ballistic gelatin
Member
What do you think about the efficiency of the double tap?
I know that it is much easier with a .22 than a 9mm.
I know that it is much easier with a .22 than a 9mm.
Do you "double-tap"?
- Thread starter ballistic gelatin
- Start date
- Status
Hkmp5sd
Member
The double tap is efficient, but in my opinion, it can be hazardous. Supposedly, you do a double tap and then pause to evaluate whether or not you need to shoot again. I'm of the opinion that you fire non-stop until there is no longer a threat.
10-Ring
Member
I've been dedicating some time to mastering the doube tap. I'm figuring 2 holes are better than 1 w/ a little "location, location, location" mixed in for good measure.
coonan357
Member
trying to double tap takes practice and recoil control , when I double tap the bullets hit apx 4 inches apart (.45acp) 21feet , took me several months to get down to where I am , the.357s are harder to do yet especially using a revolver Da , just simple word of advice practice, practice and more practice .
El Tejon
Member
bg, are you discussing hammers or controlled pairs?
Chris Rhines
Member
No, neither hammers or controlled pairs (I always have trouble remembering the difference.) In training on static targets, I use directed fire*, and I mix up the number of shots I take before covering down, generally between two and five shots. What I'm trying to avoid is ingraning a reflexive "two-shots-and-then-cover-down" response. Two shots might not have done the job...
In a fight (or in what little force-on-force training I've done) I shoot at the best target I can hit, as quickly as possible, until the situation changes.
- Chris
* - Sighted or unsighted, but I'm always directing my fire at a specific target (again, whatever the best target is at the time.)
In a fight (or in what little force-on-force training I've done) I shoot at the best target I can hit, as quickly as possible, until the situation changes.
- Chris
* - Sighted or unsighted, but I'm always directing my fire at a specific target (again, whatever the best target is at the time.)
I've been "brought up" to double tap with either another double tap or a head shot on deck, ready to go, so to speak.
The current course I'm taking stresses "firing until the threat goes down," with something akin to a "triple tap" drill being stressed before assessing if a head shot is required. (Three aimed shots from the holster in 2 seconds from the 7 yard line.)
So far, so good, imo. An extra round COM seems worth it given the spit second it takes to place it there. After all, most BGs aren't in body armor, and even if they happen to be, three COM and one to the head in about 3 seconds is better than par, I'd say.
But it is still early in the course, so who knows what will come?
The current course I'm taking stresses "firing until the threat goes down," with something akin to a "triple tap" drill being stressed before assessing if a head shot is required. (Three aimed shots from the holster in 2 seconds from the 7 yard line.)
So far, so good, imo. An extra round COM seems worth it given the spit second it takes to place it there. After all, most BGs aren't in body armor, and even if they happen to be, three COM and one to the head in about 3 seconds is better than par, I'd say.
But it is still early in the course, so who knows what will come?
Gomez
Member
Radical concept, I know, but how's about shoot/verify/shoot/verify/shoot/verify ad nauseum. My concerns with Controlled Pairs (be they Dedicated Pairs, Hammers or Split Hammers or any other permutation) is what happens when you need to fire shots three through 18.
I'm a big beiever in shooting until there is nothing left to shoot (ie the threat is no longer a threat), and I don't have any confidance in anything that I can hold with one hand to do that reliably with just two rounds. So why engrain a response of two & .....?
Now, for "verify" in the above, please note that "verify" may be a "flash sight picture", "verify" may be some sort of "weapon silhouette aiming", "verify" may simply be shots fired off of body centerline. "Verify" means "acceptable weapon alignment" within the particulars of a given situation.
I'm a big beiever in shooting until there is nothing left to shoot (ie the threat is no longer a threat), and I don't have any confidance in anything that I can hold with one hand to do that reliably with just two rounds. So why engrain a response of two & .....?
Now, for "verify" in the above, please note that "verify" may be a "flash sight picture", "verify" may be some sort of "weapon silhouette aiming", "verify" may simply be shots fired off of body centerline. "Verify" means "acceptable weapon alignment" within the particulars of a given situation.
fastbolt
Member
Yep ...
The situation will dictate the strategy & tactics available, and the shooter will determine which shooting "skills" should be employed in any given situation. The more skills you have at your disposal, the better prepared you may be for a deadly force situation ...
