Double Tap, Triple Tap, or Until Empty

[David E]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

(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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.