Do you "double-tap"?

[355sigfan]

I was taught and do teach that a controlled pair or hammer is the minimum response. You can shoot more but you shoot at least twice. If your getting up to the 4 round mark however it time to start thinking about head shots if the target still standing.
PAT

 

[ballistic gelatin]

I was taught that the first round fired goes to the ocular cavity. Of course I can see where that may not always be possible. Training for multiple scenarios is a good idea. More tools in the toolbox sort of thing.

 

[TheMariner]

Found these rules to make sense, which apply to better to multiple target engagements, with the objective being survival.

1. Begin moving for cover
2. Target the closest hostile that is moving
3. Head/upper torso shot
4. Center of mass or second head/upper torso shot if the first missed (you'll know if you hit, spray of blood and other parts)
5. Evaluate and target to the closest hostile
6. Engage as before (3-4)
7. Systematically continue the engagement until:
Able to retreat
All targets removed from action or gone
Out of ammo

 

[TheMariner]

I was referring to the head/upper torsoe shotIntent is to hit vital blood or oxy supply to the head or the head itself... All on blood vessels and meaty tissue...

In alot of shoot outs, it happens suddenly... I believe the intent is to try for the head shot in the opening moments before teh bullets really start to fly and people start running, especially if you got the drop. Once things get heavy, you might not get another chance or be too shaky to aim well.

 

[keyhole]

Have been taught to go for "center mass", and then if no reaction, head shot. Also, use term, " 2 well placed shots". In a litigous society, such as ours, we have gotten away from terms, like "double tap". Hate lawyers, and lots are friends.
Practice, practice, practice. Document all.

 

[CWL]

On Simuntion runs, I always double-tap (hammers) because that is how I train and it came naturally & smoothly. My COM shots always hit with a horizontal spread of between 2-2.5" (though they can be low).

This is why I double-tap.

Head shots (failue drills) are aimed fire.

 

[7677]

I'm just glad that most of the posters here are not my back up on a call. I do not like standard responses because every situation is different. Gunfighting is a thinking mans sport. Unfortunatley I have to burst some armchair commandos bubble that point shooting is necessary to learn. Study after study, from the FBI down have found that most officers that die from gunshots die within 7 yards. Why? because officers are trained to stop, aim. and fire and inside of 7 yards that is not the preferred method of engaging criminals. Like Matthew Temkin pointed out, point shooting has been combat tested since WW2 and was used in Korea, Vietnam and the Gulf War. I use point shooting during dynamic close quarter combat where both combatans are moving. If you don't believe me try some simunitions training.

TheMariner,

"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.

I would be interested in seeing these tests, just tell me the cities and I'll get the tests.

 

[Obiwan]

Or...it is because most gunfights occur inside of 7 yards

Or because the bad guys are more accurate inside of 7 yards

Data doesn't lie...but it is always open to interpetation.

For me...my backup just needs to be able to hit what he aims at.

I don't care what he calls his "style"...as long as it works

I have some concerns over training for a specific round count.

Shoot till they (BG) are gone!

 

[Matthew Temkin]

Welcome 7677. I just got back from teaching in Eastern Europe and it was a sucess. Call me and I'll tell you about it.
Actually according to the FBI most officers die within 5 Feet. For many of the same reasons that you already stated, but I think it has something to do with the fact that most firearms courses do not prepare the officer to deal with explosive violence in a CQC enviornment.
But as I have stated here already, I will not get drawn into a debate here about the merits of point shooting.
Those interested in pursuing their own research are welcome to contact me for info on books, videos, manuals and instructors.
Others are free to disagree.
More important..let us not forget what happend on this day in 1944.
God bless America.

 

[DBK]

Well said, as usual 7677.

 

[7677]

Matt,
I'll try and give you a call Saturday or Sunday. I've spent the past week tracking down witnesses One witness took two days of driving and door pounding to find.

Actually according to the FBI most officers die within 5 Feet.

This is very true.

Obiwan,
On GT you said the following: "Life is far too short to worry about silly stuff on public forums!" They should post that as a header!

For me...my backup just needs to be able to hit what he aims at.

I don't care what he calls his "style"...as long as it works

I have some concerns over training for a specific round count.

Shoot till they (BG) are gone!.

Well said!

I research the reasons why LEO's are killed in the line of duty to prevent it from happening in the future. I do not do it to become famous or for the title of expert. I have written on the subject and those who have read it know I'm not blowing hot smoke.

Data doesn't lie...but it is always open to interpetation.

This is very true and I'm the first to admit that gunfighting is the only event where a person can violated every tactical rule and still survive or use picture perfect tactics and end up dead. However, the data is pretty clear that officers are getting killed at a greater rate inside of 7 yards and as Matt pointed out most officer die at 5 feet.

FBI statistical summaries reveal that of victim officers who managed to shoot back, only 15 percent managed to kill or even hit their assailants.

