One shot each if multiple opponents?

[Crusader103]

I was having a discussion with another shooter about engagement priority and the tactical sequence. He was of the mind that if more than one opponent is present that each should get one shot in the interest of speed and then reassessing each, firing additional rounds as necessary. I personally feel that this is an armchair developed technique but am not entirely opposed to its basis. Here is an excerpt from one of my writings. See what you think.

There has been much discussion about engaging each threat with a single shot in an effort to engage as many threats as quickly as possible, returning to each if the first shot has not had a desired effect. I do not maintain a hardened stance against this approach but it may very well present a dilemma. This is a tactic that has been developed on the range but our concern is not with punching holes in paper in a static environment. It is with winning gunfights with the realization of all the undesirable events that accompany it.

No matter how good we are on the range we must remember that we are going to be under stress, manual dexterity is going to be impaired, and our targets are probably going to be moving. If we were able to guarantee a solid hit with the first shot on every opponent the one shot per target methodology would have some merit. However, if we move on to another target before inhibiting the abilities of the first our time has been wasted. What’s worse yet is that based on engagement priority we may be moving on from the most significant threat to a lesser threat before neutralizing either.

In contrast, the amount of time it takes to place two shots on target with a controlled pair is very negligible in relation to the amount of time that it takes to place only one. We are now at least doubling our chances of neutralizing the most threatening aggressor before moving on to the lesser.

 

[Mr.Davis]

I agree. My sidearm carries 16+1 rounds, so ammo conservation is not a big worry. If I run through that magazine, then I'm not short of ammo, I'm short of people on my side of the argument.

Two each, closest to furthest away. Most criminals who travel in packs break ranks when armed resistance begins, so I hope that the first two shots will be enough to stop the attack. If not, keep dishing out two per until the attack stops or the slide locks.

 

[orionengnr]

It has not been mentioned, and it may be overlooked, but...

If more than one are armed the second and third may be perforating you while you put multiple hits on the first.

That is the essence of the "dinner principle", which reads, "everyone gets first before anyone gets seconds".

Infinite variable exist, and it is probably impossible to cover them all in a short discussion such as this. But, absent significant variables, my "Plan A" is based upon the "dinner principle".

If significant variables are evident, hopefully I will have the presence of mind to alter that plan. But since I do not train in high stress environments, That may not work out well...in which case, I will hope Plan A works for me.

At least I have a Plan A, which is more than many do.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Multiple shots. This is one of the reasons I chose 9mm. I can carry modern JHP rounds that are just as effective as anything else, combined with the benefits of easy followup shots and a very high magazine capacity. With a reasonable amount of practice, one can put 2 even 3 rounds on a target with little loss in time compared to one shot per target, and this is especially true if you carry a low recoil round such as 9mm.

 

[ambidextrous1]

I favor the "Dinner Principle", also called the "Boarding House Rules"; but it's important to deviate from this, if the situation calls for it. A wounded assailant at three paces may require another "serving", or if the leader is identified, he should also receive preferential treatment.

It's likely that any tactic will require improvisation after the first shot or two are fired.

"To each according to his need"; pray that it never happens.

 

[mljdeckard]

I agree. If you are shooting as fast as you should be, two shots is not a significant increase in time, but is GREATLY more effective than a single shot.

I took a class from a guy who taught the process of turning towards a threat, and having another threat appear in the process of the turn, and hitting that threat once as you were on the way to the REAL target. I asked him to clarify why one threat is greater than the other, and we agreed that it would be situation dependent. But I digested it over time, and I decided that when the combat switch is on, it doesn't do you much good to start trying to 'prioritize' threats that are all deadly. I have to struggle to imagine a situation where this would happen in real life and you would would KNOW that there was a reason the second threat was greater, but it was STILL necessary to hit the other one once FIRST.

Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice, and that's not just a handgun rule. If there's more than one thing that needs to be put down, then they all need to be stopped. The process of hitting them all once and coming back and hitting them all again is far too inefficient in time and effort. Look at it this way. Run an 'el presidente' drill both ways and see what works better.

(For those who might not know,)

Three targets at close range, at the buzzer, you will draw and fire two shots each into each of the three targets, reload, and do it again. (time.)

If you think it's better to hit them all ONCE, then try it splitting them up, meaning, draw, fire one shot each, GO BACK, one shot each, RELOAD, one shot each, GO BACK AGAIN, one shot each, time. Just TYPING the process takes a lot more time, think about it.

 

[9mmepiphany]

multiple shots per target...but not for the reason you may think.

these targets are not static paper just waiting for you to punch hole in. you cant just shoot one once, move on to the next one waiting for you and then the third before returning to where you left the first to check on him.

as soon as you fire the first shot...assuming you are not blazingly fast...the 2nd attacker would have moved. so now it's not a simple move your sights, but more of a "locate and sight in" on him. you're better off anchoring each one as you find them before moving on.

having said that, i'll describe a drill i once ran through. 3 targets @ 3 yards, about a foot from each other in a semi-circle around you. on a signal, draw and fire, placing 2 hits on each target in 1.5 sec. it's a great demo of the speed difference between one shot each and repeat or two on each to start...also interesting was the speed comparison of just one shot on each

 

[YammyMonkey]

You've chosen your priority target for a reason. Until that target is no longer the priority you'll probably be best served by sticking to him.

In a truly dynamic environment it'll be pretty tough to track what everyone is doing & breaking your focus on the primary to search for a secondary could have dire consequences.

That said, so can missing the guy behind you with the tire iron.

Either way it is, how you say, a poo-sandwich?

 

[hammerklavier]

Why waste the effort you've put into acquiring each target by only firing one shot? I would double tap.

