View Full Version : The Double Tap - What, Why and When?
Business_Casual
10-11-08, 17:30
So everyone, well, almost everyone it seems, at the range practices the "double tap." Either with pistols or rifles, I see or hear this going on every time I go shoot.
This got me thinking, because anytime some "thing" is the convential wisdom, it is usually wrong.
So I ask the forum - what, why and when? What situations do you employ the double tap or why not and when do you decide?
Is there a theory or practical basis behind the double tap or controlled pair? Is it a lack of trust in our weapons' ballistics or our marksmanship or is it something else?
I'm not asking for someone to just restate what they've been taught or heard, I'm asking for some thought into the practical side of this practice.
M_P
So everyone, well, almost everyone it seems, at the range practices the "double tap." Either with pistols or rifles, I see or hear this going on every time I go shoot.
This got me thinking, because anytime some "thing" is the convential wisdom, it is usually wrong.
So I ask the forum - what, why and when? What situations do you employ the double tap or why not and when do you decide?
Is there a theory or practical basis behind the double tap or controlled pair? Is it a lack of trust in our weapons' ballistics or our marksmanship or is it something else?
I'm not asking for someone to just restate what they've been taught or heard, I'm asking for some thought into the practical side of this practice.
M_P
Are we talking Hammers or controlled pairs? Because there is a difference. I am of the mind that I will train to always shoot twice; controlled pairs for me. The reasoning being, anything you are justified in shooting once, you are justified in shooting twice. I am shooting to stop a threat, two to center mass should do it. If not, I follow up.
Chris
Jay Cunningham
10-11-08, 18:31
The "Double-Tap" (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19207)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozambique_Drill
Although I guess technically, The Mozambique is a 2+1 shot
Is there a theory or practical basis behind the double tap or controlled pair? Is it a lack of trust in our weapons' ballistics or our marksmanship or is it something else?
M_P
I don't think it's a lack of trust in ballistics or marksmanship, I think it's a good understanding of of terminal ballistics and physiology. Shooting for self-defense purposes is not like hunting deer or punching paper, the danger of not stopping the threat ASAP is too great to shoot one shot and assess.
There are 3 ways to stop an attacker quickly,
1. Disrupt his Central Nervous System with hits to the brain or spine; those are very hard targets to hit.
2. Drop his blood pressure so far and fast that he quickly loses consciousness. Multiple hits to the heart and or the large blood vessels around the heart.
3. The attacker makes a psychological decision to stop attacking, this is not under our control and is the most unreliable.
Speaking for myself, I'll gladly use up a little extra ammo to ensure #2 above, using a pistol or rifle.
Gringop
Jay Cunningham
10-11-08, 19:30
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozambique_Drill
Although I guess technically, The Mozambique is a 2+1 shot
Wikipedia is not a credible source to cite for any example. I would STRONGLY steer you toward the link I posted to Failure2Stop's thread - I am thinking he has a slightly better handle on it than Wikipedia...
VooDoo6Actual
10-11-08, 20:23
Great question and there will be lots of answers and schools of thought on this one.
I will give ONE scenario that I KNOW worked for me.
When shooting through glass on vehicles.
I have used Hammers and CP's/DT's.
Both worked.
Business_Casual
10-11-08, 20:38
Great question and there will be lots of answers and schools of thought on this one.
I will give ONE scenario that I KNOW worked for me.
When shooting through glass on vehicles.
I have used Hammers and CP's/DT's.
Both worked.
Intermediate barriers is an excellent example in my opinion of when. Thank you. Any real-world experience is much more valuable than IPSC stages.
M_P
VooDoo6Actual
10-11-08, 23:11
Another example of WHEN I KNOW it works, is when you KNOW where your Tango is BUT they are CONCEALED (notice the distinction, NOT COVER).
Shooting/Assaulting a TANGO in CONCEALMENT w/ Hammers/DT's/CP's allows for a larger projectile channel to mitigate, defeat concealment medium(s), ameliorate wound channel(s) thusly increasing effects of hydrostatic shock, ballistic and blast pressure shock, cavitation etc.
The same would be true of a heavily dressed TANGO wearing HEAVY Leather outergarments/heavy garments/ "MUFTI" etc. (NOT "BA").
Until the THREAT is resolved.
Wikipedia is not a credible source to cite for any example. I would STRONGLY steer you toward the link I posted to Failure2Stop's thread - I am thinking he has a slightly better handle on it than Wikipedia...
I just used that because it does correctly explain the drill. It is 2 in the chest and one to the head. That is the Mozambique Drill. I know wiki is not always credible, but I think they actually got this one right. If I'm wrong I apologize for posting bad info.
