One shot each if multiple opponents?

[M2 Carbine]

You and a couple shooters line up facing silhouette targets.
You have to shoot two targets before the other shooters both shoot one target.

If you can't shoot both targets before those others shooters shoot one target, the chances are you are going to be shot by the second shooter and possibly by both shooters.

The average shooter will have more than he can handle with one armed BG.
Face it, the average shooter is a pretty poor shot and is very slow. He would be lucky to survive any kind of gun battle, much less with multiple opponents.

 

[Bubba613]

I would say the very very good shooter will find himself in the same situation. Perhaps the exceptional shooter will win out. Maybe. But most of us aren't that good.

 

[Webbj0219]

"Please Sir, may I have another?" "Wait your turn!!"

Had to do it.

 

[3:00hold]

For the purpose of this discussion, I do not think the scenerio does involves multiple highly skilled attackers. If it did, I completely agree that you're pretty much dead meat. For this to be doable, you have to be much better, and if they shoot fast, they need to miss.

I still think the solution is at least 2 rds per attacker for the simple reason that 2 or 3 shots at one target doesn't take 2 or 3 times as long as 1 shot. I'm counting on my bad guys not being able to shoot too well with 1 or 2 230gr JHPs in them, so when I turn from one to the other, I need to be somewhat confident that he's out of action- at least until I'm done with the group and can assess (or run away). My concern is flubbing the first shot and thinking somebody is hit when they haven't been touched. They way I see it, everyone MUST be hit after the first pass, or you're in trouble, and I want 2 chances at that.

Regarding the J-frame, for me the decision is not J frame verus full sized handgun, it's J-frame or nothing. Sometimes I'm doing something or dressing in a way that does not lend itself to anything larger. I suppose in that case, one would have to do. That's the advantage of the 340 PD - even if I miss I can count on the BG being blind, deaf, and maybe on fire.

 

[Tim Burke]

This a theoretical questions that is based on a false premise. Very few people every train enough in realistic, stressful, FoF scenarios to get past the tendency to get tunnel vision. Unless you know there are multiple targets before you engage, you'll likely fixate on the first one. You probably won't even see the second target until the first one is out of the fight, unless the second one does something really dramatic to get your attention.
I would really like to see video of this shootout.
Rather than plan for boarding house rules or 2/2/2 or failure drills all around, I think it's better to plan on shooting, moving, keeping your head on a swivel and staying in the fight.
That's enough to worry about; if it isn't enough to win the fight then I don't think the engagement sequence is going to make much difference.

 

[DerkThunder]

Any one who has obsessively played multi-player shooter games knows the "dinner principal" is garbage. Don't laugh, I'm serious, while playing online shooters doesn't help with your aim they will help with your tactics.

If there are several attackers you don't expose yourself and try to shoot all of them with one shot each. That will just hurt them bad enough to want to shoot back.

You pick whoever is the biggest threat to you at the moment (near or far) shoot as many times as it takes to drop them, duck behind a corner and take cover if possible, repeat until all threats are eliminated.

 

[M2 Carbine]

For the purpose of this discussion, I do not think the scenerio does involves multiple highly skilled attackers. If it did, I completely agree that you're pretty much dead meat. For this to be doable, you have to be much better, and if they shoot fast, they need to miss.

Yes, this is where I tend to over think these type scenarios.
I put myself in the BG's place and assume that they are about the same level shooter as me (for good or bad).

So all things considered, probably a couple shooters of my skill lever are going to put me in the dirt. Not that I wouldn't try hard.

 

[9mmepiphany]

You and a couple shooters line up facing silhouette targets.
You have to shoot two targets before the other shooters both shoot one target.

If you can't shoot both targets before those others shooters shoot one target, the chances are you are going to be shot by the second shooter and possibly by both shooters.

you start with the false premise that you should all start at the same time.

the 2 other shooters should be reacting to your first shot

 

[fireside44]

One shot to the chest each (five shots) and then pistol whip anyone still standing.

There is no place for unfairness under the Obama administration.

 

[navyretired 1]

I like the kid in candy store scenerio. The greatest threat gets 2 center mass and if he doesn't go down and out and while still locked on him 1 to forhead and turn out lights. Then second greatest threat if he is still playing same formula and so on and so on.
In this day and age real BG wear body armor and can absorb 2 center mass and really get mad that is why you stay locked on till he's down and even then he still could be dangerous if your head shot was off.

 

[MisterMike]

You all must be a lot cooler characters than I am. If you have the good fortune to be able to get lots of high-quality training, you can probably execute some of the more complicated tactics described here. With the shooting of thousands of rounds under realistic training scenarios, one developts those skills. Most of us aren't that fortunate.