From the NYPD gunfight reports to the FBI’s annual “Officer Killed†summary, the statistics show that officers tend to die in close, not just at 7 yards but at 7 feet, and they tend to neutralize their attackers and survive unscathed as the distances increase.

(This is why I think that point shooting is useful for LEO's to have in their tool box)


Now we both know that the solution to the problem isn't as simple as teaching officers just to point shoot. While point shooting is useful for close quarters combat and evens up things when the shooting start, but lets go further and look at where the real problem starts? LEO's seem to violate age old rules such as:
1) Improper search and use of handcuffs,
2) Missing danger signs

FBI summaries report that of officers slain, almost 60 percent did not even have their guns unholstered.

(no shooting style works with the gun in the holster)
3) Taking a bad position – the improper use of cover and concealment
4) Failure to watch a suspect’s hands

Always remember “The eyes are the windows of the soul,†"but they kill you with their hands"

5) relaxing too soon and/or giving up cover prematurely.

So Obiwan, have I opened up a whole new can of worms or can you see where I'm coming from?

DBK,
Thanks for the kind words

 

[Sweatnbullets]

A very wise man said "see what you need to see to get the hits." That sums it up for me. I was taught sighted fire first, and everything else that's followed has just been instinctive. Instictive due to the urgency of the situation.

At contact distances it is body indexing that helps me make the hits. At 3-5 yards it's the silhouette of hand and weapon (point shooting), both with my focus on the threat.

From 5-7 yards it's flash sight picture, or soft focus on sights.

From 7 yards and out it's sighted fire, with hard focus on the front sight.

Adapt or die.

To address the intial question of the post, yes, I do use a double tap in certain situation, but by no means is it a standard response, it could be a triple or more, depending on what I see on the follow through.

I found that a double tap works great for contact distances while you are moving out of the line of attack. Fast, explosive, and dynamic. Gain some ground, evaluate while looking over your gun (follow through), and deliver more lead if necessary.

 

[Obiwan]

7677....I return the compliment...well said

For instance...I would interpet the data to mean the officers were too complacent/not concerned enough with keeping their distance.

In a contact distance shooting, it can often be "he who shoots first wins"

And "he who isn't paying attention never really gets in the fight"

Shooting at paper targets will never prepare you adequately for an altercation inside 10 feet.

Mr. Temkin....Glad to see you have lost none of your convictions.(really)..and even happier that you see the folly in escalation.

 

[ballistic gelatin]

Shooting at paper targets will never prepare you adequately for an altercation inside 10 feet

There are a lot of people who do not realize this. It may have something to do with the fact that they consider it more likely to be struck by lightning than encounter the need for deadly force. And I'm talking about people with guns.

 

[7677]

Sweatnbullets,

At contact distances it is body indexing that helps me make the hits. At 3-5 yards it's the silhouette of hand and weapon (point shooting), both with my focus on the threat.

From 5-7 yards it's flash sight picture, or soft focus on sights.

From 7 yards and out it's sighted fire, with hard focus on the front sight.

Adapt or die.

well put,

I would add that amount of time and any cover available would also play a big role on what technique is used. I would say the max that I can effectively hit a moving target with point shooting is about 7 yards. That being said, whenever possible I prefer to use sighted fire over point shooting. However, I use point shooting at close distances when I'm reacting to the suspect actions or while I'm moving and shooting at these close distances.

Obiwan,

In a contact distance shooting, it can often be "he who shoots first wins"

And "he who isn't paying attention never really gets in the fight"

Shooting at paper targets will never prepare you adequately for an altercation inside 10 feet.

I would have to say all three are true. Speaking of shooting at paper targets will never adequately for altercation inside of 10 feet. The last time I did Force on Force training with simunitions, I noticed that veteran officers as well as recruits did as they were trained to do at the range when involved in a close quarter gun battle within 5 yards. The officer stopped either attempted to draw and sight in or if already unholstered stopped and attempted to sight in on the suspect. Well this works fine if the suspect stays still but when the suspect moved and used point shooting against the officer in most cases the officer lost and in one or two cases tied. If cover is unavailable then movement is the key to survival during a close quarter combat engagement.

Btw, thanks for the compliment, and your well stated observations. I don't expect everyone to agree with me and I think we all learn a great deal in our discussions of the various topics as longs as people give supporting details and observations. I will admit I'm not always right and when I'm wrong I have admitted it. However, things seem to fall apart when people allow the topic and discussion turn to personal attacks.

 

[Obiwan]

One of the best examples I have ever seen is the "charging targets" where they literally run right at you.

I have seen lots of people simply fall apart...often before they get very close at all!

 

[tommytrauma]

Tangential trivia;
I've found it much easier and faster to get multiple shots on target quickly if I relax my gun hand, and depend on my support hand for recoil control. IE loose (relatively speaking) grip with my gun hand, but tight grip with the support hand. Less flip, faster second (third, fourth) sight picture.

