things that run through the pelvic region that will stop the threat from possing leathal threat to you.

when you train change it up, there are to many leo's that have died with 2 rds fired from thier sidearm, and the gun in the holster when they were found. why is that? training, it can hurt you as much as it can help you, draw fire 2 and reholster, the threat hasn't stoped, but they have done it so much that that is what some have done.

same thing in the day of revolvers as issued sidearms. at the range while qualing, when they would fire all thier rounds they would dumb the empty in thier hand then put them in thier pocket so they wouldn't have to bend down to pick up the brass. again several good leo's were found dead after a shoot out with an assaliant with brass in his pockets.

training scares be aware of them and avoid them. take a training course if you can, and i don't mean one of the NRA ones either, that might be a good star, but save your money on that and go to a good school, that teaches the mindset, tactics, and helps you achieve the skills that you need.

Gunfighter123
March 4, 2010, 03:24 PM
I understand the shoot to stop philosophy but what about a preemptive shoot to stop by shooting 3 times before surveying whether they have indeed been stopped or not?

If more then two BGs --- one shot on each COM , and then scan to see who is still a threat.

lions
March 4, 2010, 03:50 PM
Regarding multiple assailants, I favor "Boarding house rules": Everyone gets served once before anyone gets a second helping.

That was what I was going to try to say but I couldn't have said it better.

Just remember in training for this that the threats may not be lined up from left to right by order of severity. It could be center, right, left; right, left, center or any combination of numbers and placement. I was initially caught up in a nice left to right line and thought I was good until I tried going right to left.:(

RyanM
March 4, 2010, 05:38 PM
How many shots it will take is very situational. Someone could remain on their feet and surrender. Or they could fall down, and then keep shooting at you!

The best training would be with some kind of reactive or timed target that falls down after a varying number of shots, but that kind of thing tends to be expensive.

You should also have some kind of plan in mind for if you empty your gun, and the guy is still on his feet.

Silent Bob
March 4, 2010, 06:59 PM
An instructor once told me to fire until they were stopped, however, in the case of a multiple assailants, engage each once, then come back and repeat if necessary.

Old Fuff
March 4, 2010, 07:39 PM
Do remember that in a civilian (as opposed to military) shooting situation you are responsible for each and every shot you fire, and if any of your bullets go astray and cause some “collateral damage,” like a hit on the wrong person you will be up to your neck in serious trouble. In addition if your intended target has too many bullet holes in him the question of summary execution may come to haunt you as an aftereffect. There is some value to the idea that fewer well-placed shots are better then “taps,” regardless of the number. :uhoh:

USAFRetired
March 4, 2010, 07:54 PM
That's why I carry 45ACP. I want that 1st (and maybe only) shot to "show I care enough to send the very best";)

rswartsell
March 4, 2010, 07:54 PM
+1 for Old Fuff (as usual)

blitzen
March 4, 2010, 08:23 PM
If faced with multiple assailants and armed with a 5 shot revolver, I would hope that I'm Jerry Miculek. Since I'm not, I carry a hi cap auto with a spare mag. Something to think about if it's going to keep you up at night!

Old Fuff
March 4, 2010, 08:26 PM
Something to think about if it's going to keep you up at night!

Not to worry, I sleep very well... :)

blitzen
March 4, 2010, 09:05 PM
I don't dought you at all!+1

kingmt
March 4, 2010, 09:23 PM
I have never been in a multiple attacker assault but the way I was trained for it was 2 placed shoots for each target before you move on to the next. If you had a no hit or was unsure of 1 then you gave it a third but then moved on. You also approached the target(s) while firing unlike others that teach you to step backwards.

Reasons: It takes less time to put 2 shoots in each target as you go but you have to move to the next target so don't just keep engaging 1. If you are approaching your target then you are harder to hit & they become easier to hit (I don't know why this is but It is true) & if you are walking backwards then you can't see where you are going. You can cover about 10' in 2 seconds so the attackers can usually be brought into range & it is going to flip them out since you flipped the table on them.

asiparks
March 4, 2010, 09:38 PM
"why did you shoot him 13 times ?"
"because that's all the magazine holds"

From an SAS trooper questioned over shooting IRA member Danny McCann as part of Operation Flavius in '88

as others have said, there's no rhyme or reason to how many rounds a person will take before stopping.

Quadkid
March 4, 2010, 09:51 PM
What Hollywood taught me through Zombieland...

Rule 4: Doubletap: Carrying a gun is a great idea but it should never be your primary weapon. When you do end up using it for that last minute 'oh ****' moment remember to double tap. Its an emergency and thats why your using it and not your cricket bat so why skimp? One bullet more in the head will go a long way to ensuring your survival.

bwsmith2850
March 5, 2010, 03:55 AM
Current thinking in our training is to shoot until the threat is stopped rather than a specific double/triple/whatever tap. A prescribed number of shots has been known to have people shooting twice then looking to see what happened while rounds are still incoming.

You are shooting to keep him from killing you so you shoot until his will or ability to continue his attack is gone. That is when he gives up, runs away, or goes down and stays there without still trying to pull the trigger.

Not to start a caliber war, but Old Fluff has put his finger on the 'bring enough gun' argument. In addition if your intended target has too many bullet holes in him the question of summary execution may come to haunt you as an aftereffect You will usually have to use fewer bullets of a large heavy caliber than a small light one. Is it impossible to explain 19 .22 holes? No. Is it easier to explain 5 .357, .40 or .45 holes? Yes. The answer to both is 'he was still trying to kill me before the final shot.' But since 19 shots sells more papers than 5 shots the media will try to make a big deal about how terrible it was you had to shoot your attacker so many times. Food for thought when choosing a lead injector.

bds
March 5, 2010, 04:58 AM
The reasonable notion is keep shooting until the threat is neutralized - people don't die/drop when they are shot - often they don't even know that they were shot at all.

In real life shooting, things are very much different. Due to my line of work, I talked to many surviving shooting victims and they often state that they did not know they were shot, at first. Many often continue on adrenaline until blood pressure drop slows the body/brain down. When they come around, they say the shots felt like major league slugger hitting them with bats with 9 in nails.

One local PD officer was observed shooting a rushing subject with the entire 15 round magazine in a matter of seconds before the subject dropped to the ground. He thought he only fired maybe 4-5 rounds, until he saw the slide locked back with an empty magazine.

JoeSlomo
March 5, 2010, 12:57 PM
An instructor once told me to fire until they were stopped, however, in the case of a multiple assailants, engage each once, then come back and repeat if necessary.


That's good advice.

With a five shot revolver, you've got to make those rounds count.

OldCavSoldier
March 5, 2010, 03:25 PM
General rules I teach to folks taking the CCW class:

If you have to shoot, shoot while moving to cover...one round center of mass per assailant....

If you reach cover and the assailants are still coming at you, one round center of mass per assailant...

If revolver, immediately reload (with speedloader) when empty. If bottom feeder, combat reload a fresh mag when reach cover or immediately if empty....

Also, shoot the minimum number of rounds it takes to stop the threat. NOT kill the threat. STOP the threat.

MOST goblins are gonna high-tail it as soon as you bust your first cap, unless they are high........

jad0110
March 5, 2010, 05:27 PM
Quote:
An instructor once told me to fire until they were stopped, however, in the case of a multiple assailants, engage each once, then come back and repeat if necessary.

And if you are able to identify/pick out a clear leader/instigator in the pack and you aren't under even more dire/immediate threat from someone closer, make sure he gets the first one. Easier said than done and certainly not always doable, true, but popping the leader may well cause the followers to turn away. Putting a round or two into a "follower" may not deter the instigator(s) in the pack as well.

Yes, I know, this isn't realistic in every scenario. But it is something to at least consider as a possibility.

Hardballing
March 5, 2010, 07:22 PM
For me, training or not, first shots are ALWAYS double tap, center mass, on closest or main threat. While not strictly necessary, yelling, "Stop, drop your weapon" is a GREAT idea in that you never know who is hearing/witnessing, or even taping the acts in question.

The earlier suggestion about shooting on the move, while seeking cover, is also a great one imo.

There really is no other "advice" other than shoot to stop the threat imo. Life and the scenarios of self defense, particularly with handguns, is so varied that this is usually sufficient directions.

And one final thought, practice failure drills, even with wheelguns. If it can go wrong, it will.

Just my .02.

Tim

GRIZ22
March 5, 2010, 07:34 PM
In any situation your first response should be to take cover. Moving makes it harder for the BG to hit you and gives you time to get your gun out.

How many shots it will take is very situational. Someone could remain on their feet and surrender. Or they could fall down, and then keep shooting at you!


This is why, in a one on one encounter, you shoot until the threat stops offering a threat.

I was trained for it was 2 placed shoots for each target

The down side to this is number 2 and 3 just standing there watching you shoot number 1. If you have a revolver you will run out of ammo after number 3.

One shot per target and then do it over if needed is the best way to train. It will suit whatever handgun you have.

jojo200517
March 5, 2010, 10:56 PM
Do remember that in a civilian (as opposed to military) shooting situation you are responsible for each and every shot you fire, and if any of your bullets go astray and cause some “collateral damage,” like a hit on the wrong person you will be up to your neck in serious trouble. In addition if your intended target has too many bullet holes in him the question of summary execution may come to haunt you as an aftereffect. There is some value to the idea that fewer well-placed shots are better then “taps,” regardless of the number.

I always figured if i'm going to die this wouldn't be much of a concern as to how much trouble i'm in. I get called inhumane but me and my loved ones come first, then i'll worry about others.

That's why I carry 45ACP. I want that 1st (and maybe only) shot to "show I care enough to send the very best"
First this deserves a sig, I think it'll join mine.

Yeah and you never know if number 2 doesn't go bang I'm sure number 1 did a pretty dang good job and might buy me enough time. I carry the good Hornady 230 grain +p, Wouldn't want anyone to suffer from injuries inflicted due to cheapo ammo.

As for how many times to shoot, eh until they stop squirming or I run out of ammo, I don't plan on running out of ammo with my .45 if 31 shots don't get it done, it should get me to my vehicle where there's another 10 rd mag for it and some emm "heavier" firepower.

Edit: As for taking cover I'm absolutely for that if you have any, if not I'm for pushing forward if possible physically and mentally. One the attacker will not likely expect it, and two shot accuracy will most likely improve due to closing distance. Just my theory, hope i'm never forced to try it out.

167
March 6, 2010, 07:04 AM
Who is to say we aren't missing the first threat? Or if we are really unlucky the first and second threat? You address the threat percieved to be the most severe, when there is another threat that becomes more severe, or the formerly most severe threat degrades to a lesser threat, you switch to the new most severe. Just my opinion

GRIZ22
March 6, 2010, 12:22 PM
You address the threat percieved to be the most severe, when there is another threat that becomes more severe, or the formerly most severe threat degrades to a lesser threat, you switch to the new most severe

This is easy to do if there is one guy with a shotgun and the others have ice picks or they are attacking you in a line formation but isn't so easy in real life. If 2 or more BGs are attacking you, you don't want to waste a lot of time evaluating the biggest threat. You want your training to simple in order to make it is easy if the situation arises. You don't want to waste time thinking "#2 has a 45, #1 has a 22, and #3 a 2x4".

Boulder
March 6, 2010, 12:54 PM
One shot per target and then do it over if needed is the best way to train. It will suit whatever handgun you have.

I agree!

In any situation your first response should be to take cover. Moving makes it harder for the BG to hit you and gives you time to get your gun out.

I also agree--though even better if you can move, draw and fire while running to cover. :D

possum
March 6, 2010, 03:32 PM
In any situation your first response should be to take cover. Moving makes it harder for the BG to hit you and gives you time to get your gun out.
if you are moving latterally this will help you more so than moving toward or away form the enemy.

I also agree--though even better if you can move, draw and fire while running to cover.
you are/ will be responsible for every round that leaves your gun, therefore running and shooting at the sametime might not be the best advise.

