Hypothetical Question: Multiple Close Threats

[Jay Cunningham]

I'd like to solicit opinions concerning a type of scenario. I am aware that every situation is different and must be evaluated independently.

For the sake of discussion, I am saying that you have encountered multiple (let's say 3) individuals that you have identified as threats. You are armed, they are close, it would endanger you to retreat. Essentially you are in Condition Red and you are going to engage the threats.

My question:

How does the engagement sequence play out? Do you engage each threat, eliminate it and move on? Or do you get a bullet as quickly into each threat as possible and then assess?

I have had only limited training, so my only reference point is the "El Presidente" drill where you place two COM on threat #1, then two COM on threat #2, then a head shot back on #1.

Judging from that, my guess would be to execute a vey quick controlled pair on each threat in sequence then reassess.

But I don't know, so I'm asking! Thanks for any info.

[kcdreamer]

Alot will depend on the threat. We have to assume that all 3 are presenting a lethal threat. Are they all equally armed? Is cover available for them and you? Lots of variables. Many instructors are now teaching one shot on each and swinging back to determine if they still represent a threat. Of course if cover is nearby that is also an option as you make the necessary shots. I personally am in this group. Going up agianst a bunch of untrained thugs is one thing and you may or may not have time to double on each, but it is doubtful. Movement makes you harder to hit and harder for them to hit you, but if you have trained you will likely have the advantage while moving and shooting.

[Sam]

This is a popular scenario set up numerous times at IDPA match where Bill Wilson is a proponent of the tactical priority (I think that's what it's call) engagement (with three targets) of 1-1-2-1-1 over the 2-2-2.

An instructor that I value his opinion and technique very much demonstrated this in our classes. I've taken classes once a year from him since 2000, so that's at least 7 times that we've shot the scenario.

We set up 3 IDPA targets in a semi circle, the shooter stands in the middle facing the center target, with a target to his left and a target to his right. The targets were about 4-5 yards away. Each shooter gets two runs, once doing 1-1-2-1-1 and the second run the shooter just double tap each target. To minimize "cheating" where the shooter starts from left to right or right to left and can build up a rhythm and momentum, the shooter must engage the target in front of him first, then he may engage either left or right target. Shooters started with hands relaxed at side, handgun in the holster. We did not use concealment to minimize any external distraction. Handguns were full powered service type, DA and SA, drawing from concealment/street holsters not game rigs.

In roughtly seven classes, each class of 14 students minimum, that's 98 shooters (minimum). Shooters ranged from very experienced to average.

When engaging the targets with 1 round each then going back and pick them up again with round number 2, the third shot is usually anywhere from 2.5 sec. to under 4 seconds, the last shot (6th) is anywhere from 4 - 6 seconds.
When engaging the targets with 2 rounds (or double tap if you want to call it), the first shot on the third target is anywhere from 3 sec. to 4 or 5 seconds for the slower and less experienced shooters. By the way, double tapping is actually for most shooter faster after the 6th shot than doing the 1-1-2-1-1 routine.

We concluded that yes it is slower ( half a second average ) if we double tap each target, but we increased the stopping probability on the first and second threat by putting two holes in them before we get to the third. Shooting each threat with one shot each then hoping to go back to pick them up may not work because these punks may not have read Combat Handgun magazines and realize that they should go down after getting hit by a 230 gr. Hydrashok.
We'll take our chance by double tapping. Most shooting stats showed that when the good guy (LEO or civillians) gun fire starts, the bad guys usually start running away, they usually have no stomach to stand toe to toe.

[Neeglik]

Personally, I like the idea of picking the biggest threat and shooting him to the ground. If possible, move to put him between you and the others. I'm of the opinion that all your targets are going to be moving once it goes down and trying to track and put one on each, then reaquire them all again for followups is going to be slower than numbers given from paper targets.

Also bear in mind that you are very likely to not put anything down with one (or even two) hits with pistol calibers. Even with fatal hits, guys will run around for a while given the proper motivation.

Just my .02.

[Bulldog1967]

Personally, I like the idea of picking the biggest threat and shooting him to the ground. If possible, move to put him between you and the others. I'm of the opinion that all your targets are going to be moving once it goes down and trying to track and put one on each, then reaquire them all again for followups is going to be slower than numbers given from paper targets.

Also bear in mind that you are very likely to not put anything down with one (or even two) hits with pistol calibers. Even with fatal hits, guys will run around for a while given the proper motivation.

Just my .02.

Can't disagree with that.

"Bringing ammo to a gunfight is alot like bringing candy to school: you better have enough to go around!"

:D

[David Blinder]

Fwiw, several years ago, I was involved in a test of "boarding house rules" (everyone gets served before anyone gets seconds). There were 96 experienced participants in a 360 degree shoothouse, unknown shooting solution and all targets reactive to variable number of hits. Upon entering one room, there were three "threats", equal distance and all identically armed. Not one single participant, even those who are adamant proponents of "boarding house rules", did anything but shoot a single "threat" until down before transitioning to the next. Lesson learned was that unless you have square range type foreknowledge of number of threats, how many times they need to be shot, etc., most people will deal with the first specific threat identified until it's no longer perceived as an issue and then move on. I'm sure there are exceptions but I'd guess that unless somebody has the opportunity to make a plan, the odds favor that "boarding house rules" is more of a competition strategy than a practical one.