How fast should you shoot

My assessment is based upon a cessation from the target of what made it a target in the first place. But what does that mean in practical terms? Shooting as fast as I can make useful hits.

Most shootings occur at close range. Two to the body, one to the head. The one to the head is only needed if the two to the body don’t get the job done. Keep in mind, if you ever have to shoot someone it’s because they are a threat, to you are someone else. You are not shooting to scare or hurt them, you are shooting to stop the threat.

I like to imagine a pie plate/saucer. Shoot as fast as you can while keeping your group this size. If your group is bigger then you need to slow down. If it's tighter then you need to speed up. Shoot only as much as needed to end the threat.

Never had to fire in anger. So all food for thought. I would assume you shoot as fast as you can acquire the target. Like the time a wood chuck made a b-line for the tall grass. I shot him on the run with my K31 Swiss. About a 30 yard shot. Its split seconds, but taking just a split more, you can line things up and send the wood chuck tumbling.

As for shoot then assess? Not sure, but that might not take as long as one with think at the speed our brains work. Not an expert by any means.

My grandfather told me once, "Nothing scares a man more than standing your ground when you should be scurrying away like a beat down yard dog as fast as you can". That's shaped my opinion a lot on this topic over the years. It's one reason I've never gotten into the fast draw stuff, or trying to put 6 rounds down range on a steel plate in under 2 seconds. I train (shoot) to draw my pistol and put one round on target with as much speed as can be allowed without losing my sense of being deliberate, and be versatile for anything following that may be needed.

Shoot two or three rounds depending how many targets there are. If there are two shoot the first one time with you first well placed shot, then put 2 in the second, return to the first and shoot him again, unless you got a perfect shot, one is usually not enough, you have the best chance of getting the best shot off on the first shot though. Moving on quickly to the second target allows for 2 rounds to hopefully stop him, but all this time you are analyzing the situation to see who is down and who gave up, along with who else is there. Normally, if there is such a thing, it's one then 2, then back to the first target for a second or third shot if needed. The same with three targets, One, one. and two, then back to the first for more if needed and the second. FBI stats show 2-4 shots depending on caliber used in real FBI shootouts with a 9mm, less with a 45, I believe it was 2, as with a 357, and 10mm. But I am going by memory. I do remember that the statistics were very unimpressive as to how many rounds it took to put a man down, and I also remember the success rate was much better with a 45 than with either a 9 or a 40. So the myth of all being the same may be just that. Most old time lawmen swear by a 45, don't get me wrong I carry both, and usually a 9mm, but facts are facts.
When you see a guy shooting targets you see 2, 2, 2, when there are 3 targets, but in real life if you fired 4 shots a couple of seconds have passed along with the opportunity for the other two targets to move, so speed and accuracy are equally important. That last guy now has his gun out and is about to shoot back at you if you take too much time getting to him, also you should be moving during the entire time from when this started till it ends. Some profess moving towards the target, some want distance, obviously if you are a marksman you want distance, and lateral movement.

I got a wake up call when I started seeing YouTube videos of shootings where bad guys shot once to several times kept attacking with no slow down.

You should not draw your gun and fire until your life is in danger but by golly, once you draw and start shooting, I say keep shooting until threat is neutralized. For this reason, I practice rapid fire drill where I shoot as fast as I can while maintaining 4" to 6" group on target COM. If there were more than one threat and my life was in immediate danger, I would shoot 2 shots per threat starting with the closest threat. And when I am at slide lock, I would reload and reassess my situation whether to keep shooting at the threat(s), look for more threats or retreat.

Look at the video below of a robbery where robber kept attacking even after being shot and rapid fire on the robber may have benefited. If you have reason to shoot once, keep on shooting until threat is neutralized.