Rexster
March 6, 2010, 03:52 PM
I make it a point to not train myself into any one box. Emptying a mag into one target is great if that target is one's only opponent. One shot per target, then returning to each target for seconds/thirds, is the opposite extreme.

To some extent, the element of surprise might allow one to put multiple shots into the first target before one's other opponents get their stuff together.

Whatever one does, keep thinking, and keep moving, so multiple opponents have to keep adjusting to changing circumstances.

167
March 6, 2010, 10:01 PM
You don't spend a lot of time assessing which threat is the greatest, you make a split second decision and go with it and hope for the best, fight your way through it. One threat will stick out more than the others, for all kinds of possible reasons; closer, bigger, more agressive, position relative to your orientation etc. It will be fairly obvious. Not everyone involved in the confrontation is going to be equally threatening at any given moment.

Maybe a better way to put it would be address the most immediate threat, and when that threat is no longer the most immediate, for whatever reason, you address the new most immediate threat. Confrontations are fluid and constantly in motion. That means priorities of defense are also constantly changing.

You do all this while also moving to put yourself in the most advantagous position possible.

DBR
March 7, 2010, 12:26 AM
Use cover if possible.

The best advice I have heard recently is "shoot until the target changes shape" ie goes from vertical to horizontal. For those who practice regularly your target should be high center of mass ie from the bottom of the rib cage and up. For those who do not practice, center of mass is a larger target but not as effective.

Immediately scan for other threats.

Practice shooting while moving. Most threats are not going to stand still and neither should you.

While it would be nice and civilized to shoot once or twice and give the threat a chance to surrender that could easily get you killed.

Just MHO

OhioChief
March 7, 2010, 04:54 PM
Well in Ohio, if you're an average Joe with a CC, you better not shoot after the threat has been stopped. You will face charges. If you hit an innocent, you will face charges. If the threat is stopped and is running away and you shoot again, face charges. I say, aim for center of mass, take your shots diliberate and carefully, and retreat if possible as quickly as you can, without putting yourself at risk. Your 5 shot .38 will cause panic on the threat, do great damage and give you options to defend yourself and make a gracefull retreat. It's not meant to win the battle. Speed loading & accurate shooting at multiple threats take a lot of training and practice, and average Joe's "generally" don't fit that category. My 2 cents. Oh, and the 2 cents of the Ohio CC training course and CC state laws.

oldfool
March 7, 2010, 04:56 PM
I don't know what is right
I practice some of this some of that, weekly
I don't carry anything with more than 7 rounds, no reloads
I mostly shoot stuff (revolvers) that only hold six
I can get off six in two seconds, with a hit or two on a 15 oz bottle at 12-15 yards, and at least three close misses, on average (whatever that means)
same for 3 DTs in 3 seconds, which is what I practice by far the most ( I get hits often as not on 2nd round vs 1st, it's pretty much just random)
because it's fun

PS
What I figure I am most likely to do in a real "it" situation is just freeze and poopy in my panties
the "good news" is, I probably won't hit any innocents
mostly I put a lot of serious effort into not finding out

NotSoFast
March 7, 2010, 06:17 PM
If it's more than one, I'm for firing once at each one, then returning to #1 for a followup if needed, then #2, then #3, etc. That way I'm not wasting ammo if I don't need to on an already stopped opponent but have it available for one who hasn't stopped yet.

Just my way, not necessarily the best, and definitely not the only way.

Chuck

The Bushmaster
March 7, 2010, 08:15 PM
Empty the magazine into him, put your foot on his neck to hold him down, reload and begin again...:evil::D:):p

Depends on how many targets you have to deal with...

sysmgr
March 7, 2010, 11:14 PM
In Ohio... If you where to kill your Assailant at that point, you could be prosecuted. I’m not sure about the laws in your state but Ohio Laws are clear on this matter. Shoot to stop. If the Assailant is down and no longer a threat you must stop shooting. Frankly, I wouldn’t want to look over my shoulder for the rest of my life. I would shoot to kill. Double tap…

KAK
March 8, 2010, 12:28 AM
Use the 9mm cause its usually higher capacity, then shoot em a few times and if they dont stop shoot for the head. ;)

easyg
March 8, 2010, 11:40 AM
I practice putting three right in the upper chest.

Why three you ask?

Because I have personally seen way too many folks who were shot once or twice, but who were still very much alive and kick'n.

mljdeckard
March 8, 2010, 03:22 PM
Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Remember that handguns are fundamentally inadequate for self-defense. Don't plan on your first hit stopping anyone.

When you are fighting for your life, keep shooting until:
A: You run out of ammo,
B: The target disappears from view,
C: The threat has stopped their actions.

Ben86
March 8, 2010, 03:36 PM
Keep shooting until the threat is neutralized. Not until you shoot X number of shots or he dies or cries uncle. Shoot until he no longer presents a threat.

When it comes to multiple hostiles I would not sit there and take time to double or triple tap every one of them. By the time you are done multi-tapping the first or second guy one of them is going to have the time to shoot you. My tactic is one shot per person, and repeat as necessary to neutralize all threats. Keep in mind that threats with closest priority most often should be dealt with first.

You have to judge every situation independently. Don't train yourself into a box, so to speak.

GRIZ22
March 8, 2010, 03:41 PM
Well in Ohio, if you're an average Joe with a CC, you better not shoot after the threat has been stopped.

That's for anyone, average Joe with a CCP, LEO or any good guy in a shooting situation no matter where you are.

David E
March 8, 2010, 04:44 PM
or should I train for the unlikely event in which I am confronted in a deadly scenario by more than two assailants?

Unlikely ? 40% of the time there a MULTIPLE ASSAILANTS, so there's nothing "unlikely" about it.

Start practicing "boarding house" rules: everyone gets firsts before anyone gets seconds.

mljdeckard
March 8, 2010, 05:35 PM
^^ Exactly. It is unlikely that you will have to use your gun defensively at all. But you still carry it, right? It is unlikely that your gun will malfunction when you are fighting, but we still practice that non-stop. The whole idea behind carrying is to think ahead and plan for what you will do if something really bad happens. When it happens in real life, you will be better off if you have practiced something similar and primed your mind to think outside the box.

shockwave
March 8, 2010, 05:58 PM
Remember that handguns are fundamentally inadequate for self-defense.

There has been some revisionism of late that underscores the point that if you shoot somebody, they don't necessarily fall down and DRT. But to call handguns "fundamentally inadequate" for SD is pushing the meme a bit too far. If I have to engage somebody hand-to-hand, I'm trained for it, but I'd much prefer they have several bullet holes in them first.

easyg
March 8, 2010, 06:07 PM
When it comes to multiple hostiles I would not sit there and take time to double or triple tap every one of them. By the time you are done multi-tapping the first or second guy one of them is going to have the time to shoot you.
It only takes a fraction of a second to double or triple tap once you've already got the target in your sights.
But acquiring new targets can take much more time.

mljdeckard
March 8, 2010, 06:39 PM
Handguns are fundamentally inadequate for personal defense. Just because they are better than nothing doesn't make them any better. Most people hit by handgun will RUN AWAY. If they can run away, they can also continue to attack you. This is not stopping the threat. The reason we spend so much time and resources to make better JHPs for handguns is that they all suck. If I ever have time to get to something besides my sidearm, I won't use it.

Ky Larry
March 9, 2010, 01:57 AM
I have never shot a person but I have killed many deer. I've seen them run for a hundred yards with a bullet thru their heart. I've heard reliable reports of people being shot with fatal wounds who still manage to shoot back. The "Boarding House" rule makes sense.

P.S. Thanks to all who have responded with thoughtful and informative ideas and opinions. I can't beleive somebody hasn't tried to start a caliber war.

David E
March 9, 2010, 02:22 AM
It only takes a fraction of a second to double or triple tap once you've already got the target in your sights.

Fractions add up. Depending how fast/good you are, maybe to a full second. Plenty of time for the other guy to yank the trigger while pointing his gun at you.

But acquiring new targets can take much more time.

Which is all the more reason to start acquiring the second ( or third) target sooner!

If I had 3 targets @ 5 yds spaced about 1 foot between their shoulders, all representing an equal threat, my transition times would be in the .20-.25 range. This is faster than the double taps of most folks. It's a good idea to go out and practice this kind of thing, if only to discover and gauge your current ability.

possum
March 9, 2010, 03:12 AM
Use the 9mm cause its usually higher capacity, then shoot em a few times and if they dont stop shoot for the head.
again i will hit this point, in the context of self defense, ccw etc, the head is generally not the best option, and here is why. the head is a small target, and it is gonna be moving, and harder to hit. additionally the possibility of by standards being at the scene is highly likely and you the person defending yourself is responsible for every round that you fire. the pelvis is where i train to go after the high center chest. why? it is as wide as the chest, as well it is the trunk, you chop it and the assaliant will be out of the fight, as well there are some really nasty things that run through that part of the body, the likelyness of causeing a threat to stop possing a hostile threat to you by hitting them in the pelvic region is very high.

I wouldn’t want to look over my shoulder for the rest of my life. I would shoot to kill. Double tap…
this is often what "men" say, the macho amoung us, and there was a time in history where this might have been fine, and a shooting was a shooting, not the case anymore. and if the jury finds that out, you will be spending alot more time in jail.

you do not want to take a life if you don't have too, yeah it sounds macho and manly when people say it, but many of the people that have become shall i say humble and they understand why it is the last thing you want to do. it is easy to sit behind a computer, with a gun at your side, and show your "A" type personality, it is a whole different matter in the real world when the shooting stops.

you will have plenty of things to worry about if you get into a shooting, you don't need the taking of a human life on your mind unless that was the only way out, the only that you could stop him from being a threat to you. you have the gun fight, the legal fight, the media fight, and you will have the mental and emotional fight to worry about. even if you were 100% right and you did what you HAD to do.

you are not aware of your suroundings anyway? why would getting into a defense sittuation where the assaliant live, cause you to do that, you should be aware of what is around you already, if something like that has to happen for you to be in the right mind set you have alreayd lost, and you are way behind the power curve already.

possum
March 9, 2010, 03:26 AM
Handguns are fundamentally inadequate for personal defense. Just because they are better than nothing doesn't make them any better. Most people hit by handgun will RUN AWAY. If they can run away, they can also continue to attack you. This is not stopping the threat. The reason we spend so much time and resources to make better JHPs for handguns is that they all suck. If I ever have time to get to something besides my sidearm, I won't use it.

i agree 100% and if you disagree than you are seriously mistaken. is a handgun better than hand to hand? yes, is a handgun better than nothing? yes, is a handgun better than a knife? yes, however statistics out of Memphis show that 80% of people shot with handguns across the board of caliber size survive. 20% of people stabbed survive.

handguns are carried because they are concealable, and they are convenient, they are carried because a rifle is not. however that still dosen't mean that the handgun is the best thing that you could use, but that is what you have and that is what you will most likley use. if you have read any case studies at all about self defense and or police shootings using handguns you will understand this point. a .223/ 5.56 is much more effective at stopping a threat than a handgun, but to talk to some BTDT guys, and they will tell you that even with a rifle it still takes multiple rounds to stop a threat, so if it takes multiple rounds from a high velocity round comming form a 16" barrel then you can see where there would be an issue shooting a small slow moving cartridge. even if you are using the lightest and fastest handgun round avaliable, it is no where near the potential to stop a threat that a rifle round does, however even those take more than 1, 2, 3, and veen more sometimes.

a rifle round is moving fast enough that it not only affects what it hits but also the surrounding tissue, organs etc. to affect the heart with a handun round you have to hit the heart, see the difference? to get a handgun round in the head (since everyone likes to go for a head shot for some reason) you will have to put that round in a hole in the head, i ie the eye socket, the ear, etc. handgun rounds have been known to deflect off of the human skull.

additionally handguns, are less accurate, and they are harder to shoot. even harder still to hit a moving target( beacause that is what your target will be doing) with the short barrel lenght, short sight radius of a handgun and under stress. additionally read my sig line, most people that own guns do just that.most people that carry do just that, 5% of people that carry attend training, and i bet even a less number of that do more than one course, and stay profecint with thier handgun.

easyg
March 9, 2010, 01:19 PM
however statistics out of Memphis show that 80% of people shot with handguns across the board of caliber size survive. 20% of people stabbed survive.
I would like to see exactly how those stats were acquired.
I've X-rayed lots of folks who have been stabbed, and in most cases the blade didn't even reach a vital organ or vessel.
I find it very hard to believe that only 20% of folks who have been stabbed survive.