Each and every round fired is Deadly Force, and the responsibility of the shooter to be able to justify at a later time ...
As an example, we constantly change the circumstances of the scenarios used for our qualifications. This includes the nature & number of targets ... shoot/non-shoot, multiples, obstructed, moving target/shooter, etc ... and the manner in which the targets are to be addressed. These vary from one scenario to the next, and among different sessions.
A shooter may have to demonstrate the ability to perform 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and up to 6 round strings against specific targets ... including "failure to stop" skills (2-COM & 1-head shot) ... in various orders, against single and/or multiple targets, in as many different situations as we can arrange.
One of the goals is to get our folks to recognize for themselves which shooting skills may be required to address any potential threat they may encounter, including how many rounds are reasonably necessary ... not to teach them "tactics" which "require" them to respond with a predetermined number of shots at any given threat target, in any given situation. We help them develop the "tools", the skills ... and they ultimately decide when & how to best employ them should the necessity arise ...
The fact that we continually change the qualification scenarios appears to help them recognize when their skills might require some additional training and work, and then reinforces their confidence when they use their skills to successfully complete the scenarios.
We want them to be able to remain aware of how rapidly a situation may change, and how flexible they must be in using their shooting skills. The "reasonable and necessary" number of rounds fired at any given threat target, and the order in which multiple targets should be addressed, will be their call to make should the situation occur ... and we just want them to have the skills and confidence at hand to meet their needs. We can't tell them what the "right answer" will be for all situations ... so we help them test their skills in as many changing situations as we can imagine ... and often in ways the shooters ask about, themselves.
This is "tip of the iceberg" material ...
Naturally, nothing I've said should be considered as advice or official/personal training suggestions ... just one person's observations and perspective from the sidelines ...
There's simple wisdom in those words ...
The situation will dictate the strategy & tactics available, and the shooter will determine which shooting "skills" should be employed in any given situation. The more skills you have at your disposal, the better prepared you may be for a deadly force situation ...
Each and every round fired is Deadly Force, and the responsibility of the shooter to be able to justify at a later time ...
As an example, we constantly change the circumstances of the scenarios used for our qualifications. This includes the nature & number of targets ... shoot/non-shoot, multiples, obstructed, moving target/shooter, etc ... and the manner in which the targets are to be addressed. These vary from one scenario to the next, and among different sessions.
A shooter may have to demonstrate the ability to perform 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and up to 6 round strings against specific targets ... including "failure to stop" skills (2-COM & 1-head shot) ... in various orders, against single and/or multiple targets, in as many different situations as we can arrange.
One of the goals is to get our folks to recognize for themselves which shooting skills may be required to address any potential threat they may encounter, including how many rounds are reasonably necessary ... not to teach them "tactics" which "require" them to respond with a predetermined number of shots at any given threat target, in any given situation. We help them develop the "tools", the skills ... and they ultimately decide when & how to best employ them should the necessity arise ...
The fact that we continually change the qualification scenarios appears to help them recognize when their skills might require some additional training and work, and then reinforces their confidence when they use their skills to successfully complete the scenarios.
We want them to be able to remain aware of how rapidly a situation may change, and how flexible they must be in using their shooting skills. The "reasonable and necessary" number of rounds fired at any given threat target, and the order in which multiple targets should be addressed, will be their call to make should the situation occur ... and we just want them to have the skills and confidence at hand to meet their needs. We can't tell them what the "right answer" will be for all situations ... so we help them test their skills in as many changing situations as we can imagine ... and often in ways the shooters ask about, themselves.
This is "tip of the iceberg" material ...
Naturally, nothing I've said should be considered as advice or official/personal training suggestions ... just one person's observations and perspective from the sidelines ...
There's simple wisdom in those words ...
Last edited:
Charles S
Member
This is a great thread with a lot of good information.
fastbolt,
There is a lot to be learned from your post. I would like to hear more than just the tip of the iceberg.
To directly answer the question:
I am not a special forces operator in a free fire zone, therefore I feel that I will have to account for every round a fire in a defensive engagement. Therefore I train to aim every shot I fire. I have trained with Jerry Michulek and he also espouses this view. It is Mr. Michulek's opinion that there is very little speed increase in unaimed fire. While I will never have split times of .16 and .18 between shots (he does). He does make a very good case for aimed fire.