Bank robbery where shots were fired quickly until threat was neutralized - Security guard drew and shot first round fast accurately on target and followed up with rapid shots until threat was neutralized

Neutralized does not mean emptying a 16 or 17 round magazine into someone. You will find yourself in very big debt, if you own anything of value. Even cops who use excessive force get in deep crap. There is no reason that you need that many shots to stop a threat, unless you are missing the target completely, or the guy has on Body armor. Once the threat is over you have to stop shooting, that's the law. I have seen guys take 4 shots to go down but 17 or 23 like another recent shooting is Murder. You are a licensed permit holder I assume, there are rules and laws, a good lawyer will eat you alive in court, and you would be lucky to not do jail time. Of course you will say I am alive, but you would be just as alive without emptying that many rounds into someone. I saw that video where I counted 23 shots that the sheriff fired at a perp outside a convenience store, he entirely screwed the pooch, by waiting a good 3 minutes to taze the guy after a dozen commands to keep his hands up, "knowing the guy was armed and trying to get to his gun, he had 2 other officers there also. They shot so poorly that the guy was still alive after 23 rounds at 15 feet away.
And not being LEO, or retired, you better have insurance for these things or you will get hung out to dry, especially in certain states or counties. I have been carrying USSC ins for a few years now, only because everyone sues. A legal battle like the ones that arise from civilian shootings can run into the 6 figure range and higher.
This from the ops link
Bullets, liability, and you
Let’s say you have a Glock 17 with a full load of 18 rounds and are attacked. Let’s further say that your second shot causes your attacker to collapse, incapacitated. Would you continue firing the rest of your magazine — another 16 rounds — at the space he formerly occupied? I don’t know anyone who would say “yes”, because that’s clearly reckless.

How about shooting one more round? We know that it’s physiologically impossible to stop immediately once the trigger finger is moving, and so most of us would probably say another round or two was an acceptable over-run. So, at somewhere between two and 16 additional rounds we cross the line of acceptability. Is that line at three rounds? Five? Nine? I don’t know, and you don’t, but what we do know is that someone else will be making the judgment for us — and well after the fact.

In any defensive shooting, ethics (and increasingly our legal system) require you to justify every shot you make. In more and more cases, courts — whether actual or that of public opinion — are looking at the number of shots fired. When certain things happen in the chaos of a defensive shooting, such as unexplained shots in the suspect’s back or head, the focus often shifts from what the attacker did to what the defender over-did. Should one of those “extra” rounds injure or kill a bystander, the scrutiny will probably increase exponentially.

This is likely to only get worse as time goes on.

Decision making while shooting
In a self defense shooting, there are several questions which the defender (you) needs to process in rapid succession:

• Do I need to shoot this guy?
• Do I need to shoot this guy again?
• Do I need to keep shooting this guy?
• Do I need to stop shooting this guy?

george burns said:

Neutralized does not mean emptying a 16 or 17 round magazine into someone. You will find yourself in very big debt, if you own anything of value. Even cops who use excessive force get in deep crap. There is no reason that you need that many shots to stop a threat, unless you are missing the target completely, or the guy has on Body armor. Once the threat is over you have to stop shooting, that's the law. I have seen guys take 4 shots to go down but 17 or 23 like another recent shooting is Murder. You are a licensed permit holder I assume, there are rules and laws, a good lawyer will eat you alive in court, and you would be lucky to not do jail time. Of course you will say I am alive, but you would be just as alive without emptying that many rounds into someone. I saw that video where I counted 23 shots that the sheriff fired at a perp outside a convenience store, he entirely screwed the pooch, by waiting a good 3 minutes to taze the guy after a dozen commands to keep his hands up, "knowing the guy was armed and trying to get to his gun, he had 2 other officers there also. They shot so poorly that the guy was still alive after 23 rounds at 15 feet away.
And not being LEO, or retired, you better have insurance for these things or you will get hung out to dry, especially in certain states or counties. I have been carrying USSC ins for a few years now, only because everyone sues. A legal battle like the ones that arise from civilian shootings can run into the 6 figure range and higher.

Click to expand...

I will add a flip side to this coin.

My wife will tell you if she had to shoot an intruder in our house (or anywhere to be honest. She's an ER MD and the hospital doesn't offer security escort to their vehicles when leaving shift) that even if the first round drops them dead, she's going to empty the pistol. That doesn't necessarily mean empty all rounds into the target although an extra or two for peace of mind could theoretically happen. What it means is she might put one through the roof and another in a wall, ect. Point of it being to illustrate she was in a panicked state and in fear of her life.

