The "Double-Tap"

[ToddG]

Seems to me like more and more instructors are ditching the term "double-tap" altogether as vague, misleading and otherwise conditioning a flawed expectation just like the "one shot stop".

+1
(The message I have entered is too short)

[M4Guru]

I was taught that:

Controlled pair: sight picture for every round fire.

Double Tap: no sight picture when second round is fired.

This has been the standard everywhere I've trained professionally. FWIW, double tap is only defined so you have a word for what not to do. Use your sights.

[RWK]

It occurred to me to ask if anyone who's weighing in on this even remembers where the term "double tap" originated? Anyone?

Seems to me like more and more instructors are ditching the term "double-tap" altogether as vague, misleading and otherwise conditioning a flawed expectation just like the "one shot stop".

I'm not surprised. The term "double tap" was never really liked in the first place because it was too broad and open to misinterpretation. To re-quote: "We note that a good many people who presume to teach modern smallarms technique are clumsy about their terminology".

The principle of firing a minimum of two shots shouldn't be conditioning any expectations. If anyone is teaching that firing two shots is all that's needed/required, they're obviously wrong. Likewise, the "shoot til they go down" dogma isn't a panacea, either: multiple targets and ammunition management.

[Gutshot John]

It occurred to me to ask if anyone who's weighing in on this even remembers where the term "double tap" originated? Anyone?

I seem to recall it was the SAS but I can't think of a source.

[Gutshot John]

Likewise, the "shoot til they go down" dogma isn't a panacea, either: multiple targets and ammunition management.

Correct, I should have been more clear and said "keep shooting until they're no longer a threat" but all in all this is why I like hi-cap magazines.

The only panacea is shot placement. IMO if you can double-tap and be accurate...keep going. This is also dependent on distance so again you're correct, there is no absolute panacea.

It seems to me that multiple wounded targets may remain in the fight and still pose a threat. I practice/train for ammunition management as eliminating the threat the first time. It's one of the reasons I LOVE shooting reactive steel and watching even good shooters go so fast that they blow one...then have to go back.

And the steel isn't even shooting back.

[RWK]

I seem to recall it was the SAS but I can't think of a source.

Negative.

[Failure2Stop]

I think some are getting too involved in minutia.
My purpose for this post was to aid in knowledge and the ability to communicate perception/concept within an established terminology framework.

As it is clear to most readers at this point even between established proficient professionals there are disagreements on terminology.

While I am not in lock-step with all of Col Cooper's concepts, his insistence on clarity over ambiguity is one are that I am in complete agreement with. What one actually decides as terminology is irrelevant as long as everyone else is in agreement as to what that term means. I don't care if you call a dedicated pair "Tuesday", as long as everyone knows what you mean when you say it.

Since the only definition that eludes agreement is the very reason for my post would it not make sense to eschew that word in favor of the ones that everyone agrees on?

While there are others here that have been somewhere that defined the double-tap to some degree, none I have been to have even uttered the word except to break the concept of "pairs" into a more evolved discussion.

I agree with the statement that pairs are not in any way the be-all/end-all to interpersonal exchange of rapidly accelerated metal bits, as well as the concept of efficient elimination of multiple targets. However- I also view those to be outside the scope of this thread (which was merrily silent for 2 months) which was not intended in any way to be instruction or direction on how to win a gunfight. It was simply intended to discuss the concept of pairs as I understand, instruct, and apply them, with virtually any small-arm. Whether or not a pair is the answer to your tactical problem is a separate matter completely.

[oregonshooter]

F2S,

Thankyou for the post.

Your "Dedicated Pair" is what I am thinking of when I say a "double tap" and your post illustrates how others would confuse my meaning when doing so.

It probably was said already, but it does illuminate the need to define the terminology at the beginning of a class or discussion.

[decodeddiesel]

Awesome post F2S, simply an outstanding contribution to the forums.

[Heavy Metal]

A very worthwhile thread. Thanks!