When multiple assailants are involved he espouses two aimed shots per target, I understand his rationale because a handgun is such poor stopping power, having said that I take about 3 times longer per aimed shot than he does, while I can and do place two aimed shots on target in under a second, in a gunfight a lot of things can happen in a second (if I could place two shots on target in under half a second, I would shoot every target twice). I really can't help but wonder if boarding house rules might be the best course of action for myself.
I really do firmly believe in aimed fire and I train hard to shoot fast and accurately.
No I don't double tap. I do train with Bill drills which are six shot per target, and multiple shots per target with failure to stop drills thrown in. I also train with multiple targets.
Charles
fastbolt,
There is a lot to be learned from your post. I would like to hear more than just the tip of the iceberg.
To directly answer the question:
I am not a special forces operator in a free fire zone, therefore I feel that I will have to account for every round a fire in a defensive engagement. Therefore I train to aim every shot I fire. I have trained with Jerry Michulek and he also espouses this view. It is Mr. Michulek's opinion that there is very little speed increase in unaimed fire. While I will never have split times of .16 and .18 between shots (he does). He does make a very good case for aimed fire.
When multiple assailants are involved he espouses two aimed shots per target, I understand his rationale because a handgun is such poor stopping power, having said that I take about 3 times longer per aimed shot than he does, while I can and do place two aimed shots on target in under a second, in a gunfight a lot of things can happen in a second (if I could place two shots on target in under half a second, I would shoot every target twice). I really can't help but wonder if boarding house rules might be the best course of action for myself.
I really do firmly believe in aimed fire and I train hard to shoot fast and accurately.
No I don't double tap. I do train with Bill drills which are six shot per target, and multiple shots per target with failure to stop drills thrown in. I also train with multiple targets.
Charles
ballistic gelatin
Member
I typically warm up with a .22 going for accuracy at no more than 15 feet. Then engage multiple targets for accuracy at various distances, no more than 15 feet. When accuracy is acceptable, then speed becomes the focus. I like the idea of engaging the nearest threat with two shots, while those remaining get one each and then go back down the line so everybody gets a second helping. When I've done enough of that, I switch to the 9mm and slow way down.
There are different schools of thought on prefered caliber for CCW. After a defensive shooting, is it going to be easier to clear the court system when you used a tricked out, high end polymer pistol or a stock .22 auto?
I dont' know about you guys, but I'm not a violent person and if I did ever have to stop an attacker, I certainly wouldn't want to kill him/her. I would just want him to stop.
There are different schools of thought on prefered caliber for CCW. After a defensive shooting, is it going to be easier to clear the court system when you used a tricked out, high end polymer pistol or a stock .22 auto?
I dont' know about you guys, but I'm not a violent person and if I did ever have to stop an attacker, I certainly wouldn't want to kill him/her. I would just want him to stop.
Matthew Temkin
Member
Aimed fire is a wonderful idea..but it is not always possible.
Most combat vets insist on point shooting training, along with aimed fire instruction.
And it is very accurate--within its obvious range limitations.
The best way to be convinced is to either undergo some SIMS training or go through a realistic "kill" house.
Regarding "double taps"..Fairbairn, Sykes, Applegate and other veterans insisted on always firing the pistol in "Bursts of two or three" shots.
Most combat vets insist on point shooting training, along with aimed fire instruction.
And it is very accurate--within its obvious range limitations.
The best way to be convinced is to either undergo some SIMS training or go through a realistic "kill" house.
Regarding "double taps"..Fairbairn, Sykes, Applegate and other veterans insisted on always firing the pistol in "Bursts of two or three" shots.
Nathaniel Firethorn
Member
When I do range practice, I mostly go target to target, nearest target first.
- pdmoderator
- pdmoderator
There are only a few die hards still advocating 'point shooting'. Several controlled tests have shown that it doesn't cut it. At a few feet, fine, but past that aiming is required to get hits, and doesn't take any longer than point shooting.
"Shoot until the threat is gone" is NOT point shooting, but aiming and firing until the threat is down and apparently out.
And the reason for NOT shooting once and then verifying is that handguns only "blow people away" in the movies. In real life, a one shot stop is almost a miracle.
Matthew Temkin
Member
Which controlled tests are you referring to?