The following was written by Jeff Cooper in June 1994:
"As time passes we discover that there are a good many readers who have not been to school and who are puzzled by our reference to "The Mozambique Drill."
I added The Mozambique Drill to the modern doctrine after hearing of an experience of a student of mine up in Mozambique when that country was abandoned. My friend was involved in the fighting that took place around the airport of Laurenco Marquez. At one point, Mike turned a corner was confronted by a terrorist carrying an AK47. The man was advancing toward him at a walk at a range of perhaps 10 paces. Mike, who was a good shot, came up with his P35 and planted two satisfactory hits, one on each side of the wishbone. He expected his adversary to drop, but nothing happened, and the man continued to close the range. At this point, our boy quite sensibly opted to go for the head and tried to do so, but he was a little bit upset by this time and mashed slightly on the trigger, catching the terrorist precisely between the collar bones and severing his spinal cord. This stopped the fight.
Upon analysis, it seemed to me that the pistolero should be accustomed to the idea of placing two shots amidships as fast as he can and then being prepared to change his point of aim if this achieves no results. Two shots amidships can be placed very quickly and very reliably and they will nearly always stop the fight providing a major-caliber pistol is used and the subject is not wearing body armor. However, simply chanting "two in the body, one in the head" oversimplifies matters, since it takes considerably longer to be absolutely sure of a head shot than it does to be quite sure of two shots in the thorax. The problem for the shooter is to change his pace, going just as fast as he can with his first pair, then, pausing to observe results or lack thereof, he must slow down and shoot precisely. This is not easy to do. The beginner tends to fire all three shots at the same speed, which is either too slow for the body shots or too fast for the head shot. This change of pace calls for concentration and coordination which can only be developed through practice.
Mike Rouseau was later killed in action in the Rhodesian War. May he rest in peace!"
This is pretty interesting, it tells all sorts of shooting drills to practice:
http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/HandgunDrills.pdf
I shoot until the threat is no longer a threat. Whether it be 2 rounds, 3 rounds or ten. If body shots seem to have no effect then its the pelvis or the head next.
Wikipedia is not a credible source to cite for any example. I would STRONGLY steer you toward the link I posted to Failure2Stop's thread - I am thinking he has a slightly better handle on it than Wikipedia...
then here:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm
http://www.thegunzone.com/lore.html
also, wikipedia has been shown to have roughly the same number of errors as the encyclopedia britannica does
:D
RogerinTPA
10-12-08, 08:44
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozambique_Drill
Although I guess technically, The Mozambique is a 2+1 shot
I've been practicing that drill for quite a while. Quite a few Mil. units train on it too, but to effectively stop the forward motion of a determined attacker, while under tremendous stress, I would shoot a Controlled Pair (outside of 10 feet) or Hammer pairs (if within 10 feet) to the chest and 2 to the pelvis as Iraqgunz pointed out. Shoot him to the floor if all else fails.
Failure2Stop
10-12-08, 09:02
Is there a theory or practical basis behind the double tap or controlled pair? Is it a lack of trust in our weapons' ballistics or our marksmanship or is it something else?
It came about because there are very few guarantees when it comes to gunfights.
Pairs to the upper torso as a standard response came about due to a few different reasons-
Increased trauma
Increased probability of lethal hit
Both of the above in a rapid fashion
However- simply firing two shots does not guarantee instant or rapid incapacitation. Even firing two shots directly through the heart does not. It increases probability, but guarantees nothing.
Application of technique of fire is dependant on several factors and circumstances. To greatly simplify the issue here is my view-
Multiple targets (of a realisitc number) each get a pair, instantly transitioning from target to target on the second shot, follow by "clean-up" if needed. In my experience it is the most efficient way to deal with multiple targets.
A single target receives as many shots as I can rapidly put into it (generally 3 to 5), followed by failure to stop shots. Distance and movement are critical factors in how many shots are applied before transitioning to incapacitation shots. It is the most effective way to deal with a single target, but can induce tunnel-vision and target focus if not properly trained (which is a whole other can of worms).
I think a lot of pair focus has been bred by competition. Not too many shoots require a shooter to shoot more than 2 to the body. Proper, realistic training by a credible instructor is a critical part of technique and application.
Ben Lenett
10-12-08, 11:13
A single target receives as many shots as I can rapidly put into it (generally 3 to 5), followed by failure to stop shots. Distance and movement are critical factors in how many shots are applied before transitioning to incapacitation shots. It is the most effective way to deal with a single target, but can induce tunnel-vision and target focus if not properly trained (which is a whole other can of worms).
.
This has been my experience as well regarding Police shootings that myself and my coworkers and been involved in. People do unusual things when they get struck by projectiles.