Despite the fact that I've got a reasonable amount of training, I think that the best approach for most of us is to develop and train for a reliable and repeatable response. In my case, that's double taps for each actual imminent threat. I would suggest that the employment of a gun in self-defense would likely have a beneficial effect, especially if your first double-tap takes down one of the assailants.

Of course, there is a problem in any approach involving multiple adversaries: most of us carry only a single weapon, and those weapons probably have a capacity in the range of 6-15 or so sounds. Those bullets won't last very long in a confrontation with multiple assailants.

 

[RebelRabbi]

You must make a Threat Assesment based on the nearest threat versus the greatest threat i.e. the closest guy is 10 feet away armed with a pistol and the next guy is 30 feet away armed with a shotgun, take out the shotgun FIRST. General rule of thumb, everybody gets one before anybody gets two. It's situational.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Those bullets won't last very long in a confrontation with multiple assailants.

It shouldn't be a square range El Presidente-type exercise in which your goal is an attempt to shoot everybody who's menacing you or to discriminate between which customer gets served first. It allows the bad guys to quickly get inside your OODA loop and defeat you. Instead, you compress your OODA loop and expand theirs by simply choosing an avenue of escape, moving with a purpose (to make yourself a harder target to hit), focus on shooting only those who block your escape, and then create distance as fast as possible when you break free.

 

[Fred Fuller]

choosing an avenue of escape, moving with a purpose (to make yourself a harder target to hit), focus on shooting only those who block your escape, and then create distance as fast as possible when you break free

What Shawn said.

Somebody with a famous name once said that a gunfight is "50% shooting and 50% not getting shot." I think at least half as much of our attention and effort should focused on not getting shot as on shooting...

lpl

 

[navyretired 1]

I like not getting shot a lot but, If you start moving immediatly your hit probabilities go down, If cover is close thats ideal but my training and experience say's put the most dangerous down first. After him/her reassess next most dangerous and so forth.
With the right and enough training the decision making become second nature.
I was taught that hunting cover or opening distance alone is defense and that offense wins, so attack. If the BG's left are showing fear charge while shooting, sounds suicidal but in some situations the'll break and run. Blood from friend or family can change their minds.
Experience has show that close quarter combat alone against multiple BG's is like a knife fight your going to get cut, well is a CQC scenerio with multiples chances are you may get shot but if you do take the SOB's with you so they don't get someone else

 

[smince]

If you start moving immediatly your hit probabilities go down,

Not necessarily.

It's not difficult to get multiple hits while moving off line. I don't mean the side-step many instructors teach, but literally running out of the line of fire.

It can be learned in a day or so with the right training (of course, you still have to practice on your own).

 

[Keauxbi]

How do you practice?

It sounds like people who subscribe to boarding house rules (BHR) go to the gun range with 5 targets and 5 bullets. Since that is what we are planning for why practice anything else?

In a real world scenario there are ways to avoid being shot like taking cover. If you plan on standing stationary to your attacker while you return fire then you should rethink your strategy. So it doesn't make sense to plan on firing once, reacquiring, fire again, reacquire, fire again, reacquire, fire again and then start all over. If you don't plan on taking cover and firing, yeah you'll probably get shot, multiple times.

 

[smince]

Seems most everyone also assumes cover will even be available

 

[Keauxbi]

I don't frequent open fields or empty lots, so yeah I'll assume cover is available.

 

[smince]

I don't frequent open fields or empty lots, so yeah I'll assume cover is available.

I will suggest that reactive fights will be over (for better or worse) before you are able to even get to cover.

 

[RDCL]

This reminds me of the final gunfight scene from the movie "Unforgiven"....where Eastwood takes on a saloon full of gunmen single handed. Of course, he comes through it without a scratch.

A witness exclaims to him: "You just killed 5(?) armed men all by yourself!.....How did you know which one to go for FIRST....in what order?"

Eastwoods reply: "I was just lucky in the order"

Pure hollywood. Very unlikey his charactor would not have been hit.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

If you start moving immediatly your hit probabilities go down, If cover is close thats ideal but my training and experience say's put the most dangerous down first.

What if he doesn't go down? What if you miss? (Oh, that can't possibly happen, right?) He remains a danger to you and the time you waste on this exercise is time for the others to get inside your OODA loop.

You're going to survive by not getting shot. What tools do you have to minimize your chances of getting shot? Cover, concealment, movement, and distance.

When facing multiple assailants you are, in essence, standing in the doorway of a fatal funnel. The bad guys have the advantage of efficiency. They have just one area (you) to focus their effort. You, on the other hand, have a much greater "theater of operations" to contend with. The more time you spend making decisions to discriminate who gets shot in what order and the movements required to physically execute those decisions is more time you're, in effect, standing in the doorway.