I added a video where rapid fire is used against the threat but shooting stops when threat is neutralized.

You can't miss fast enough. Learn how to be smooth and slow in a hurry.

I know this is probably not ideal, but it is my thought. I've never been involved in any sort of defensive shooting, and hope never to have to.

When I shoot competitively (on the clock), and I've not done a ton of it, but some; as soon as that buzzer goes off and I start shooting, I cannot remember ever seeing my sights. Not that I didn't use them, but my cranial mush didn't log it. I am concentrating on my target and my feet; time ceases to be (until I finish and find out that I took WAAAY too long!), and until I hit that last target my only care in the world is "this target, then the next".

I know a bunch of people say... "Front sight, front sight, front sight, front sight...." and I really don't know if I focus on the front sight or the target. Really... I guess I'm okay with either. But, I think focus on the targets, and only the targets, is what we need to pay attention to in a defensive shooting. When we know our gun well enough not to have to put it on the "front burner" I think we will better comprehend HOW we can assess the necessity to shoot again, or not to shoot again.

So, I guess the moral to my story is... compete with your carry gun, and dry fire often!

Intox said:

I will add a flip side to this coin.

My wife will tell you if she had to shoot an intruder in our house (or anywhere to be honest. She's an ER MD and the hospital doesn't offer security escort to their vehicles when leaving shift) that even if the first round drops them dead, she's going to empty the pistol. That doesn't necessarily mean empty all rounds into the target although an extra or two for peace of mind could theoretically happen. What it means is she might put one through the roof and another in a wall, ect. Point of it being to illustrate she was in a panicked state and in fear of her life.

Click to expand...

With that now said in the public domain she perhaps ought not to.

Shoot as fast as you can while still hitting the bad guy. The farther away he is, the more carefully you will have to aim and, therefore, the more time you will have to take between shots. Stop shooting once you realize the threat has been neutralized. Only hits count. Even a peripheral hit is better than a miss. In addition, when you miss, the bullet goes somewhere, perhaps into an innocent bystander.

RPZ said:

Intox said:

My wife will tell you if she had to shoot an intruder in our house ... even if the first round drops them dead, she's going to empty the pistol.

Click to expand...

With that now said in the public domain she perhaps ought not to.

Click to expand...

You post that now but if you were in a home invasion robbery with multiple armed intruders with greater firepower (say ARs) threatening your and your wife's/children's lives, you may react differently than how you think you would react now.

I believe we have enough security camera footage of actual shootings to know one pistol round will not drop attacker dead (unless shot in the head and even head shots are not 100%).

In most instances, even after shot, attacker will continue charging/attacking the victim until enough blood loss to the brain or psychological/physical injury or pain slows or stops the attacker. This time could range from several seconds to minutes which is an eternity for the victim.

For me, and I tell my wife and daughter to continue shooting until their "fear for life" and the threat is neutralized. Perception of "fear for life" is different for everyone. We cannot say how we will react to threat to life until we are ACTUALLY put in the "fear for life" situation and I do not believe we can predict or dictate how others will react.

There was a shooting in the city I grew up in where a traffic stop ended up in a shootout. Officer involved was a veteran of 15 years in the department. After the shooting, officer stated he initially thought he had fired only several rounds but was surprised to find himself having fired all 15 rounds in the magazine with the slide locked back.

If I am being honest, I really can't say how I will react in a "fear for life" situation. I have been shooting more than 30 years and competed in USPSA with 2 Glock 22s because that's what I used for SD/HD (I thought shooting matches with my defensive pistols would help me be a better shooter) and later added Glock 23/27. After shooting 500,000 various pistol rounds, I feel proficient with my ability to hit my targets at typical defensive shooting distances but I intentionally avoid situations where I may be required to shoot as much as possible.

Why? Because life is short and I prefer to spend my time enjoying it.