My partner was involved in a shooting where he was striking the individual with 12G 1oz Slugs, and the subject was yelling "knock it off" throughout the entire incident.
I placed six rounds of 5.56mm centermass on an individual who continued to stand there until a brain shot was employed immediately following the NSR.
A coworker fired one round of 9mm centermass on an individual and he quit all action immediately.
All of the above incidents resulted in the subject expiring at the scene.
My view is that training to only fire two rounds is truly cheating yourself and the people that depend on you. You should be firing as many rounds into the subject as you can accurately place given the situation at hand, until his actions toward you have ceased.
I have found from my unwanted experience of this topic that people tend to do one of three things during a gunfight. They continue to fire at the subject until he/she:
1) Ceases hostile action
2) One of the weapons involved malfunctions or runs out of ammunition
3) Leave the area of the incident in question
I think competition is a wonderful thing, but shooting paper and people are two completely different animals. I train with paper shooters to work purely technique and building speed, but people shooters are where you spend your money to learn about dealing with human conflict. It annoys me when the IPSC Grandmaster trys to tell us about shooting people, when the closest he has been in playing XBOX.
People unfortunately confuse the two all too often and get an unrealistic grasp of reality when the bullets begin going both ways.
Don't cheat yourself.
Is there a theory or practical basis behind the double tap or controlled pair? Is it a lack of trust in our weapons' ballistics or our marksmanship or is it something else?
The "double tap" is a controlled pair. A hammer is a hammer. The "dedicated pair" is another superfluous term for a controlled pair that requires more time on the sights because a precise/longer shot is called for.
The original concept of the double tap was to fire two shots to help insure that at least one round hit the target. IIRC, the practice pre-dates Jeff Cooper (RIP) and originated somewhere/sometime with Rex Applegate who advocated firing two shots while point-shooting (:rolleyes:) because he only anticipated a 50% hit rate while point shooting. The phrase double tap was coined during Col. Cooper's time.
I'm not sure where the dogma of firing only two shots came in. I was taught to fire until at least two shots were on target. "On target" being where the shots were supposed to be aimed.
I shoot until the threat is no longer a threat.
sorry to be a bit callous, but if you get in a shooting situation it will be better for you if there is only "one story" that will be told and reviewed. LEO's operate under different guidelines but in a defensive situation if an individual ever gets to the point of lining a weapon up, it is past the point of negotiation, and the situation should only be considered secure when the target is no longer functional.
Robb Jensen
10-13-08, 06:57
The "double tap" is a controlled pair. A hammer is a hammer. The "dedicated pair" is another superfluous term for a controlled pair that requires more time on the sights because a precise/longer shot is called for.
The original concept of the double tap was to fire two shots to help insure that at least one round hit the target. IIRC, the practice pre-dates Jeff Cooper (RIP) and originated somewhere/sometime with Rex Applegate who advocated firing two shots while point-shooting (:rolleyes:) because he only anticipated a 50% hit rate while point shooting. The phrase double tap was coined during Col. Cooper's time.
I'm not sure where the dogma of firing only two shots came in. I was taught to fire until at least two shots were on target. "On target" being where the shots were supposed to be aimed.
I agree.
The term double-tap is usually misunderstood most believe it's one sight picture and two trigger presses. This why when people ask about double-tap I ask what do they mean and how are they doing it.
It should be a 'controlled pair' which means :
sight picture - trigger press see sights lift and return to COM, align sights (if they're off) and trigger press. Each trigger press gets it's own sight picture.
Most people think that the second sight picture takes a lot of time.....it really doesn't. Having to make up a miss takes at least twice as long if not more than proper sight alignment would have taken the first time.
I also agree just the two shots is silly, for competition it makes sense because it's just a paper target and easier to score that way.
Most people think that the second sight picture takes a lot of time.....it really doesn't.
Perhaps the concept of using as much sights as are needed, and only that amount, for the shot at hand escapes them...?
It annoys me when the IPSC Grandmaster trys to tell us about shooting people, when the closest he has been in playing XBOX.
That happens? Really?! Say it isn't so... :D
I do have to say, though, that competition shooting over the past 25 years or so has been a great boon to combat marksmanship. I don't know that I'd go so far as to say they're completely different animals. Maybe same animal, different breed...?
Ben Lenett
10-13-08, 08:09
That happens? Really?! Say it isn't so... :D
I do have to say, though, that competition shooting over the past 25 years or so has been a great boon to combat marksmanship. I don't know that I'd go so far as to say they're completely different animals. Maybe same animal, different breed...?
The only similiarity I see between the two are that it involves discharging a firearm down range. The gear is different, the guns are different, and the mindset is completely different. Obviously there are some exceptions on a very small scale. Mindset is the most important factor of all.