Their expectations are to dominate you and control the situation. The only way to reliably win against multiple assailants ("win" is escaping and surviving) is to get inside their OODA loop by creating a mismatch between their expectations and reality. Narrowing your focus on not getting shot and escaping increases your efficiency. It simplifies your effort. Your escape route and those bad guys who are directly in the way are your only decisions. You create the mismatch by using surprise and fast transients. You surprise them with violence and focused intensity of action. Fast transients are the agility in which you can create mental and physical shifts from one maneuver event/state to another. One moment you're a certain helpless victim in the eyes of your assailants, and the next you're aggressively closing distance with and ruthlessly shooting your way through only those who're blocking your escape.

A fighter pilot who's outnumbered and vulnerable isn't going to use "boarding house" tactics. He's only going to maneuver against and shoot those planes that get in the way of his ability haul a$$ and get outta Dodge as quickly as possible, so he can live to fight another day.

 

[navyretired 1]

May I respectfully submit that a fighter pilot and a civilian have different rules of engagement. A fighter pilot is cleared to fire when a hostile is a hostile or shows hostile.
A civilian who breaks contact during CQC and then turns and abushes or attacks when clear is not working with justifiable use of deadly force (IMHO).
The natural response to attack is to run but if you get chased down what good. Opening distance is still running not attacking to the rear.
The BG's today are probably better than we think shooting and tactics that's why it's so important to react with agression and deadly accurate fire, making sure to leave no one behind you who can still shoot.
I've been through 2 tours of RVN and I've gone to 3 self defence and tactics classes. I liked the training and it made me think a lot but didn't change all my combat learned lessons. You don't pull a weapon on a human good or bad like you do a paper target and all the gaming in the world will not replace an actual gun fight. In real life most people don't really know how they'd react, that's what the trainings for. If your training is realistic and your reactions and muscle memory works you have a much better chance of surviving.
When ever you find your self in an unusual position even without danger let yourself think what-if and game out a senerio of BG's and your reactions, work and study until you think you can prevail. Thanks

 

[David E]

This topic seems to come up every other week.......

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=509359

If you are presented with 3 equally hostile targets, the prudent man shoots them all ONCE before shooting them again.

For example, if I had 3 equal threats at 5 yds spaced 1 foot apart at shoulders, I'd go 1,1,2,1,1 and serve thirds (4ths/5th's, etc ) to anyone needing them.

It doesn't have to take that long...........if you practice.

Many people respond with projected time frames for them to perform this or that.......yet, they've never tried it. Or, if they did, they used a second hand or maybe a stopwatch. You can't learn as much with those timing methocs.

Here's what I did recently at the range with a .38 snub and a .40 1911:

Using a shot timer, I began with a .38 snubby, (starting with hand on gun) At the signal, I fired one shot on EACH of the 3 targets:

My best run was this:

.65
.27
.25
------
1.18


Changing to a 1911 Govt chambered in .40 using factory ammo, starting again with hand on gun in a holster, I fired one shot on each of the 3 targets:

.59
.21
.16
------
.96

Still using the 1911 in .40, starting with GUN IN HOLSTER, HANDS AT SIDES (not touching gun) I then did one shot each, reload, one shot each:

.82
.24
.18
1.16
.22
.16
------
2.78 total time.

One guy in the thread was saying he preferred TRIPLE taps on each target before moving on. He said it took him 10-14 seconds.

I set up a drill he referenced that placed an IPSC target at 10 o'clock, 12 o'clock and 2 o'clock, all 7 yds from me in the center. I started on the center target (the slowest, most difficult sequence) and did single shots, double taps, then triple taps. My main intent (aside from seeing how fast I could do this) was to determine how much time target #3 had to shoot me. Keep in mind, I was reacting to a beep, adding .15-.25 to the times, as I'd self-start in a real situation. Also, add some time for badguy #3, as he'd have to figure out what was going on and what he was going to do about it, if anything.

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.

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

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

The time difference between #3 getting hit with single shots vs. double taps was 22/100ths or slightly less than 1/4 of a second.

But the time difference for hitting the 3rd target between firing one shot each vs. 3 shots each was 52/100ths, or slighly more than 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.

Another poster basically said that he'd engage #1 until he was no longer a threat, totally disregarding #2 and #3 until #1 was out of the picture. He even admitted he may run out of ammo on #1.

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.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

May I respectfully submit that a fighter pilot and a civilian have different rules of engagement. A fighter pilot is cleared to fire when a hostile is a hostile or shows hostile.

This isn't about "rules of engagement." It's about tactics.

A civilian who breaks contact during CQC and then turns and abushes or attacks when clear is not working with justifiable use of deadly force (IMHO).

I never suggested this.

that's why it's so important to react with agression and deadly accurate fire

Exactly, I believe I described it like that.

making sure to leave no one behind you who can still shoot.

And in so doing you give those who outnumber you more time and opportunity to shoot YOU.