 

[03Shadowbob]

Even though I carry a 1911 with only 9 rounds, my LEO training way back when was 2 shots per multiple attacker and I have always practiced that way.

 

[bababooey32]

I saw them run this drill on PDTV a few eeks ago...Timing the difference between two double taps and one shot each on two targets (they didn't even bother going back for a second shot on each target). The time difference between 2+2 vs 1+1 was negligible, if any. Getting a sight picture (of whatever type you can) and moving from one target to the next is the most time consuming aspect of multiple targets. Once on target, 1 or two shots will make little difference.

I vote for 2 shots before "serving" the next guest.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Scoot & shoot. Get off the X as soon as possible as soon as the situation permits.

Your targets will be moving and you *should* be moving. You should be moving to reduce their opportunity to harm you - to create a moving target, to create distance, to move to cover, to seize the opportunity to escape, etc. Your ability to get hits, much less good hits, is going to be more a matter of luck than skill. You're better off, IMHO, in focusing not on getting hits on targets but on creating the opportunity to escape. Fire at those who are in your direct path of escape and don't worry about the others.

When I was patrolling gang infested streets it was a common tactic for the mouthy gangsters to engage in verbal confrontations with their unwitting victims while the deceptively quiet, *nonthreatening* gangsters in the background carried the guns and were the shooters.

 

[smince]

Your ability to get hits, much less good hits, is going to be more a matter of luck than skill.

No, it just takes practice like any other skill set.

 

[shockwave]

There's an old riddle, goes like this:

"There are 10 crows sitting on a telephone line in a row. If you shoot one of them, how many will be left?"

The answer seems applicable to this problem.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

No, it just takes practice like any other skill set.

I know of few private citizens with access to training that involves shooting projectiles at multiple, unpredictable, interactive, determined, live-action (human) adversaries.

 

[9mmepiphany]

I know of few private citizens with access to training that involves shooting projectiles at multiple, unpredictable, interactive, determined, live-action (human) adversaries.

you don't know anyone who trains with airsoft?...of at least has access to airsoft handguns

 

[smince]

you don't know anyone who trains with airsoft?...of at least has access to airsoft handguns

+1. Monthly FoF sessions will keep this skill sharp.

Not perfect, but it beats standing around shooting holes in stationary targets all the time.

Of course, I realize a lot of 'trainers' still dismiss the value of Force-On-Force training

 

[Matthew Temkin]

There's an old riddle, goes like this:

"There are 10 crows sitting on a telephone line in a row. If you shoot one of them, how many will be left?"

The answer seems applicable to this problem.
The answer is none.
I have reviewed quite a few gunfights with my NYPD buds and when shots are fired the bad guys start running.
Rare indeed is the need to "duke it out" with multiples, even though it started out that way.
I have been trained in QuickKill, where the trend is to place one shot into each BG ASAP before moving on to other shots.
It is amazing how fast and accurate this can be, especially when done from the hip.
I also practice placing two or more shots into each BG before engaging the next threat.
It's nice to practice all possibilities so as to let the situation dictate the strategy.
In other words, real life rarely follows a script.

 

[Bubba613]

If you are facing more than one attacker shooting at you you are probably dead anyway. So it's pretty academic.
As mentioned, the time to deliver 2 shots is a lot less than the time to transition to a second target. With the "Crow Principle" it makes sense to identify and neutralize the leader first while the others scatter.

 

[Mr.Davis]

Another alternative is the "Yo homie, that my briefcase?" method:.
j/k of course

 

[uspJ]

i would focus on the closest threat and put as many rounds in its direction as possible as i try my best to escape, if the closest threat runs away or hits the ground i would move on to the new closest threat and repeat. the way i see it if you have a the closest threat in your sights you might as well put that threat down before engaging any others, a double tap may not have been enough to put him down so transitioning to a new target may leave the first assailant time to reach you before succumbing to his wounds. any way you look at it if you face multiple armed assailants who will stand and fight you will most likely be shot yourself if you are unable to escape or get to a strong defensive position and take cover.

 

[ProShooter]

At Blackwater, we were taught a drill called "set and move".

Bad guy #1 gets 2 shots, Bad guy #2 gets one shot

Then retreat to cover

Bad guy #2 then gets 2 shots, and Bad guy #1 gets one shot.

all follow up shots are of course on an "as needed" basis

 

[boalex207]

This is a good thread.

I had always been a proponent of the "Boarding House Rules" as mentioned - everybody gets one before anybody gets another (assuming that all threats were equal - distance, type of weapon, etc)

This has been a good discussion to make me at least pause and reconsider that philosophy. I do lend a lot of credence to the "crows on a wire" analogy....generally, I think, when BG's # 2 and # 3 observe BG # 1 get ventilated, they will likely excuse themselves to other environs.

Mentioned only in passing has been the question of on-board ammunition capacity........my tactics and strategy may change depending on if I am carrying a 5 shot J-frame with no reload that day or a 9mm pistol with two extra magazines.

 

[mljdeckard]

The other attackers MAY run away. On the other hand, WHAT IF THEY DON'T?

 

[Keauxbi]

I have to disagree with the "dinner principle" or the "Boarding house rules" and since I haven't seen a proper name for it I'll go with the "Kid in a candy store" rule, meaning top threat gets his fill and then I'll serve the next customer. IMO if I have multiple attackers coming at me, I'll serve the closest or most aggressive threat first and once that threat is down if I have anymore willing participants then they'll get their fair share. In the heat of the moment you don't know if you single shot will kill or wound an attacker so why not follow up on your "request"

If all attackers abided by the "Crows on a Wire" theory, we'd only need to carry single shot pistols. Heck we could carry starter pistols and when they heard the gunshot they'd be off to the races.