Ben86
March 9, 2010, 03:49 PM
It only takes a fraction of a second to double or triple tap once you've already got the target in your sights.
But acquiring new targets can take much more time.

Yeah, but since you have to shift targets to hit multiple adversaries anyway why waste time multi-tapping? Keep in mind it only takes a fraction of a second for the other guy to shoot your as well.

possum
March 10, 2010, 01:28 PM
I would like to see exactly how those stats were acquired.
I've X-rayed lots of folks who have been stabbed, and in most cases the blade didn't even reach a vital organ or vessel.
I find it very hard to believe that only 20% of folks who have been stabbed survive.
stats are not my line of work however i can tell you it came from there, i was told about it, in a mindset lecture while attending Fighting Handgun in Camden Tenn.

more forty fives
March 10, 2010, 02:18 PM
Till there's no movement.

mljdeckard
March 10, 2010, 02:25 PM
^^Careful. That's like saying you are shooting to kill. You are shooting until they are no longer a threat.

Demitrios
March 10, 2010, 02:53 PM
There was something my brother once told me. If you're standing underneath a safe and the only thing to prevent it from falling on your head is to push the button right next to you within the next two seconds are you going to push it once or are you going to push it as many times as possible withing those two seconds?

Ben86
March 10, 2010, 03:14 PM
While we're on the subject of shooting to neutralize or until the adversary is no longer a threat why don't we talk about the things that will literally tell you this? Such as: the enemy running away, dropping the gun or other weapon or falling down in a non-combative heap on the floor. Anyone want to add?

mljdeckard
March 10, 2010, 03:16 PM
I wouldn't try to make it too complicated. Either they are still trying to kill you or they're not.

easyg
March 10, 2010, 06:16 PM
Yeah, but since you have to shift targets to hit multiple adversaries anyway why waste time multi-tapping?
Because I want the first guy I shoot to cease to be a threat.

This is what double-tapping (and triple-tapping) is all about:

Hitting a target, as quick as possible, with enough rounds as to provided a REASONABLE expectation that the target will forever after cease to be a threat.

"One shot stops" are about as common as leprechauns .
But "three shot stops" are not near so uncommon.

Ben86
March 10, 2010, 06:53 PM
While one shot stops are uncommon isn't, for instance, three bad guys shot once COM better than one bad guy shot twice, one shot once and the other (who shot you) not shot at all?

Blinken
March 10, 2010, 10:50 PM
I don't know who's signature it is, but everyone in my family has related it to me (they have all asked me the same question). "Everyone asks, shoot to maim or shoot to kill? I say, empty the magazine (or 5/6- shot) and let the good Lord decide." Just be sure to practice your re-loading drills. **Credit to the good gentleman whose signature that is**

easyg
March 10, 2010, 11:40 PM
...isn't, for instance, three bad guys shot once COM better than one bad guy shot twice, one shot once and the other (who shot you) not shot at all?
Not it all three of the bad guys (who survive the single shot COM), kill you, then kill your family, and then all three go on to prey upon other families.

GRIZ22
March 11, 2010, 12:12 AM
again i will hit this point, in the context of self defense, ccw etc, the head is generally not the best option, and here is why.

Thanx for posting this possum. One sees so many experienced, level headed gunfighters on the internet who can make a head shot under any circumstances. These are usually the same guys who brag about their expertise and show off their 12" groups (or patterns) at 7 yards to demonstrate their expertise.

Head shots are easy in IDPA or IPSC not so in real life.

David E
March 11, 2010, 12:31 AM
Not it all three of the bad guys (who survive the single shot COM), kill you, then kill your family, and then all three go on to prey upon other families.

Um.......what ?

If you are presented with 3 equally hostile targets, the prudent man shoots them all ONCE before shooting them again.

For example, if I had 3 equal threats at 5 yds spaced 1 foot apart at shoulders, I'd go 1,1,2,1,1 and serve thirds (4ths/5th's, etc ) to anyone needing them.

It need not take all that long, if you practice. Here's what I did recently at the range with a .38 snub and a .40 1911:

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g311/Sooper1/Shooting%20Related%20Things/3targets.jpg

Simulating a draw with the .38 snubby, I fired one shot on EACH of the 3 targets:

.76
.29
.27
------
1.32

My best run was this:

.65
.27
.25
------
1.18


Changing to a 1911 Govt chambered in .40 using factory ammo, using a holster, I fired one shot on each of the 3 targets:

.59
.21
.16
------
.96

Still using the 1911 in .40, starting with GUN IN HOLSTER, HANDS AT SIDES (not touching gun) I then did one shot each, reload, one shot each:

.82
.24
.18
1.16
.22
.16
------
2.78 total time.

easyg
March 11, 2010, 10:15 AM
If you are presented with 3 equally hostile targets, the prudent man shoots them all ONCE before shooting them again.

For example, if I had 3 equal threats at 5 yds spaced 1 foot apart at shoulders, I'd go 1,1,2,1,1 and serve thirds (4ths/5th's, etc ) to anyone needing them.

It need not take all that long, if you practice. Here's what I did recently at the range with a .38 snub and a .40 1911:
Do you honestly think that it's realistic to expect that you will be assaulted by three bad guys standing side-by-side 1' apart?

Have you ever seen a person get "jumped" by several guys?
They don't line up side-by-side, they usually surround their victim, like a pack of wolves.

So imagine shooting target 1, then turning about 45 degrees and trying to shoot target 2, and then turning further and trying to locate and shoot target number 3 (who will have surely moved or attacked by the time you have nailed target number 2).

The odds are not very good that you will be able to hit all three targets before you are attacked....which is why taking on multiple attackers is almost a "no win situation" (unless they are channeled down a narrow entrance or hallway, or similar situation).

So by single-tapping the most likely scenario is that you will hit one target, maybe two, only once before being attacked....and the ones that you were lucky enough to shoot will most likely still be viable threats.

Sam1911
March 11, 2010, 11:53 AM
Do you honestly think that it's realistic to expect that you will be assaulted by three bad guys standing side-by-side 1' apart?

Have you ever seen a person get "jumped" by several guys?
They don't line up side-by-side, they usually surround their victim, like a pack of wolves.


Unless one option is "flying in on broomsticks", one scenario for being attacked is just about as likely or unlikely as any other.

Multiple target drills just aren't terribly hard to accomplish in either the 2,2,2 or 1,1,2,1,1 format. If you're good with your handguns the total elapsed time for either sequence won't differ by a second.

The infinite differences in how many threats there might be and how they might arrange themselves, and total distances, and relative distances, and the objects and structures in or composing the scene of the attack, and what weapons might be visible, and how fast you can "get off the X," and to what extent you can move to "stack" your opponants, etc., etc. are going to matter more than how fast you can hit them "in sequence" vs. "in priority."

I will add one more thought, though: "you will hit one target, maybe two, only once before being attacked....and the ones that you were lucky enough to shoot will most likely still be viable threats"

I'd rather be attacked by three, two of whom are already bleeding from my COM hits than be attacked by two who I didn't get a shot on (even if their buddy is DRT).

But if it ever happens, I don't expect to sit and think about it much. Hopefully reflex -- based on often repeated practice -- will make the decision for me.

Vern Humphrey
March 11, 2010, 12:08 PM
The first rule of combat is, shoot your most dangerous opponent first.

The second rule is, every shot is your first shot.

In other words, shoot the biggest threat and keep shooting until something changes. Yes, you might run out of ammunition, but do you want to die with live rounds still in the cylinder?

John Farnham said, "The most common cause of a stoppage in a revolver or in an autoloader is running out of ammunition." That's why if you carry, carry at least one reload and practice reloading.

easyg
March 11, 2010, 01:51 PM
But if it ever happens, I don't expect to sit and think about it much. Hopefully reflex -- based on often repeated practice -- will make the decision for me.

This is exactly why I practice three shots COM before moving on to the next target.
I want that to become a reflex.

I think that doing single-taps and then moving to the next target is contrary to the notion of stopping an oncoming threat.
Here's what I mean:
Say you have two guys coming your direction.
Once they are about 10 feet from you, one of them rushes you with a knife.
Now your reflexes and training kick in.
You shoot the guy charging you and then you take your sights off of him and shoot the second guy....just like you did a thousand times in training.
But the guy was only ten feet away and already rushing you.

What do you think are the odds of him being stopped by that one shot before covering 10 feet?

What are the odds that the single shot will incapacitate him enough so that he cannot stab you?

Whatever odds you give, a triple-tap increases those odds X3.


In other words, shoot the biggest threat and keep shooting until something changes.
Exactly!



Easy

David E
March 11, 2010, 05:54 PM
Wait a minute, what happened to your scenario of
They don't line up side-by-side, they usually surround their victim, like a pack of wolves.

Seems like you're suiting the scenario to your own whim.

If I allow myself to be surrounded, it's not a good place to start. But if I were alert enough to foil that attempt, I'd have them mostly in front of me. Maybe not a foot apart, but in front.

Obviously, if one guy makes himself a bigger threat than the other 1 or 2, shoot him first, possibly multiple times, depending on several variables.

Are they equally armed? Equal distance away? Does one have "scared eyes" and is the other wearing a flap holster?

A shot timer is a good training tool. You can actually find out how fast your 2nd, 3rd and subsequent shots are. This is light years ahead of "hey, now that run felt good!"

Arrange your targets as you wish and then see how much time elapses from the signal to the 2nd and 3rd target getting hit once. Go ahead and triple tap the first one, then go on to the others. Next, shoot each one once. Compare the difference. Then think about what YOU would do in that second or two if you were the 2nd or 3rd target.....

Some years ago, a cop responded to a call. On scene, he saw 3 badguys that needed shooting. The cop was a great shot. He fired two rounds at #1, two more at #2 and got killed by #3...........

orionengnr
March 11, 2010, 09:52 PM
I'd rather be attacked by three, two of whom are already bleeding from my COM hits than be attacked by two who I didn't get a shot on (even if their buddy is DRT).

Exactly. I imagine BGs #2 and #3 will be attempting to perforate me while I put two or three rounds into BG#1. That is not acceptable (to me, at least).
If I am moving backwards (or in any old direction) I will be both removing myself from a cross fire while diminishing the angular deflection necessary to change targets....

easyg
March 11, 2010, 10:28 PM
Wait a minute, what happened to your scenario of
They don't line up side-by-side, they usually surround their victim, like a pack of wolves.
One rushes you and the other does not....hence they will not be side-by-side 1' apart.
In any event, I'm willing to bet that you will be concentrating on the one rushing you and you will not even know where the second guy is moving to.
If I allow myself to be surrounded, it's not a good place to start. But if I were alert enough to foil that attempt, I'd have them mostly in front of me. Maybe not a foot apart, but in front.
Nobody can prevent a group from surrounding them in a public place.
You're walking through a park with you lady friend or wife....what do you do, tactically move from tree to tree???