In a competition I am concerned with my time, but in a gunfight I am thinking about survival.
Ben Lenett
10-13-08, 08:23
sorry to be a bit callous, but if you get in a shooting situation it will be better for you if there is only "one story" that will be told and reviewed. LEO's operate under different guidelines but in a defensive situation if an individual ever gets to the point of lining a weapon up, it is past the point of negotiation, and the situation should only be considered secure when the target is no longer functional.
I truly hope that you never have to excercise any type of deadly physical force. Making a statement like this on a public internet forum is quite possibly one of the worst things you could ever do, and a prosecutor would have an absolute field day with you in court.
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury...this callous individual didn't stop firing when the VICTIM dropped his weapon....no....he continued to fire until he was DEAD or as he likes to say...NON-FUNCTIONAL. I direct you to look at the screen where you will see an internet blog that the defendant wrote. He describes these actions and talk about how he only wanted one story, which is why the VICTIM has two bullets in his body and one bullet to his head. The defendant had to finish the job and get his one story."
Everyone needs to excercise some more caution in what they write on the internet. It can and will come back to bite you. This is a hard and true fact of life that I have seen first hand in court.
I have been in multiple gunfights and I do not buy that the average individual is going to MURDER someone solely so they get their wish of one story. You will be quite overwhelmed with the situation at hand, and you can't just walk up to the subject on the ground and put a bullet in his brain. Forensics has the ability to figure things like that out. You can't hide the angle of entrance, powder speckling, and the damage to the flooring under his head/body when the projectile continues to pass through his body.
"It annoys me when the IPSC Grandmaster trys to tell us about shooting people, when the closest he has been in playing XBOX."
GMs don't have much time for XBOX. Available time outside of job and family responsibilities is spent in dry practice, live fire, or feeding their Dillon 1050.
I personally know several Ms and GMs who are cops and/or SWAT cops. A few of them have even used their skills to effect on the 2 way range.
While USPSA and IDPA are games, they can be used to develop shooting skills to a high level.
This is why Todd, Robbie, Dave, Manny, Bennie, Phil, Max, Travis, Matt, Jerry, Frank, etc. are repeatedly sought out by LE and MIL for training.
Ben Lenett
10-13-08, 11:21
"It annoys me when the IPSC Grandmaster trys to tell us about shooting people, when the closest he has been in playing XBOX."
GMs don't have much time for XBOX. Available time outside of job and family responsibilities is spent in dry practice, live fire, or feeding their Dillon 1050.
I personally know several Ms and GMs who are cops and/or SWAT cops. A few of them have even used their skills to effect on the 2 way range.
While USPSA and IDPA are games, they can be used to develop shooting skills to a high level.
This is why Todd, Robbie, Dave, Manny, Bennie, Phil, Max, Travis, Matt, Jerry, Frank, etc. are repeatedly sought out by LE and MIL for training.
You are correct. They are sought out quite a bit, and the ultimate complaint from user groups that I interact with is they start to get away from what they know. When they show up wearing speed rigs and race guns, that tends too cause some issues. And more than one fo those individuals you listed has done that to SMUs.
There are always exceptions to everything, but in a general sense there are drastic differences between what shooting paper and people is about. People need to know their lane and stay in it. That is a major problem in this industry.
I have found from my unwanted experience of this topic that people tend to do one of three things during a gunfight. They continue to fire at the subject until he/she:
1) Ceases hostile action
2) One of the weapons involved malfunctions or runs out of ammunition
3) Leave the area of the incident in question
+1
It's important to distinguish between reactive shooting and planned/ambush actions. It's easy to do the "two on each" thing when you've identified your targets and their location in advance. When someone else starts the fighting, people essentially focus on a threat until something else steals their attention. It might happen because the threat is no longer a threat, it may happen because the gun stops working and demands attention, it may be because something literally obstructs your view, someone hits you with a baseball bat while you're shooting at his partner 50' away, etc.
As for the IPSC GM vs. Warrior God thing, it seems like a silly debate to me. Millions of people survive car accidents every year with mediocre training, that doesn't discount the fact that folks with substantially superior technical skills are less likely to have those accidents and more likely to mitigate damage when they are involved in accidents.
Is that superior technical skill a free pass from danger? Of course not. It's an advantage.
Of course mindset is important. Shooting IPSC doesn't give you bad mindset. Developing proper mindset is a completely different issue altogether. I would humbly suggest, based on many years of vast experience around IPSC and IDPA shooters, that those who have inadequate mindset were already in that condition when they started competing.
Competition isn't combat ... it's foolish to think otherwise. But that doesn't change the fact that many people find motivation to excel in those technical skills -- or are simply first exposed to what EXCELLENCE really means -- in a competition setting.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.