Mute
Member
I more or less train to take 2 and start looking for the head right away. If it's there, it gets one also.
jptsr1
Member
I personally practice all types of combinations from single shots to mag emptying rapid fire and everything I can dream up in between. The double tap isn’t something I spend an inordinate amount of time on though. I’m a proponent of “keep firing until the threat is neutralizedâ€. In my defensive draw I try and practice getting the first round off as soon as my pistol clears the leather and is pointed at the target. Rounds 3, 4, and five leave the gun before my strong arm is even extended and my support hand gets underneath. I don’t even acquire the sites until round 6. My thought is to try and get as many rounds in the air as possible before the BG gets a chance to do the same.
J.
J.
Rosco Benson
Member
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2002
- Messages
- 32
It seems that some folks are concerned that firing a pair as one's initial response and then assessing its effect leaves one open to disaster if the pair didn't do the job. These folks advocate shooting until the threat "goes away". However, the threat isn't going to go away if it is wearing a vest and if the shots subsequent to the initial pair are poured into the center-of-mass.
A couple points; the two shot canned response should not be followed by a careful and time-consuming assessment that takes a great deal of time. Instead, it should be hyper-rapid, costing little or no time. Gabe Suarez's approach of immediately indexing on the head for a follow-up shot and then shooting if the head is present (and not if it isn't) is an excellent tactic. The bottom line is that the "assessment" isn't a long, drawn-out conference, with a catered-in lunch, followed by a secret ballot on whether or not the attacker is down and out. It is a hyper-rapid observation, ideally made while moving and preparing for a follow-up head-shot or engaging additional attackers.
Unless one intends to shoot until slide-lock on the initial target, one will have to assess the effect of one's shots at some point. If doing it after a first two is suicide, as some would have us believe, then how is it safer to do it after shot three or four or five? What will the first attacker's pals be doing while one spends undue time with attacker #1?
We train to respond, in most cases, with a pair. Three or four is not necessarily better than two in these cases. The tactic of the pair recognizes that pistol bullets are feeble stoppers and attempts to hedge one's bets without an undue expenditure of time. If the first two (plan "A") haven't done the job, it is time for plan "B"...not more plan "A".
Rosco
A couple points; the two shot canned response should not be followed by a careful and time-consuming assessment that takes a great deal of time. Instead, it should be hyper-rapid, costing little or no time. Gabe Suarez's approach of immediately indexing on the head for a follow-up shot and then shooting if the head is present (and not if it isn't) is an excellent tactic. The bottom line is that the "assessment" isn't a long, drawn-out conference, with a catered-in lunch, followed by a secret ballot on whether or not the attacker is down and out. It is a hyper-rapid observation, ideally made while moving and preparing for a follow-up head-shot or engaging additional attackers.
Unless one intends to shoot until slide-lock on the initial target, one will have to assess the effect of one's shots at some point. If doing it after a first two is suicide, as some would have us believe, then how is it safer to do it after shot three or four or five? What will the first attacker's pals be doing while one spends undue time with attacker #1?
We train to respond, in most cases, with a pair. Three or four is not necessarily better than two in these cases. The tactic of the pair recognizes that pistol bullets are feeble stoppers and attempts to hedge one's bets without an undue expenditure of time. If the first two (plan "A") haven't done the job, it is time for plan "B"...not more plan "A".
Rosco
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
In 1980 I went through a 3-day, 750-round training in "Combat Pistol". By the end of the course we were shooting mostly 8-second El Presidentes, with box-stock guns and ball ammo.
Got into the IPSC stuff that winter. Back then, we mostly used nearly-stock 1911s (sights, trigger job, beavertail) and 200-grain lead at 850 ft/sec to make Major.
I've tried Weaver, hip-shoot, point-shoot, all that. Depending on the distance and scenario, it all works. Mostly, I practice on multiple targets and one round each and then repeat/reload/whatever. I'll shoot from the hip, inside three or four yards, and work into Weaver stance as I keep shooting at the farther-away targets.
On one target or two side-by-side targets, I double-tap each, usually. (In a real-world situation, I like to believe I'd start out by going after the one with the more obvious weapon.)
To me, a priority is drawing/firing while moving or falling or from whatever awkward position might come to mind. I've never had a confrontation, but I figure the real world is nothing at all like a Hollywood western showdown.
Art
Got into the IPSC stuff that winter. Back then, we mostly used nearly-stock 1911s (sights, trigger job, beavertail) and 200-grain lead at 850 ft/sec to make Major.