But I lived in a city where home invasion robberies by multiple armed gang members with pistols/AKs were common. if I was faced with immediate threat to my life or my wife/daghter's lives, I hope my decades of training will kick in and I point shoot all my rounds into the targets fast until threat is neutralized. Sadly, many victims of home invasion robberies were raped and/or killed even though they cooperated if the robbery was part of gang initiation. So police chief and Sheriff told us to be armed and defend ourselves until police arrive. Somehow drug dealers and gang members often get the wrong house and demand money even though home owners tell them they got the wrong house. Armed home owners have shot and killed home intruders/gang members, many while on the phone with 911 dispatch. In most cases, multiple shots were fired as these intruders/gang members were quite determined and persistent in getting through the door despite the warning and being shot.

Mauser lover said:

I know this is probably not ideal, but it is my thought. I've never been involved in any sort of defensive shooting, and hope never to have to.

When I shoot competitively (on the clock), and I've not done a ton of it, but some; as soon as that buzzer goes off and I start shooting, I cannot remember ever seeing my sights. Not that I didn't use them, but my cranial mush didn't log it. I am concentrating on my target and my feet; time ceases to be (until I finish and find out that I took WAAAY too long!), and until I hit that last target my only care in the world is "this target, then the next".

I know a bunch of people say... "Front sight, front sight, front sight, front sight...." and I really don't know if I focus on the front sight or the target. Really... I guess I'm okay with either. But, I think focus on the targets, and only the targets, is what we need to pay attention to in a defensive shooting. When we know our gun well enough not to have to put it on the "front burner" I think we will better comprehend HOW we can assess the necessity to shoot again, or not to shoot again.

So, I guess the moral to my story is... compete with your carry gun, and dry fire often!

Click to expand...

Jim Cirillo actually disagreed with Jeff Cooper on that "Front Sight" subject, I kinda agree with Cirillo, that you should be focused on the background.

bds said:

You post that now but if you were in a home invasion robbery with multiple armed intruders with greater firepower (say ARs) threatening your and your wife's/children's lives, you may react differently than how you think you would react now.

I believe we have enough security camera footage of actual shootings to know one pistol round will not drop attacker dead (unless shot in the head and even head shots are not 100%).

In most instances, even after shot, attacker will continue charging/attacking the victim until enough blood loss to the brain or psychological/physical injury or pain slows or stops the attacker. This time could range from several seconds to minutes which is an eternity for the victim.

For me, and I tell my wife and daughter to continue shooting until their "fear for life" and the threat is neutralized. Perception of "fear for life" is different for everyone. We cannot say how we will react to threat to life until we are ACTUALLY put in the "fear for life" situation and I do not believe we can predict or dictate how others will react.

There was a shooting in the city I grew up in where a traffic stop ended up in a shootout. Officer involved was a veteran of 15 years in the department. After the shooting, officer stated he initially thought he had fired only several rounds but was surprised to find himself having fired all 15 rounds in the magazine with the slide locked back.

If I am being honest, I really can't say how I will react in a "fear for life" situation. I have been shooting more than 30 years and competed in USPSA with 2 Glock 22s because that's what I used for SD/HD (I thought shooting matches with my defensive pistols would help me be a better shooter) and later added Glock 23/27. After shooting 500,000 various pistol rounds, I feel proficient with my ability to hit my targets at typical defensive shooting distances but I intentionally avoid situations where I may be required to shoot as much as possible.

Why? Because life is short and I prefer to spend my time enjoying it.

But I lived in a city where home invasion robberies by multiple armed gang members with pistols/AKs were common. if I was faced with immediate threat to my life or my wife/daghter's lives, I hope my decades of training will kick in and I point shoot all my rounds into the targets fast until threat is neutralized. Sadly, many victims of home invasion robberies were raped and/or killed even though they cooperated if the robbery was part of gang initiation. So police chief and Sheriff told us to be armed and defend ourselves until police arrive. Somehow drug dealers and gang members often get the wrong house and demand money even though home owners tell them they got the wrong house. Armed home owners have shot and killed home intruders/gang members, many while on the phone with 911 dispatch. In most cases, multiple shots were fired as these intruders/gang members were quite determined and persistent in getting through the door despite the warning and being shot.