I've also found that I can get solid subsequent hits at combat distances with simply indexing the front sight rather than attempting a more formal sight picture. Follow up shots are also faster and more accurate for me with a 1911 than they are with a Glock.

This is simply stuff that I'm finding works for me. YMMV.

An instructor whom I respect greatly advocates 'shooting them to the ground'. I practice starting COM and walking my shots up to the noggin. Works well on paper targets. Hopefully I'll never discover how well it works under stress.

 

[Sweatnbullets]

I've found it much easier and faster to get multiple shots on target quickly if I relax my gun hand, and depend on my support hand for recoil control. IE loose (relatively speaking) grip with my gun hand, but tight grip with the support hand. Less flip, faster second (third, fourth) sight picture.

Yep, what helps me even more on this subject is to apply presure only to the front and rear strap(obviously a Weaver shooter), nothing to the sides. Kind of like holding it in a vise. This gives me much better trigger control and recoil control.

I've also found that I can get solid subsequent hits at combat distances with simply indexing the front sight rather than attempting a more formal sight picture. Follow up shots are also faster and more accurate for me with a 1911 than they are with a Glock.

That sounds like the flash sight picture, or soft focus on sights that I am talking about. Your right much faster and you still get great hits.

I would add that amount of time and any cover available would also play a big role on what technique is used. I would say the max that I can effectively hit a moving target with point shooting is about 7 yards. That being said, whenever possible I prefer to use sighted fire over point shooting. However, I use point shooting at close distances when I'm reacting to the suspect actions or while I'm moving and shooting at these close distances.

I have no formal training in point shooting (sighted fire only), and I'm still good to go out to 5 yards. Obviously with some training I could improve on that (7 yards would be nice). The point is that I did not need someone to tell me "you should be point shooting in dynamic CQB" It was just instinctive. I wanted to get the hits the fastest that I possible could and these are the techniques that made it possible for me. I have no idea how this could be debated.

7677, Thanks, great info in this thread and done in a very professional manner.

 

[7677]

Sweatnbullets,

The point is that I did not need someone to tell me "you should be point shooting in dynamic CQB" It was just instinctive.

LOL, until last year, I didn't know that I used point shooting in CQC situations either. It wasn't till we did some simunition training that we video taped that I discovered I did instinctively. I remember think WOW where did I learn that from. However, looking back, I discovered I learned and taught point shooting when I was in the military.

 

[Mil Novecientos Once]

Do you "double-tap"?

When I practice defensive drills I like Mozambique (2 COM 1Head) better.

If I set up 2 or more targets I like to single serving (up to 3 times) as fast and accurately as I can.

 

[TheMariner]

At the request of a friend, I post his answer to the question "Do you double tap?"

His answer.. No... I tap until out or dead...

I suppose that might work...

 

[7677]

Obiwan,

One of the best examples I have ever seen is the "charging targets" where they literally run right at you.

The "charging targets" can be used to point out the 21 foot knife rule and the tactics to use to buy you enough time to get your gun into play. I hate knifes, as it only takes getting sliced once to realized how dangerous they can be.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

Obwian...I have seen experienced shooters, LEO's and martial artists literally fall apart when faced with a (surprised) charging target. One officer who I did this to is a high ranking black belt in Aikido who I assumed would do an uremi to get off line. Instead he was so surprised that he actually tripped over his feet and fell on his butt.
My convictions are as strong as ever, but I am quite busy actually teaching point shooting/combatives to professionals both here and overseas (I am going back to Europe in August, then back again in November)
Debating this topic on a forum is fruitless and does nothing except get me into an uproar and make a fool of myself. In real life I am not quite as pig headed as I appeared on GT.
At least I like to think so.

 

[rage]

I practice double, triple taps, Bill drills, both aimed at distance and point shooting up close on multiple targets. Always made sense to me. The more I practice, the better my "body index" becomes...faster acquisition, better accuracy, and a developing sense of confidence that I will have some control when that day comes.

Matt, glad to see you here.

 

[Edward429451]

Good thread. Not sure if we're debating semantics or not. I practice DT's and mozambiqe's which I think has been renamed failure drill for all practical purposes..?

acceptable weapon alignment" within the particulars of a given situation.

Is this a new term for flash sight picture?

I have practiced 'hammer' and 'controlled pairs', and find that controlled pairs are almost always better in placing both shots close together.

OTOH, I find that I can speed up the controlled pair some by using a flash sight picture for the second shot (or soft focus or acceptable weapon alignment?) with of course body index. I think all these terms describe the same thing, ie, coming out of the first aimed shots recoil and instead of the hard focus sight pic just pick up the front sight again only enough to have sight of it and the silohuette of the 'target' behind it, before breaking the second shot. It usually results in what would have been an acceptable controlled pair, but faster than a controlled pair.

Or am I off base as to your usage of the term(s)?

I usually only practice point shooting from the hip, for really close in encounters (locked into hip). Which may not be true point shooting to some but eh, it makes sense to me.