I've tried Weaver, hip-shoot, point-shoot, all that. Depending on the distance and scenario, it all works. Mostly, I practice on multiple targets and one round each and then repeat/reload/whatever. I'll shoot from the hip, inside three or four yards, and work into Weaver stance as I keep shooting at the farther-away targets.
On one target or two side-by-side targets, I double-tap each, usually. (In a real-world situation, I like to believe I'd start out by going after the one with the more obvious weapon.)
To me, a priority is drawing/firing while moving or falling or from whatever awkward position might come to mind. I've never had a confrontation, but I figure the real world is nothing at all like a Hollywood western showdown.
Art
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
I too was "brought up" as a shooter on the double tap, but since going to a compact single-stack for a CCW, I've gravitated toward favoring "boarding house rules" in tactical sequence, if that's realistic. I figure that yes, two are better than one, but if I've only got 8 or 9 rounds to work with, I'm going to measure them out a little more. I'd be even more careful with a revolver; three double taps and you're completely empty.
As to point shooting vs. aimed fire, I noticed that in _Kill or Get Killed,_ Rex Applegate's "point shooting" method involves specifically raising the gun to *eye level,* just not taking a sight picture. This is not far from Cirillo's course visual index, or looking over the sights, etc. I suspect Ayoob is right when he says that a lot of the debate is semantics.
As to point shooting vs. aimed fire, I noticed that in _Kill or Get Killed,_ Rex Applegate's "point shooting" method involves specifically raising the gun to *eye level,* just not taking a sight picture. This is not far from Cirillo's course visual index, or looking over the sights, etc. I suspect Ayoob is right when he says that a lot of the debate is semantics.
Only if you blindly yank the trigger until you run dry. If you are doing that, you are in deep Bandini.
The teaching of shoot til the threat stops includes PAYING ATTENTION to the target, with as much attention to your surroundings as you can manage. (Multiple opponents, anyone?)
If you see that there is evidence of body armor, you don't just blindly shoot COM. If you follow Farnam's advice, you zipper. Start COM and work upward into the neck.
"Controlled tests." I don't have the cites. I have read of several tests run which got proponents of both schools together and did some shooting using both methods. Various ranges and scenarios were run and the results tabulated. Results for aimed fire were consistently bettter. Duh.
Matthew Temkin
Member
Duh indeed.
Unfortuantely, some things can only be proved in combat.
Such as the value of point shooting.
Unfortuantely, some things can only be proved in combat.
Such as the value of point shooting.
Just remembered one of the features of one of the controlled tests. Sights were removed.
Matthew, combat is a lousy place to do a controlled test. If your reports come from individual combatants, you have to weigh the fact that there was usually a large amount of adrenaline flowing, which can alter perceptions considerably.
So the only way to get good data is to look at large trends. My brother-in-law-uncle-father-some-guy-I-knew's experience is only one data point, and may be way off from reality.
The large trend that comes out of military combat is that aimed fire gets more hits. Duh.
The large trend that comes out of police (handgun) type combat is that aimed fire gets more hits. Duh.
Matthew, combat is a lousy place to do a controlled test. If your reports come from individual combatants, you have to weigh the fact that there was usually a large amount of adrenaline flowing, which can alter perceptions considerably.
So the only way to get good data is to look at large trends. My brother-in-law-uncle-father-some-guy-I-knew's experience is only one data point, and may be way off from reality.
The large trend that comes out of military combat is that aimed fire gets more hits. Duh.
The large trend that comes out of police (handgun) type combat is that aimed fire gets more hits. Duh.
Matthew Temkin
Member
From Fairbairn and Sykes with the SMP, to Rex Applegate, to special units in WW2, and now with the CHP and Mass. State Police, point shooting has been proven efective in thousands of firefights for decades.
But this has been debated in forums, books, magazines, etc for decades. Those who seek the information are welcome to research the subject and make up their own minds.
No, I will not be sucked into a debate with THR's version of Deaf Smith.
He is free to believe whatever he pleases.
But this has been debated in forums, books, magazines, etc for decades. Those who seek the information are welcome to research the subject and make up their own minds.
No, I will not be sucked into a debate with THR's version of Deaf Smith.
He is free to believe whatever he pleases.
- Status