Obviously, if one guy makes himself a bigger threat than the other 1 or 2, shoot him first, possibly multiple times, depending on several variables.
But this is contrary to your training.
If you constantly, and consistently, train to single-tap and then move on to the next target, then guess what....you WILL single-tap and then move on to the next target.
You have to rely upon your reflexes.
After all, a guy rushing you from 10 feet away does not give you enough time to shoot, assess if he needs a second shot and possibly a third shot, and then move on to the next target.
No....if you train to shoot once and then move on to the second target then that's exactly what you will do, regardless of whether the first target continues to be a threat or not.

easyg
March 11, 2010, 10:29 PM
If I am moving backwards (or in any old direction) I will be both removing myself from a cross fire while diminishing the angular deflection necessary to change targets....
And you routinely practice this???

David E
March 12, 2010, 12:17 AM
Nobody can prevent a group from surrounding them in a public place.
You're walking through a park with you lady friend or wife....what do you do, tactically move from tree to tree???

Of course not. But if I realize I'm being surrounded by badguys in a park, I'd do something about it. If I have a badguy at 12 oclock, 8 oclock and 4 oclock, I'll move to 6 oclock, 10 or 2 oclock, whichever makes the most sense at the time. It ain't rocket science here.

David E: Obviously, if one guy makes himself a bigger threat than the other 1 or 2, shoot him first, possibly multiple times, depending on several variables.

Easyg: But this is contrary to your training.

How do you know what my training consists of?

If you constantly, and consistently, train to single-tap and then move on to the next target, then guess what....you WILL single-tap and then move on to the next target.

Well, maybe I'm smarter than the average bear, but it doesn't take a whole lot of training to realize that "one size does NOT fit all." Sometimes one technique is preferred over another in a given circumstance.

After all, a guy rushing you from 10 feet away does not give you enough time to shoot, assess if he needs a second shot and possibly a third shot, and then move on to the next target.
No....if you train to shoot once and then move on to the second target then that's exactly what you will do, regardless of whether the first target continues to be a threat or not.

Well, that's just silly. I posed the scenario of 3 equal threats which you changed to one guy charging you with a knife. This means the equal threat dynamic has now changed. The guy charging gets immediate attention. I would likely shoot him 2-3 times, then shift my attention quickly to the other 2 guys. If they presented any threat at that point, they're in trouble.

I train for both scenarios. Sometimes, it's one for everyone before seconds are served. Other times, it's 2-3-4 on one, then moving on.

But it's clear that you ONLY train to shoot ONE guy multiple times, regardless of the level of threat the others may present. That looks to be a surefire way to come out on the short end in some situations.

Gunfighter123
March 12, 2010, 12:52 AM
A shot timer is a good training tool. You can actually find out how fast your 2nd, 3rd and subsequent shots are. This is light years ahead of "hey, now that run felt good!"

Got to agree with DavidE 100% on that.

I have posted this MANY times -- would you go to the range and just shoot at the backstop with no target --- BANG BANG -- WOW , that FELT good , bet all those were "eyeball" hits ------- NO YOU WOULD NOT !!!!

Without a electronic timer --- ALL YOUR SHOOTING IS THE BACKSTOP !!!!
Your FASSST , cool -------- are you faster shooting right to left ??? Faster shooting closer targets first then the more distance one ??? Reloading --- faster useing the slide stop or "sling-shot" ???

When I bought my timer { Pact } it was about $350 TWENTY+ YEARS AGO ----- it still works as good as new. Now timers are as low as $100 !!!! NO REASON not to get a timer if you are even half serious about being skilled with a firearm to save your life.

dovedescending
March 12, 2010, 01:04 PM
Has anybody seen the movie Equilibrium? Could've been done better... but every time I watch that film, I think to myself "Man, wouldn't it be nice if there WAS some kind of computer program, database, or training system that WOULD allow for hitting the most targets, with maximum effect, in the shortest amount of time, while minimizing danger and risk to the shooter?" If anybody, SIG Academy, Blackwater, Thunder Ranch, had anything near like that, I would buy it immediately.

Not a helpful comment, I just couldn't help chiming in with wishful thinking. Especially with ammo so short...

easyg
March 12, 2010, 01:40 PM
Well, maybe I'm smarter than the average bear, but it doesn't take a whole lot of training to realize that "one size does NOT fit all." Sometimes one technique is preferred over another in a given circumstance.

I train for both scenarios. Sometimes, it's one for everyone before seconds are served. Other times, it's 2-3-4 on one, then moving on.
This is where you're setting yourself up for a fall.
In a real life and death situation you're not likely to have the time nor the ability to determine if you should shoot several threats once each or one threat several times.


But it's clear that you ONLY train to shoot ONE guy multiple times, regardless of the level of threat the others may present. That looks to be a surefire way to come out on the short end in some situations.
I train to shoot what appears to be the most immediate threat 3 times COM and then move on to the next threat which also gets 3 shots COM, and so on, and so on....

Early on I also trained to do single taps to multiple targets, and then go back to hit them a second time, but I have since learned that triple-taps to each target in succession is faster by far.

Find target, triple-tap, find next target, triple-tap, find next target, triple-tap, etc...

Much faster than find target, tap, find next target, tap, find next target, double-tap, go back to previous target, tap, go back to first target, tap, etc...

It also makes less sense to have to acquire the same target twice, possibly seconds apart, after they have possibly changed position/location.
Instinctively you will want to go back to the location where you first shot them.

David E
March 13, 2010, 02:47 AM
Early on I also trained to do single taps to multiple targets, and then go back to hit them a second time, but I have since learned that triple-taps to each target in succession is faster by far.

Are you saying that shooting 6 shots before shooting the first shot into the 3rd target is faster than shooting each one once ?

If you are, then it's a serious lack of skill issue, not tactics.

easyg
March 13, 2010, 06:52 AM
Are you saying that shooting 6 shots before shooting the first shot into the 3rd target is faster than shooting each one once ?
Yep.

But it really depends upon where those targets are located.

It would seem that some guys are practicing with the targets lined up side-by-side 1' apart....a very unrealistic scenario IMO, kind of like shooting one big horse size target rather than three separate human size targets.
In a realistic scenario you're loosing time acquiring three targets verses acquiring only two targets.
This is compounded by the farther apart the targets are from one another.


If you are, then it's a serious lack of skill issue, not tactics.
Not at all.
Practice it more and you'll be very surprised at your overall time for engaging all targets.
And you'll have the added benefit of increasing the odds 3X that the target will indeed be stopped from further aggression.
You just can't count on the "one shot stop".

David E
March 13, 2010, 03:38 PM
David E: Are you saying that shooting 6 shots before shooting the first shot into the 3rd target is faster than shooting each one once ?

easyg: Yep. Practice it more and you'll be very surprised at your overall time for engaging all targets.


Ok, it sounds like you've clearly tested this and found out what your definitive times are using a shot timer.

So, what are they ?

I'm curious how soon your first shot is fired on the 3rd target triple-tapping your way past targets 1 and 2 compared to simply single shots on each.

How were the targets arranged? Distance ? Target type ?

Also, would you please share your splits and acquisition times from the first shot to the 7th shot vs. single shots?

How much slower is the "one shot each" than the "triple tap 'em all" regarding the first hit on the 3rd target?

Tell me what your target configuration was and I'll see which way is faster for me and report my results here.

(I realize this requires a shot timer, not a second hand or a stop watch)

space
space

167
March 13, 2010, 10:28 PM
David E, you are assuming the targets are not moving. In actual gunfights, they will be. It will take additional time to reacquire each threat because of the movement, as opposed to shooting at each multiple times before moving to the next.

A more accurate test of which method might be better would be to run some carefully designed FoF scenarios. Although that too has its problems because airsoft and even sim guns do not accurately replicate the recoil if a firearm. I can shoot a sim gun wwaaaayyyyyy faster than I can my duty gun.

It is important to keep in mind the level of fluidity involved in this sort of thing. The situation changes every half second, if not faster, so you take what you can get when you can get it. Fight through everything else and win.

easyg
March 13, 2010, 10:50 PM
(I realize this requires a shot timer, not a second hand or a stop watch)
No, you're wrong, it does not require a "shot timer".
A second party with a stopwatch works just fine.
Don't buy in to the marketing hype.

How were the targets arranged? Distance ? Target type ?
Human silhouette targets, approximately 20 feet away, about 21 yards apart in a semi-circular pattern (I know, not 100% realistic).

Also, would you please share your splits and acquisition times from the first shot to the 7th shot vs. single shots.
It's hard to say since I hit the third target with three shots too (making it the recipient of bullets 7,8,9) at about 10 seconds in to the drill.
So it breaks down as such:
First target, three shots in about 1.4 seconds.
2and target, three shot in about 2.3 seconds.
And the third target, three shots in about 6 seconds from starting.

But my targets are about 21 yards apart....not 1 foot apart.
And the total time is about less than 11 seconds.

Shooting single tap, I have not been able to make better than about 14 seconds time.

David E
March 13, 2010, 10:57 PM
I assume nothing. Why would you assume I did ?

If they are running away from me, I don't need to shoot them.

If they are running towards me, I won't have to look too long to find them.

And if they're charging, then it makes all the more sense to shoot each of them as fast as I can, not taking out one badguy out of three, leaving them unscathed for them to do me harm.

If they are moving laterally so as to throw me off, I don't think so. If they were that smart, they wouldn't have selected me to be their victim. Once I've decided to fight back and fight back hard with judicious, yet speedy application of deadly force, most badguys will high-tail it outta there.....or they may think their best bet is to charge me to try and end my threat to their safety... In this case, they won't circle around me, they'll just come straight in, especially if I'm not facing them at the moment.

However, the sooner I CAN face them and get a shot into them, all the better for me. Whacking away at ONE guy multiple times gives the other 2 guys more time to do me serious harm. This is unacceptable.

FoF "training" has many more pitfalls than using airsoft, but that's another thread entirely.

167
March 13, 2010, 11:14 PM
David E, so you think you can engage multiple moving threats with one shot each and then return for necessary follow ups just as efficiently or more efficiently than you can engage each threat individually?

And I assume that you assume the targets are stationary because you assume that engaging each threat once and then returning to that threat as necessary is faster than the other mentioned method.

And yes, FoF if not designed and conducted properly has many issues, as does anything else that is not actually shooting real bullets at real people, but like you said, that is another thread entirely.

David E
March 13, 2010, 11:18 PM
David E: (I realize this requires a shot timer, not a second hand or a stop watch)

easyg: No, you're wrong, it does not require a "shot timer".
A second party with a stopwatch works just fine.

I suspected as much. A shot timer, properly used, will reveal quite a bit about your shooting. A stopwatch is at best, a "good guess" at the total time. It cannot precisely reveal your splits (time between shots) and target acquistion times. It'll remove phrases like "in about," "it felt fast," "it's hard to say," and "it took around X seconds..." from your descriptions of your shooting exercises.

Don't buy in to the marketing hype.

Don't be afraid to learn more about your level of shooting skill and how to improve it.

Quote:
How were the targets arranged? Distance ? Target type ?

Human silhouette targets, approximately 20 feet away, about 21 yards apart in a semi-circular pattern (I know, not 100% realistic).

Ok, would IPSC targets suffice? As far as placement, where were they if you were in the center of a clock? 12, 8 and 4 ? All 20 feet away?

Start position. Gun holstered? Gun in hand at low ready? Holstered and concealed? Hand on gun or at sides? What was the start signal ?

Quote:
Also, would you please share your splits and acquisition times from the first shot to the 7th shot vs. single shots.

It's hard to say since I hit the third target with three shots too (making it the recipient of bullets 7,8,9) at about 10 seconds in to the drill.
So it breaks down as such:
First target, three shots in about 1.4 seconds.
2and target, three shot in about 2.3 seconds.
And the third target, three shots in about 6 seconds from starting.

But my targets are about 21 yards apart....not 1 foot apart.
And the total time is about less than 11 seconds.

Shooting single tap, I have not been able to make better than about 14 seconds time.

