Double Tap, Triple Tap, or Until Empty

[David E]

Are you seriously saying those are the only two variables you are plugging into your "threat posed" equation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[167]

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

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

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

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

Yup, so?

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

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

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

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

 

[David E]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[167]

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

 

[Sam1911]

You just happen to think that one round on board of the most immediate threat no longer makes that threat the most immediate, so you move on to the next, and then the next.

I think rephrasing that may be in order. Three equidistant threats of equal importance. Shoot one -- he's down, wounded, or I missed, (there are still two standing, armed, advancing threats just as bad as the one I've shot that I need to handle). Shoot the second-- he's down, wounded, or I missed (in the incredibly quickly decreasing time I have left to do anything at all, I still have to handle a completely untouched armed and advancing threat, and possibly also the two others who might need "seconds.") Shoot the third -- he's down, wounded, or I missed -- time to reassess all three.

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

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

training is different than hypothetical discusions on the internet. Properly designed training will allow for the many variables to present themselves and not have to be imagined.

So possibilities in how to set up a realistic training scenario cannot be discussed? Really good FoF training can evolve fluidly from a static start point to become almost anything as the participants act and react. But not all training is, could be, or even should be, FoF. FoF becomes the strop that hones the sharpened edge of the rest of your training.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[David E]

My premise is to shoot the most immediate threat until there is another threat more immediate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[David E]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[David E]

I'm going to change the array set up to 10, 12 and 2 oclock. It occured to me that not everyone will be able to shoot at the 180 degree line.

 

[167]

Three equidistant threats of equal importance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[GlockStar]

I "train" with a double tap, but have a feeling that when the SHTF I would empty the mag.

 

[maxpeters]

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

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

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

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

 

[KingEdward]

If last resort and have to use .357 to stop threat,

there will be 3 rounds fired

then possibly 3 more if further threat exists

then one is left and six can be reloaded.


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

 

[167]

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

Agreed.

 

[David E]

The problem with stating that you're going to set up a a drill is that others immediately discount it. Usually, this is because they do not understand what the drill is designed to do.

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

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

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

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

 

[David E]

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

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

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

Target used: 3 IPSC targets.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[167]

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

 

[David E]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[167]

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

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

 

[makarovnik]

Try to save some for contestant #2.

 

[IllHunter]

Try and devise a drill for this scenario....

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

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

 

[David E]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Rally_Vincent]

Hope your aim is true and adapt, adapt, adapt to each changing circumstance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[David E]

Ok, so what drills do you recommend setting up at the range to practice such things?

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

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

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

 

[167]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[David E]

The method I espouse would not necessarily give #3 3-4 seconds, I have never stated that any particular number of shots should be fired at each threat.

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

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

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

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

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

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