Click to expand...

I think you misinterpreted my reply to that post. What the poster was saying basically amounted to his wife planning an implied falsification in advance of an encounter. Not a smart thing to publish on the web.

The Evangelist Cowboy said:

Jim Cirillo actually disagreed with Jeff Cooper on that "Front Sight" subject, I kinda agree with Cirillo, that you should be focused on the background.

Click to expand...

Cooper did however recognize the use of a "flash sight picture" which while imprecise could be effective in a close deadly encounter.

RPZ said:

What the poster was saying basically amounted to his wife planning an implied falsification in advance of an encounter. Not a smart thing to publish on the web.

Click to expand...

Chances are, after seeing the first shot had little affect on threat (certainly not drop dead), wife will likely end up shooting follow up shots, even to the point of emptying the gun.

If it was justified shooting, I think the facts of the shooting would determine whether she would be charged by DA, not what her husband posted on an internet gun forum.

bds said:

Chances are, after seeing the first shot had little affect on threat (certainly not drop dead), wife will likely end up shooting follow up shots, even to the point of emptying the gun.

If it was justified shooting, I think the facts of the shooting would determine whether she would be charged by DA, not what her husband posted on an internet gun forum.

Click to expand...

If you are ever involved in a shooting and it becomes a matter of a criminal charge or litigation, plan on having ALL your online content, and any associated content scrutinized. It is in the public domain, and will be found even if you don't "consent". Publishing what amounts to a pre-planned falsification on a web forum on behalf of your wife is foolhardy in my opinion. I posted in as polite way as I could. I do not disagree with your previous response in the context of general principles of self defense, but I do have an issue with someone publishing something that a prosecuting attorney or plaintiff lawyer is going to eat them alive with.

Should you shoot one shot as fast as you can, assess, shoot if needed, assess?

Click to expand...

My brother works for a Sheriff's Office in Florida. He was trained to fire two rounds in rapid succession and then pause to assess and if additional force is needed, two more rounds, stop to assess, etc.

Yes, I agree that it's not a good idea.

But if shooting was determined to be justified by DA and wife not charged, I do not believe DA would change mind and charge wife just because her husband had posted on an inernet forum previous to shooting what his wife may do.

What if husband was an a**hole or had a fight with wife and made the post without wife knowing and she never made such a statement?

I could be wrong and perhaps a lawyer member could clarify if justified shooting determination for wife would change just because husband made a post on internet forum.

I still think the facts of the shooting would determine whether the wife's shooting was justified or not.

It happens to be common that women empty their gun when shooting an intruder. We had a few justified homicides last year. In two of them the victims were women. They both emptied their guns. One was a revolver, the other was an auto with a 12 round mag. The intruders were both shot multiple times. One Was hit four times, the other about eight. The one with the revolver said that she would have fired more rounds but had run out of ammo.
Just remember to have a plan. Always be ready before answering the door. Be proficient with the gun and equipment you use.

bds said:

Yes, I agree that it's not a good idea.

But if shooting was determined to be justified by DA and wife not charged, I do not believe DA would change mind and charge wife just because her husband had posted on an inernet forum previous to shooting what his wife may do.

What if husband was an a**hole or had a fight with wife and made the post without wife knowing and she never made such a statement?

I could be wrong and perhaps a lawyer member could clarify if justified shooting determination for wife would change just because husband made a post on internet forum.

I still think the facts of the shooting would determine whether the wife's shooting was justified or not.

Click to expand...

First line; OK you agree with my original response to the post.

Second line; speculation.

Third line: it could be raised by a prosecuting attorney or plaintiff lawyer in a civil suit to a jury. If you understand how such things can affect a jury, you might understand the peril of such a thing being raised. "If the defendant pre planned such a falsification what else has she lied about?"

Fourth line: if the jury has doubts about the defendant's honesty, they might consider her whole testimony suspect.