Ok, I'm a little confused here. You say you're shooting the 3rd target "in about 6 seconds from starting" then say it "is about less than 11 seconds" total. Which is it? Or is your first hit on the 3rd target happening at 6 seconds and shots 8 and 9 taking the time up to 11 seconds ?

And firing one shot each takes you about 14 seconds before getting to the 3rd shot? Or are you firiing nine shots total, transitioning between targets for each shot?

I'm truly just trying to understand what you're saying, as I plan on recreating this exact set-up Monday or Tuesday, so I can compare my times doing it both ways.

I appreciate you sharing your practice results.

David E
March 13, 2010, 11:26 PM
David E, so you think you can engage multiple moving threats with one shot each and then return for necessary follow ups just as efficiently or more efficiently than you can engage each threat individually?

Why don't you present your scenario and I'll tell you what I think I'd do.

As I envision the scenario easyg presented, the badguys are moving, maybe, but moving towards me, not laterally or away from me doing the weave/duck/dodge bit while doing so. If they are moving towards me, the closer they get, the bigger target they're giving me!

Is it more efficient to keep firing at one guy before moving on to the next? "Efficient" how? Sure, it may be more "efficient" but it's s-l-o-w-e-r when there are multiple deadly threats that need to be dealt with.

I maintain it's better to shoot each one once before shooting them again. In the case of 3 badguys presenting an equal threat, it would be 1,1,2,1,1 for starters.

167
March 13, 2010, 11:52 PM
I have no scenario to present, just multiple attackers. There are too many variables to make up legitimate scenarios. The OP asked in general terms, so I answer in general terms.

Guess we will just disagree. I do not think engaging each threat once and then returning to that threat later is a tactically smart or practical thing to do for various reasons, and I don't buy your argument to the contrary, just like you don't buy mine. That is cool by me.

David E
March 14, 2010, 12:01 AM
It's that whole "it takes too much time to get to badguy #3" dynamic that makes it a bad idea doing it your way.

At least one cop was killed doing it your way. (as reported in Combat Handguns in the 80's)

Understand, my "each badguy gets one before anyone gets seconds" only applies to targets presenting an equal threat. If one badguy, armed with a huge Bowie knife charges me while his two buddies, armed with broken broomsticks do not, then #1 gets all my immediate attention and likely more than one round fired PDQ.

But going back to the scenario, maybe you, me and easyg can set it up and compare our results.

BTW, easyg, what gun are you using for this drill ?

Sam1911
March 14, 2010, 12:02 AM
There are too many variables to make up legitimate scenarios.How do you train / practice if you can't make up scenarios that are legitimate enough to be "realistic?"

Sam1911
March 14, 2010, 12:04 AM
No, you're wrong, it does not require a "shot timer".
A second party with a stopwatch works just fine.
Don't buy in to the marketing hype.
Ooohhh. That does not sound good. If you can't know your times for real then you have no business arguing which technique is best when choosing between processes that differ by tenths or hundredths of a second.

David E
March 14, 2010, 12:12 AM
Ooohhh. That does not sound good. If you can't know your times for real then you have no business arguing which technique is best when choosing between processes that differ by tenths or hundredths of a second.

But we don't know if we're arguing 10ths of a second, do we......

If we had the same guy timing both of us doing the same thing, maybe we'd get a comparison that might mean something, but then again, maybe not.

A shot timer is a useful tool to learn about your current skill level and can help you progress to becoming a better one. A stopwatch cannot. In fact, you need a second party to run the stopwatch. A shot timer can be used for solo practice, to include dryfire drills at home. A stopwatch cannot.

A shot timer can tell you how fast your reaction time is, how fast your first shot is, what your splits are, what your tranisition times are, reload times, etc, etc, etc. A stopwatch cannot.

A shot timer is a useful tool for those wanting to identify their weak areas and improve them, as Gunfighters Post #81 illustrates.

167
March 14, 2010, 12:31 AM
Sam1911, training is different than hypothetical discusions on the internet. Properly designed training will allow for the many variables to present themselves and not have to be imagined.

David E, do you think threats would ever be "equal"? I would argue that premise to be unrealistic, hence making the method unrealistic, as I said in my first post made in this thread.

I also think it may be a bit presumptive to assume that the officer's death was the result of a single technique used and not some other deficient tactic, or a combination of several.

I second your argument that a shot timer is a very usefull tool for tracking progress and pushing to the edge of our ability.

I may be able to talk our department trainer into setting up a multiple threat/single officer scenario for our next range session and FoF session. If I am able to pull it off I will let you know how it goes.

David E
March 14, 2010, 12:37 AM
David E, do you think threats would ever be "equal"? I would argue that premise to be unrealistic, hence making the method unrealistic, as I said in my first post made in this thread.

Are you seriously saying that 3 badguys can't all have knives or guns ?! And that they alll are ready and willing to cut you up or shoot you?

I think I'd like to live in that world !

167
March 14, 2010, 01:19 AM
I am saying there are many factors beyond what weapons they have and I doubt they are all going to be of equal level in the "willingness" category either. Not that they aren't all willing, just that some may be more willing than others.

Are you seriously saying those are the only two variables you are plugging into your "threat posed" equation? I would like to live in that world.

David E
March 14, 2010, 03:59 AM
Are you seriously saying those are the only two variables you are plugging into your "threat posed" equation?

Of course there are other factors, but these are two variables TO plug in. Or would you ignore them altogether?

It's not difficult to imagine a likely scenario of 2-3 badguys blocking your way to your car in a parking lot. It's also not an unlikely scenario for there to be another badguy coming up from the side or rear. Further, it wouldn't be unusual for all of these badguys to be armed with guns/knives/clubs.

Sure, one guy might be more of a threat than the others, but the others can still present a deadly threat. So now we have "threat priority" to figure out.

Who to shoot first, second and third....but the dilemma remains the same: Do you triple-tap deadliest threat #1 before triple-tapping less-but-still-deadly threat #2 before triple-tapping lesser-but-still-deadly threat #3 ? Or do you put one into each of them as fast as possible, then go back for possible clean-up ?

There is a time frame that gets invoked: take too long and you get killed. No one knows how long that time frame is, but it's a sure bet that faster is better for the goodguy.

Properly designed training will allow for the many variables to present themselves and not have to be imagined.

Perhaps you could present a "properly designed" training drill we could all practice that "will allow for the many variables"....

167
March 14, 2010, 04:48 AM
Of course there are other factors, but these are two variables TO plug in. Or would you ignore them altogether?

Is that what I said? Nope. Re-read my post.

Sure, one guy might be more of a threat than the others, but the others can still present a deadly threat. So now we have "threat priority" to figure out.

Who to shoot first, second and third....but the dilemma remains the same: Do you triple-tap deadliest threat #1 before triple-tapping less-but-still-deadly threat #2 before triple-tapping lesser-but-still-deadly threat #3 ? Or do you put one into each of them as fast as possible, then go back for possible clean-up ?

Yup, so?

There is a time frame that gets invoked: take too long and you get killed. No one knows how long that time frame is, but it's a sure bet that faster is better for the goodguy.

Agreed, I think the method I would use makes more effective use of that available time. I think the method you would use would actually slow you down in a real fight.

Perhaps you could present a "properly designed" training drill we could all practice that "will allow for the many variables"....

If anyone is interested in RBT drills I would recommend reading Kenneth Murray's Training at the Speed of Life. Otherwise my answer to Sam1911's question stands on its own.

David E
March 14, 2010, 05:52 AM
Agreed, I think the method I would use makes more effective use of that available time. I think the method you would use would actually slow you down in a real fight.

I'm curious about the drills you've done that bring you to this conclusion.

How was the drill set up ? I'd like to replicate it.

How can you triple-tap badguys #1 and #2 (firing 6 shots total) and still have your first shot on #3 faster than going one shot each?

(Keep in mind that "one shot each" does not necessarily mean you stop shooting.)

Properly designed training will allow for the many variables to present themselves and not have to be imagined. If anyone is interested in RBT drills I would recommend reading Kenneth Murray's Training at the Speed of Life.

Instead of citing a book we'd all have to go buy, why not detail a "properly designed" drill for us in this forum instead?

167
March 14, 2010, 06:27 AM
I'm curious about the drills you've done that bring you to this conclusion.

It is based on RBT drills, but more than that it is based on watching hours of unedited police video and the personal experiences of the people who have trained me.


How can you triple-tap badguys #1 and #2 (firing 6 shots total) and still have your first shot on #3 faster than going one shot each?

My premise is not to triple tap or anything tap anything. That is the premise of easyg. My premise is to shoot the most immediate threat until there is another threat more immediate. But anyway. The race is not to see who can get shots on board each threat faster, it is a race to end all the threats faster. So it doesn't matter if you get to the third threat first, what matters is who ends all the threats first.

Instead of citing a book we'd all have to go buy, why not detail a "properly designed" drill for us in this forum instead?

Because the information you get from the book will be better and more complete than what I can give you. We spend hundreds of dollars on buying good equipment and quality duty ammo, etc., why not spend $30 to enhance the quality of your training?


There is perhaps a compromise solution for our disagreement. My premise is stated above, so no need to repeat it. The immediacy of a threat is based on personal perception of the unfolding situation. You just happen to think that one round on board of the most immediate threat no longer makes that threat the most immediate, so you move on to the next, and then the next. After you put two in the third guy he is no longer the most immediate, so you go back to #2, and once he has two on board you go to the only guy left with one. Pretty much anyway. So we are sort of half way in agreement. What do you think?

Sam1911
March 14, 2010, 10:47 AM
You just happen to think that one round on board of the most immediate threat no longer makes that threat the most immediate, so you move on to the next, and then the next. I think rephrasing that may be in order. Three equidistant threats of equal importance. Shoot one -- he's down, wounded, or I missed, (there are still two standing, armed, advancing threats just as bad as the one I've shot that I need to handle). Shoot the second-- he's down, wounded, or I missed (in the incredibly quickly decreasing time I have left to do anything at all, I still have to handle a completely untouched armed and advancing threat, and possibly also the two others who might need "seconds.") Shoot the third -- he's down, wounded, or I missed -- time to reassess all three.

This is a viable model for how to proceed. It at least attempts to address the question that David brought up of "shoot #1, shoot #2, get shot by #3."

If you can show or at least argue convincingly that you can get two or three hits on #1 then #2, etc. in the same time it takes you to do the same process with one shot each, that would help along that portion of the argument.

training is different than hypothetical discusions on the internet. Properly designed training will allow for the many variables to present themselves and not have to be imagined.So possibilities in how to set up a realistic training scenario cannot be discussed? :scrutiny: Really good FoF training can evolve fluidly from a static start point to become almost anything as the participants act and react. But not all training is, could be, or even should be, FoF. FoF becomes the strop that hones the sharpened edge of the rest of your training.

Every other kind of training (at least that I'm familiar with) is a simulation set up with static and/or moving targets that is repeatable and certainly can be discussed, explained, described.

Now, I think there's a bit of an "angels dancing on the heads of pins" argument going on here that isn't helping us. No situation is going to be exactly like something we've run 1,000 times in practice. No three threats are going to be perfectly equal in importance. If there are three with bats, knives, guns, etc., they aren't going to measure out their distances to you down to the inch and even if they did it wouldn't probably matter much. And, the moment the action/reaction starts, everyone is going to move.

Will you revert to your training? Sure. To a degree. You're still going to be processing and reevaluating. If the 1,1,2,1,1 plan doesn't make much sense because the threats stack or you move to create separation/time I can't believe that training is going to take over to such a degree that you cannot make multiple hits on #1, if that's what makes sense.

Conversely, if you are really faced with three armed threats, crowding in to do you harm at very short range ... well, your chances of success are VERY slim. What will work best in that instance may be "boarding-house rules" but what you will actually DO, or have the chance to do before one or more end the scene for you, may not look much like what you'd planned on.

This is a very interesting discussion, but it begins to sound a bit like a "which full-synthetic oil is best" discussion on a car forum where the most educated and studied members wage epic battles over minutia that may be critically important in 0.001% of likely situations.

Last point: Show respect for each others' study and views. Work to reach understanding, not to "win" by belittling the other guy.

David E
March 14, 2010, 12:45 PM
My premise is to shoot the most immediate threat until there is another threat more immediate.

But if you're taking too much time addressing the "most immediate threat," your first clue that another threat just became more immediate might be them shooting/stabbing/clubbing you, at which point, your ability to adequately address this more immediate threat just significantly decreased.

The race is not to see who can get shots on board each threat faster, it is a race to end all the threats faster.

If I an alone and have multiple deadly threats to deal with, then I need to follow the best protocol to address/end each threat as fast as I can. I submit that shooting each one once, quickly, then going back and shooting them more as needed is better than triple-quadruple tapping (or more) each one in sequence. Since they'll probably start moving when shots are fired by the goodguy, the sooner the goodguy shoots them, the less time they have to move.

So possibilities in how to set up a realistic training scenario cannot be discussed?

At least easyg shared the drill that brought him to his conclusion. Since 40% of the time there are multiple attackers, setting up a reasonable drill that addresses some of these issues is a good idea. The book 167 cites I'm sure is a good one, but I was hoping to get at least one other good drill suggestion.

No three threats are going to be perfectly equal in importance.

Probably not perfectly equal, but still representing a deadly threat, at least as far as the premise goes of how best to engage multiple deadly threats. Obviously, if one has a gun and the other two at 10 yds have pool cues, shoot the guy with the gun first, probably with multiple rounds. Once he's neutralized, see if his buddies are running at you or away from you. This is an easy call and I don't see much argument over this scenario. But if all of them have guns, now what? Having a viable plan in place prior to that confrontation would be a better idea than "hmmm, I wonder how I should deal with this." Waiting for one of them to shoot you to determine which one is the "most immediate threat" doesn't strike me as a good way to go about it.

If I were able to pretend to go along, reaching for my wallet, but instead draw my gun, time just became an extraordinarily critical factor for me. Now, they are reacting to ME. But now what? Engage #1 with 1-2-3-4-5 rounds before engaging #2 with 1-2-3-4-5 rounds before engaging #3 ? I think there's a better way.

David E
March 14, 2010, 12:46 PM
Here's the drill I'm going to set up and run in the next couple days:

3 IPSC/IDPA targets placed at 9, 12 and 3 oclock placed 7 yds away.

Facing #2 (12 oclock) starting with hand on fully holstered gun. (this makes the start position the same for everyone, eliminates the "acquisition" phase of the draw which could skew the results and is in line with the "I'm reaching for my wallet" premise.)

At signal, draw and engage the targets with one shot each. (engage #2 first, then the other two. If you're using a second party with a stop watch, be sure he knows what order you're engaging the targets with how many shots so he knows when to stop the time. Do this for at least 3 runs.

Repeat using triple taps. Compare the time it takes to get the first shot on the third target.

That should address the premise posed by easyg and to an extent, the one posed by 167. But now that I think about it, 167's tactic would have someone yell out which one just became a more immediate threat so the shooter must react to that instead of going in the sequence he may have pre-selected. It would go like this: "GO! #3....#1!......#2! The next string might be "GO! #2......#1....#3 The initial command identifying which target to engage (regardless of which one the shooter was facing) would immediately follow the "GO!" signal, while the follow-up commands would come at random times. This would mimic the engaged threat not going down and a new threat becoming more immediate. I realize this would be impossible to compare results over the internet, but it might be interesting for the shooter. Especially if the shooter goes dry while engaging threat #2....:eek:

To answer some of my own questions, I will change it up, facing #3, engaging him first, then #2 then #1, etc. I'll also start facing uprange away from the targets, going for double taps, etc.

If anyone has any suggestions to add to this drill, please post them.

David E
March 15, 2010, 01:15 AM
I'm going to change the array set up to 10, 12 and 2 oclock. It occured to me that not everyone will be able to shoot at the 180 degree line.

167
March 15, 2010, 12:20 PM
Three equidistant threats of equal importance.

In my experience I have never seen this happen. I wouldn't rule it out, but I would put the odds of it happening very low. And the second the fight starts it is going to change anyway.

But not all training is, could be, or even should be, FoF.

I agree, but we are discussing a very complex and fluid situation that cannot be accurately simulated on a live range in its totallity.

If you want drills for a live range just break down to the different components of firearms handling that would be required to address this issue and practice those components.

Will you revert to your training? Sure. To a degree. You're still going to be processing and reevaluating. If the 1,1,2,1,1 plan doesn't make much sense because the threats stack or you move to create separation/time I can't believe that training is going to take over to such a degree that you cannot make multiple hits on #1, if that's what makes sense.

There are some examples in law enforcement where training and only training is what came out. I won't go so far as to say you can't divert from training if the situation doesn't fit your training, but history has shown that it probably isn't likely.


But if you're taking too much time addressing the "most immediate threat," your first clue that another threat just became more immediate might be them shooting/stabbing/clubbing you, at which point, your ability to adequately address this more immediate threat just significantly decreased.

Agreed, so don't take too much time and stay aware. Like I have said before, this is a very fluid situation, we have to be very fluid with it.

I submit that shooting each one once, quickly, then going back and shooting them more as needed is better

Have you tried this with dynamically moving threats? It will slow down the process quite a bit.

Here's the drill I'm going to set up and run in the next couple days:

3 IPSC/IDPA targets placed at 9, 12 and 3 oclock placed 7 yds away.

Facing #2 (12 oclock) starting with hand on fully holstered gun. (this makes the start position the same for everyone, eliminates the "acquisition" phase of the draw which could skew the results and is in line with the "I'm reaching for my wallet" premise.)

At signal, draw and engage the targets with one shot each. (engage #2 first, then the other two. If you're using a second party with a stop watch, be sure he knows what order you're engaging the targets with how many shots so he knows when to stop the time. Do this for at least 3 runs.

Repeat using triple taps. Compare the time it takes to get the first shot on the third target.

That should address the premise posed by easyg and to an extent, the one posed by 167. But now that I think about it, 167's tactic would have someone yell out which one just became a more immediate threat so the shooter must react to that instead of going in the sequence he may have pre-selected. It would go like this: "GO! #3....#1!......#2! The next string might be "GO! #2......#1....#3 The initial command identifying which target to engage (regardless of which one the shooter was facing) would immediately follow the "GO!" signal, while the follow-up commands would come at random times. This would mimic the engaged threat not going down and a new threat becoming more immediate. I realize this would be impossible to compare results over the internet, but it might be interesting for the shooter. Especially if the shooter goes dry while engaging threat #2....

To answer some of my own questions, I will change it up, facing #3, engaging him first, then #2 then #1, etc. I'll also start facing uprange away from the targets, going for double taps, etc.

If anyone has any suggestions to add to this drill, please post them.

Sounds like a fun set of drills, I would like to hear how they go. But they are just drills on a relatively static range in a non-fluid controlled situation under near ideal circumstances so I think their validity in regard to the discussion is very limited. As far as suggestions I would say make the targets move in unpredictable and changing directions. Have the shooter moving also, and a training partner standing off to the side shooting at the shooter with a sim gun or airsoft gun, or charging the shooter with a training knife. Make the number of shots required to "nuetralize" each target an unknown number set by a training partner that when you reach it, he calls "dead" for that target (See drills here (http://pistol-training.com/archives/179) and here (http://pistol-training.com/archives/185) for further info).

GlockStar
March 15, 2010, 12:57 PM
I "train" with a double tap, but have a feeling that when the SHTF I would empty the mag.

maxpeters
March 15, 2010, 01:11 PM
Might I suggest that given the scenario you presented, you forget all that tap tap tap bisiness, and retreat to a defensible position, while you, or whomever you're with, call 911 on your cell. If you have one. If not, try yelling?

You can't set up a nightmare scenario like that, and expect to have the perfect plan to get yourself out of it. There are too many variables.

Practice hitting what you aim at, and all the rest will have to be adjusted for when it happens.

During a shootout, there's not only tunnel vision, but tunnel thinking. The best plans, and even the best training, seem to go out the window most of the time anyway.

KingEdward
March 15, 2010, 01:17 PM
If last resort and have to use .357 to stop threat,

there will be 3 rounds fired

then possibly 3 more if further threat exists

then one is left and six can be reloaded.


If it's mossberg being used as last stand, then 3 will
be fired with 3 left in magazine and six on sidesaddle.

167
March 15, 2010, 04:43 PM
Practice hitting what you aim at, and all the rest will have to be adjusted for when it happens.

Agreed.

David E
March 16, 2010, 01:08 AM
The problem with stating that you're going to set up a a drill is that others immediately discount it. Usually, this is because they do not understand what the drill is designed to do.

In this case, one goal was to approximate the drill that easyg said he'd already set up and fired. His performance on that drill is what brought him to the conclusion that triple tapping each of 3 targets is the faster way to do it. His times, he said, were in the 10 - 14 second range.

Another goal was to define parameters regarding distance, target placement and start position. This would allow anyone who has access to a range that would allow 170 degrees of fire to be able to replicate the same drill and not require a second or third person or intricate moving targets. It would be nice to have access to such things, but most people do not.

This drill also tests transistioning skills. The peripheral targets, placed at 10 and 2 oclock, take some doing to acquire. This skill is not typically tested, much less practiced on most ranges.

This drill is not training, per se, but it IS testing the skill of the shooter in certain aspects of shooting. Going from here to having a partner shoot at you with simunitions is quite a leap and misses the entire point of the drill.

David E
March 16, 2010, 01:10 AM
I shot the drill today. Centered on target #2 placed 7 yds away, I had #1 and #3 placed at 10 and 2 oclock respectively. (closer to 9 and 3, but less than the 180 degree line) These targets were also 7 yds away from the center.

Gun used was a Glock 21 SF in .45 acp. Start position was gun holstered, hand ON gun.

Shot timer used. Shooter reacted to the beep of the timer.

Target used: 3 IPSC targets.

First drill: single shots to each target. Shooter engaged center target first on all strings.

First string: .85, .58, .71 for a total time of 2.14

Best string: .77, .48, .64 = 1.89

This means that the 3rd target got hit in 1.89 seconds after the start signal.

Second drill: 2 shots each target before moving on to the next.

Best run: .75, .17, .48, .17, .54, .18 = 2.29. In this string, the 3rd target got the first hit at 2.11 seconds after the start signal. This was faster than my single shot string one, which surprised me a bit, but I was warmed up a little by then.

Third Drill: 3 shots each target before moving on to the next.

Best run: .71, .21, .18, .40, .20, .17. .54, .20, .17 = 2.78 First shot on 3rd target @ 2.41

I then used my Colt 1911 in .45 acp and bettered these times a little bit, but it's kind of dry to read a lot of numbers, so I'll just say my best 1 shot each was 1.65, my best 2 shots each was 2.22 and my best 3 shots each was 2.91 (actually did better on this string with my Glock! :eek:)

It was interesting to see that double tapping the targets actually put a shot on the 3rd target faster than single shots did, but that's comparing the worst 1 shot each to the best 2 shots each.

For me, the basic time difference for hitting the 3rd target between firing one shot each vs. 3 shots each was 1/2 second. Many will think that 1/2 second isn't that long, but it can be decisive......either in your favor or against it. This depends how much importance you give a 1/2 second in a dynamic life and death situation with people actively trying to kill you.

Are you willing to run your gun dry on target #1 or #2 ? Or would you rather put at least one shot into each of them first? It's your call.

But here's the crux of the matter: it doesn't matter how fast I can do it, it matters how fast YOU can do it. Your current skill level may dictate the best way for you to approach this scenario.

If you have a place that would allow you to set up this drill, give it a go and see what you discover.

167
March 16, 2010, 02:53 AM
David E, I thought you were also going to return to targets for follow up shots too? Or did I just miss those times in your post? Sorry if I did. Do you know what your hits were as well off the top of your head? Not that it really makes all that much of a difference, just curious.

David E
March 16, 2010, 04:15 AM
The post was written in regards to how long it takes to get the first shot into badguy #3, as easyg apparently had found he was quicker doing it with triple-taps. Then again, he was in the 10-14 second range. No disrespect meant, but if I understood his drill and post correctly, this seems like a very long time to fire 9 shots into 3 targets, unless you're using a revolver.

167, you make the point several times about how difficult it would be to acquire a moving target, but seem to overlook the fact that the longer you're engaging #1 and #2, the more time #3 has to move from the place you last saw him. Not to mention that you may well run out of ammo by #2, which would allow #3 all kinds of options in how things proceed from the moment your slide locks open.

I ran out of time to do all I wanted to do, but using my split and transition times for the runs I did do, it's reasonable to conclude that a good run going 1,1,2,1,1 would've totaled about 2.74. This is slower than double-tapping all around, but the first shot in #3 is the one that matters most, not the total time. Heck, one shot may be enough for one or more of the badguys.

I ran the single and double tap runs 4 times each. Throwing out the high run in each, the average time of the remaining 3 runs to first hit on #3 for single taps was 1.92. The average for the double tap was 2.17 for a .25 difference between the two. (at least for me. Maybe you're faster.)

I found this rather interesting. Now it becomes a question of if the .25 is enough time to worry about, or if placing TWO shots on the first two targets is worth taking the extra .25 to make it to #3.....

167
March 16, 2010, 04:52 AM
I found this rather interesting. Now it becomes a question of if the .25 is enough time to worry about, or if placing TWO shots on the first two targets is worth taking the extra .25 to make it to #3.....

That is a good question. I have been told by my officer survival instructors that .25 is about how long it takes for an untrained person to pull a trigger. So .25 is at least probably a trigger pull, maybe a little more depending on the persons skill level. But if it takes you 1.75 (we can round your best time down) number three has already let off maybe 7 rounds give or take one or two depending on where they started from and how good they are, so one more in the whole scheme of things may not actually be much. But that one could always be the one. And there is always your own movment to keep in mind. In 1.75 seconds you could put another 15-20 feet between yourself and #3, assuming he stays stationary. If he does move, I doubt it would be directly toward you unless he is armed with a contact weapon, so it is likely that with the combination of his movement and your movement it could be more like 30-40 extra feet of distance by the time you get to #3.

makarovnik
March 16, 2010, 05:36 AM
Try to save some for contestant #2.

IllHunter
March 16, 2010, 11:39 AM
Of course, you don't want to be the "bad" guy, but he's the one that should learn about loads and location. The caliber hasn't been reported yet, I'll post if I hear. Who wants to bet .22?
http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=365872

Synopsis: The perp tries to rob a TOUGH taxi driver who takes 4 and keeps fighting and winning.:what: Knowing Illinois courts, he gets surgery and recovery and med bills and no income and the perp gets a short stay, 3 squares and rehab. Out in five, no doubt.:cuss:

David E
March 16, 2010, 12:22 PM
1/4 second is the average reaction time for someone anticipating an impending start signal. It takes significantly longer for someone to recognize a threat, then decide what to do about it. This disregards the "startle" reflex triggered by the sound of you shot, which may or may not result in them pulling the trigger or their shot hitting you.

Being able to move and shoot accurately is a skill that few people take the time to master, cops included.

Since I am no longer a cop, I have to consider factors like having my wife or kids with me. I sure can't move laterally off center-line if they are present. As I saw this confrontation develop, I'd put them behind me.

A good case can be made for a ruthless and decisive counter attack. Many Hollywood scenarios show goodguys and badguys drawing down on each then each independently deciding to NOT SHOOT, which is totally ludicrous. Instead, once it's established a deadly threat exists from each of the badguys, it's time to "go to work," as they say and force them react to YOU. Knowing your ability in a situation like this would be a good thing. Accurate threat assessment would be, also.

Keep in mind, I shot the targets in the least efficient way, starting in the middle and going to the outside right target to the outside left target. Time-wise, it would be more efficient to start on one end and simply work my way thru to the other end.
Easyg never chimed in with answers to my follow-up questions concerning his drill, so I chose the most difficult engagement order to see how close I got to his 11-15 second runs. I think I did alright.

But it also simulates the center target being the more immediate threat. Maybe he has a shotgun while the others have .25 chrome plated Ravens. Or maybe he has a .38 snub and "crazy eyes," who knows.

If #3 could move 15-20 feet in 1.75 seconds, or fire 7 rds in the same time frame, how far could he move or how many shots could he fire at you in the 3-4 seconds 167's engagement protocol would give him? Answer: too far and too many.

Rally_Vincent
March 16, 2010, 02:42 PM
Hope your aim is true and adapt, adapt, adapt to each changing circumstance.

I hate to bring in the concepts of video games, especially with respect to shooters, but if you've ever had to fight multiple assailants -- such as running across three enemies unexpectedly and all of them expecting you, then you're in a very bad situation and only luck will get you out of it (if it's unexpected, then you were {mentally, etc} unprepared, period).

BUT IF YOU ARE LUCKY, then you best grab onto that luck and ride that wave out to shore, because you're not going to be afforded anymore luxuries here.

Muscle-memory, double-taps, boarding-house, etc... all great and fine and dandy. But having the presence of mind enough to adapt to the situation to get the upper hand is always better.

Turn the corner and see three guys waiting for you with obviously bad intentions? Back peddle around that corner, maybe do a quick check to see if you don't bump into someone waiting for you (who followed you in case you turned around). If there is someone, address this threat (pull your weapon if it isn't pulled, go hand-to-hand, or even something as simple and risky as trying to run around/past them), as it is the immediate-most threat. If not, use the opportunity to pull your weapon (if it's not already out) and retreat (or, depending on the circumstances, wait for them to turn the corner to be at the disadvantage).

Walk out to your car in a dark parking lot and a guy to your left is on an intercept-course while trying to get your attention shouting obscenities? Stop and get into a position to make sure you can see any(more) threats coming your way (such as a guy following you from behind -- the would-be jacker's partner in crime or some such). Move so anything else that approaches can fall into your cone of sight. Get into a position so that they can come at you one by one instead of both at a time. Address the threats as the situation calls for it.

If the threat/threats is/are persistent and fails/fail to recognize that it/they is/are at a disadvantage and present something worth being in fear of your life (or bodily harm) over, at least you'll be in a situation that you can better grasp which threat is more immediate than the next.

Furthermore, if you have to engage someone and it comes to shots fired and all you can get off is two good shots from the cover you've taken, then so be it.

If you're on your way to cover and if you're taking fire, return fire until you've taken cover. Tactical reload. Get off good shots from behind that cover at the most immediate threat (the definition will vary, but by now you get the point).

IF ALL YOU ARE CAPABLE OF PERFORMING UNDER A REAL-LIFE COMBAT SITUATION is learned muscle-memory double taps, then so be it. It happened. Shoot more and/or take cover, reassess, ADAPT.

That's the whole point. Adapt. That will include adapting to your own missteps and misjudgments.

Double-taps, triple-taps, boarding-house -- none of that matters. If you're against multiple assailants where each and every one of them is a perceived equal-level immediate threat and you have to decide on how you're going to shoot all three (or more) of them -- you have either done something wrong, or you're simply in a well-executed trap-scenario. When all hell breaks loose, you're going to have to rely on luck and your ability as a human being to adapt. Good luck.

David E
March 16, 2010, 06:23 PM
Ok, so what drills do you recommend setting up at the range to practice such things?

Learning to adapt is good. This is one reason I shoot IPSC/IDPA, as the plan often doesn't go as intended, so you have to adapt on the fly.

The OP has a 5-shot .38 snub. He always triple taps. If he is faced with multiple opponents, as is the case over 40% of the time, then triple-tapping them becomes a bad idea.

Were I armed with a 5-shot snub (very unlikely) and if there are 3 badguys, but #1 is the main threat, maybe triple-tap him (depending how fast you could do it) and then put one each into the other two. Then beat feet outta there.

167
March 17, 2010, 02:13 AM
If #3 could move 15-20 feet in 1.75 seconds, or fire 7 rds in the same time frame, how far could he move or how many shots could he fire at you in the 3-4 seconds 167's engagement protocol would give him? Answer: too far and too many.

The method I espouse would not necessarily give #3 3-4 seconds, I have never stated that any particular number of shots should be fired at each threat. Any movement would be negated by my own movement, or capitalized upon by my own movement. If loved ones are present for the fight I think movement would still be possible, but your family needs to know the plan up front, at least in general terms. Going to gun and not moving is bad news.

Your method leaves whoever you start with standing until you can get back to him barring a very difficult or lucky CNS hit, so same difference. Badguys are known for soaking up rounds, after you deliver second hits you may still have to deliver thirds, or fourths, before the fight is over. Your method potentially leaves three threats standing for the duration of the fight, where as my method would neutralize or reduce threats in a linear fashion as the fight progresses.

There are pros and cons to each as with everything, I prefer my method, you prefer yours. I can respect that if you can.

In regards to the OP, maybe the answer to his question should not be how many shots to fire on each threat, but to carry a higher capacity firearm so as not to put himself in as difficult a situation and to allow for more options. As David E pointed out, a 5 shot snub doesn't give you many options.

David E
March 17, 2010, 02:30 AM
The method I espouse would not necessarily give #3 3-4 seconds, I have never stated that any particular number of shots should be fired at each threat.

No, you haven't. The problem with your method, of shooting one threat until another becomes a more immediate threat is that you would well run your gun dry before engaging all the badguys. I view this as a major shortcoming.

If loved ones are present for the fight I think movement would still be possible, but your family needs to know the plan up front............

I'm going to guess that you don't have young children....

Your method leaves whoever you start with standing until you can get back to him barring a very difficult or lucky CNS hit, so same difference.

Your method could find you with an empty gun after engaging only one threat. :eek:

I did a couple head shots at about 5-6 yds today, hands at sides, gun in holster. At signal, I center punched the head in 1.08 If I were to start with hand on gun and able to do a self start, that would cut the time down to 1/2 second or less........maybe something to consider, especially with a low capacity gun.

167
March 17, 2010, 02:49 AM
The problem with your method, of shooting one threat until another becomes a more immediate threat is that you would well run your gun dry before engaging all the badguys.

You assume that, and with that same statement acknowledge that it will take several (more than two) solid hits to neutralize a threat.

I'm going to guess that you don't have young children....

I didn't say your family would be moving, I said you would. Who is the threat to the bad guys? You are, you are the one shooting at them. Unless you are a really big dude you aren't going to provide your family much cover with your body anyway, so draw fire and move away from them while they move in a different safer direction at whatever pace they can manage.

I did a couple head shots at about 5-6 yds today, hands at sides, gun in holster. At signal, I center punched the head in 1.08 If I were to start with hand on gun and able to do a self start, that would cut the time down to 1/2 second or less........maybe something to consider, especially with a low capacity gun.

Ever tried that in a dynamic situation? An intensly stressful situation with all the physiological effects that come with it?

David E
March 17, 2010, 02:58 AM
You're being vague and coy about your method which doesn't stipulate a set number of rounds to fire at any of the multiple badguys (3 in this scenario). You said that you'd engage the threat until another one became more immediate. For how many rds in #1? How many in #2 ? You don't know or won't say.

I see a typo in my post. It should've read "COULD well run dry," not "would." Maybe that helps clarify what I was trying to say.

Point being, depending on ammo capacity, rapidity of fire and how long it takes to realize the first threat is less of one, you COULD run your gun dry before even making it to #2, much less #3.

Depending on the situation, I may or may not move away from my family. It might be good to practice it both ways. You seem to assume you'll always be able to move to your advantage.

I didn't say a headshot would be easy, only that it might be something to consider, especially if a low capacity gun is chosen.

167
March 17, 2010, 06:28 PM
You're being vague and coy about your method which doesn't stipulate a set number of rounds to fire at any of the multiple badguys (3 in this scenario). You said that you'd engage the threat until another one became more immediate. For how many rds in #1? How many in #2 ? You don't know or won't say.

I don't know, and can't know because the situation dictates.

Point being, depending on ammo capacity, rapidity of fire and how long it takes to realize the first threat is less of one, you COULD run your gun dry before even making it to #2, much less #3.

I can agree with that and thank you for clarifying. But I don't necessarily see a problem with it. If it takes all my bullets to get one guy down, it still would have taken all my bullets to get the same guy down with any method used.

Depending on the situation, I may or may not move away from my family. It might be good to practice it both ways. You seem to assume you'll always be able to move to your advantage.

I think that in the vast majority of cases some advantageous movement will be allowed. I will concede though that in some cases that movement will be less advantageous than in others, but still advantageous none the less.

I didn't say a headshot would be easy, only that it might be something to consider,...

It is something to consider, but it also must be understood the level of difficulty involved with making a headshot in a dynamic situation.

especially if a low capacity gun is chosen.

In regards to the OP, maybe the answer to his question should not be how many shots to fire on each threat, but to carry a higher capacity firearm so as not to put himself in as difficult a situation and to allow for more options. As David E pointed out, a 5 shot snub doesn't give you many options.

David E
March 17, 2010, 08:27 PM
I don't know, and can't know because the situation dictates.

Makes it impossible to set up any type of shooting drill that covers some of these aspects, doesn't it. Even set up strictly as a training module, it would be very difficult to do.

I'd rather have a shooting drill that, while having its shortcomings, addresses some of the more important dynamic shooting skills, such as rapid target acquisition, when the targets are fairly far apart. When was the last time your PD did that?

If it takes all my bullets to get one guy down, it still would have taken all my bullets to get the same guy down with any method used.

Expecting an immediate incapacitation might be a bit optimistic. He may well fall 2 seconds after the first hit, but you kept shooting him until your gun ran dry, never paying any attention to badguys #2 and #3. I think there is a better way.

Taking this scenario a step further, I'd rather fight 3 guys, that each have 2 or more holes in them as they bleed out than 2 guys totally healthy and pissed off because I just killed their friend and now I have an empty gun. :eek:

Looks like we'll never agree on this one.

Magic_Man
March 17, 2010, 08:30 PM
You shoot until the threat is stopped. That can be 1 shot or 25 shots.

Sam1911
March 17, 2010, 08:37 PM
You shoot until the threat is stopped. That can be 1 shot or 25 shots.

Perhaps you should expand on this in light of the questions being weighed in this thread. You shoot WHAT, until WHICH threat is stopped? Love to hear your input but I don't feel like I got the whole message you were trying to convey. Like you got cut off before you got the chance to really address the issue under debate.

David E
March 17, 2010, 08:47 PM
You shoot until the threat is stopped. That can be 1 shot or 25 shots.

That makes sense........until you face multiple threats simultaneously........NOW what ?

Let's say you're facing 3 armed badguys who want to kill you. Do you shoot one shot into each of them and repeat as necessary? Double tap them in sequence? Triple tap? Or empty your gun into the first guy, hoping the other two will get the message?

This is what 167 and I have been discussing for too many pages !

167
March 18, 2010, 03:42 AM
Makes it impossible to set up any type of shooting drill that covers some of these aspects, doesn't it. Even set up strictly as a training module, it would be very difficult to do.

I have already linked two drills that do.

Expecting an immediate incapacitation might be a bit optimistic. He may well fall 2 seconds after the first hit, but you kept shooting him until your gun ran dry, never paying any attention to badguys #2 and #3. I think there is a better way.

I don't expect an immediate incapacitation, nor did I say I would shoot guys to the ground. Although I can see how that might be thought to be implied, I apologize for not clarifying. I would also not ignore threat #2 and #3, I would use good movement to mitigate what threat they pose. If in the situation I felt I had gotten some solid hits on #1, then it may be that threat has been reduced and I move on. But I won't go into the fight planning to put a predetermined number of shots on each threat because who is to say I won't miss, or there is some other factor coming into play that I don't know about that is causing my shots (assuming they are hits) to be ineffective? The whole idea is to remain fluid, having a fairly rigid plan going into a fight reduces the amount of fluidity we can introduce to the fight. My method allows for that fluidity. If I hit threat #1 with one shot and he goes down, drops his gun, or something else that makes him less of a threat I am moving on to the next threat. So it may be I shoot each guy once, or it may be I shoot a guy once, next 5 times and the 3rd three times or any other combination. Whatever it is, I am no nailing myself down to any one approach because I don't think that is a tactically wise thing to do. You have said the same in one of your post.

I'd rather have a shooting drill that, while having its shortcomings, addresses some of the more important dynamic shooting skills, such as rapid target acquisition, when the targets are fairly far apart.

Can't disagree with that, see what I already wrote in a previous post quoted below.

If you want drills for a live range just break down to the different components of firearms handling that would be required to address this issue and practice those components.

When was the last time your PD did that?

Mid February, and every three months before that on average with a few extras thrown in there for special occassions. Plus the training I do on my own time, which is about once a month, twice a month every now and then. Not enough, but without access to a personal range about the best I can do.

Taking this scenario a step further, I'd rather fight 3 guys, that each have 2 or more holes in them as they bleed out than 2 guys totally healthy and pissed off because I just killed their friend and now I have an empty gun.

The gun doesn't have to stay empty (that is why we practice reloads right?), and by the time it reaches this point we should have put considerable distance between ourselves and the threat in handgun terms and either bugged out completely or assumed cover. You are also making the assumption that your first shots are hits. I have seen enough video, read enough OIS reports, reports about civilian gunfights, experienced enough RBT and shot in enough competitive formats to know that what we can do on the range is very different than what we can do on the street under stress. I am confident in my shooting ability, but not so confident to think I am beyond missing, and I personally don't think anyone should be that confident in their shooting ability.

Looks like we'll never agree on this one.

Personally I think we agree on more than we realize, this is just a difficult discussion to have on an internet forum because we are limited to our words and it is sometimes difficult to communicate a point with just words. I think you just take a more structured approach to the problem, where as I prefer to be more fluid. I don't totally discount your method either, I think it has validity, it just isn't something I would use.

This is what 167 and I have been discussing for too many pages !

That is the truth, want to call it quits (this is really starting to take up too much time:uhoh:)? I think we have laid out the aspects of both methods in pretty good detail. People should be able to read what we have posted and come to their own conclusions about which method they think they would prefer to use.

David E
March 18, 2010, 12:19 PM
The links you posted only involved a single target. The second drill has a partner telling you when to stop shooting ONE target. There was nothing about how to engage multiple targets.

Engaging multiple targets, spaced yds apart is something that few people practice, even if they have the ability to set it up. There is a way to do it and the only way to get better at it is to simply set it up and shoot it.

When I was a cop, I joined a local range so I could go anytime I wanted or needed to.

For me, it comes down to this: When facing multiple armed badguys, all representing an equal deadly threat, I prefer to shoot each one once, then go back for possible clean-up. If they are close enough, based on my personal range testing, I may very well double tap them, but triple tapping them takes too long to get to #3.

If they are all standing in front of me, I'd shoot them all once for sure, as I discovered I can get a shot on each of them in about 1/2 second with a self-start. (Hand on gun start, as tho I were reaching for my wallet)

Threat Priority: If I am faced with multiple deadly targets, but one is significantly more deadly (he's the one with the crazy eyes holding a shotgun while the others are armed with broken bottles and scared eyes) I'm going to engage him until I'm satisified before engaging the others.

If I chose to arm myself with a "convenience" gun instead of a "fighting" gun, my tactics could change. This would be required due to lack of capacity, power, or both. Firing 5 rds into #1 with a 5-shot snubby is not a tactic I'd want to execute.

It behooves the serious CCW holder to know his gun, his ability and to take steps to improve his skill in a variety of areas.

AcceptableUserName
March 18, 2010, 01:02 PM
Regarding multiple assailants, I favor "Boarding house rules": Everyone gets served once before anyone gets a second helping.


i laughed so hard @ this even though I know I shouldn't.

167
March 18, 2010, 06:24 PM
The links you posted only involved a single target. The second drill has a partner telling you when to stop shooting ONE target. There was nothing about how to engage multiple targets.

It doesn't take much to figure out how to adapt those drills to multiple target drills. I thought that would be pretty self evident, sorry for assuming such.

When I was a cop, I joined a local range so I could go anytime I wanted or needed to.

Good for you, I don't have that luxury.

For me, it comes down to this: When facing multiple armed badguys, all representing an equal deadly threat, I prefer to shoot each one once, then go back for possible clean-up. If they are close enough, based on my personal range testing, I may very well double tap them, but triple tapping them takes too long to get to #3.

If they are all standing in front of me, I'd shoot them all once for sure, as I discovered I can get a shot on each of them in about 1/2 second with a self-start. (Hand on gun start, as tho I were reaching for my wallet)

Threat Priority: If I am faced with multiple deadly targets, but one is significantly more deadly (he's the one with the crazy eyes holding a shotgun while the others are armed with broken bottles and scared eyes) I'm going to engage him until I'm satisified before engaging the others.

That is your choice and I can respect that. I hope you can allow me the same courtesy as to respect my choice.

It behooves the serious CCW holder to know his gun, his ability and to take steps to improve his skill in a variety of areas.

100% with you on this one. I think it would also apply to anyone who is planning to rely on a firearm for defense, even if just home defense.

David E
March 18, 2010, 08:52 PM
It doesn't take much to figure out how to adapt those drills to multiple target drills. I thought that would be pretty self evident, sorry for assuming such.

To do the "shoot until your training partner tells you to stop or switch" drill with multiple badguys will have you running OUT of ammo, possibly before leaving #1. :eek: Again, I find that unacceptable, so we clearly disagree here.

Good for you, I don't have that luxury.

Are you saying that there is NO range within 100 miles of you that you could join or shoot at?

100% with you on this one.

Woo hoo !! :D :D :D

167
March 18, 2010, 09:19 PM
To do the "shoot until your training partner tells you to stop or switch" drill with multiple badguys will have you running OUT of ammo, possibly before leaving #1. Again, I find that unacceptable, so we clearly disagree here.

Running out of ammo can happen for real (especially with a low capacity gun), so why not include it in the drill? If you don't want that level of realism your training partner, if he/she so chooses, doesn't have to make it 4 or 5 hits, he/she could make it 1, 2 or 3.

Are you saying that there is NO range within 100 miles of you that you could join or shoot at?

The closest decent range other than the law enforcement range is a little over an hour drive out of town. To become a member you have to be invited, and even if invited the membership fees are too steep for my finances. There are other ranges closer, but they aren't really conducive to combat style shooting, in fact some prohibit it out right. So no, there is not a range within 100 miles that is suitable for this type of shooting that I can afford. At least not that I am aware of, and I have looked pretty hard for one. I have a friend with a personal range on his property, so when our schedules mesh that is when I train and I already said about how often that is.

David E
March 18, 2010, 10:06 PM
If you're interested in a range, go to both www.uspsa.com and www.idpa.com and utilize their "club finder" feature. It'll bring up clubs within a certain radius (uspsa's default is set at 90 miles) Usually, they have memberships available that might be less than what you've already found.

My range is $200 for the first year and $100 thereafter. (Presuming you did your work day worth $80)

I can set up nearly anything I'm willing to set up, which is always nice.

I hope you discover a range near you !

167
March 18, 2010, 11:25 PM
I hope you discover a range near you !

Me too, I would love to have better access to a good range than I do now.

If you enjoyed reading about "Double Tap, Triple Tap, or Until Empty" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!