Multiple Threat Engagment

**WillBrink** · 09-07-09, 14:50

I have noted there seems to be two primary ways people are taught multiple threat engagement with handguns.

Assuming for sake of the example, same target priority, there is:

Each target gets at least one rnd before the others do

Or

Each gets multiple rnds from the start

For example, IDPA, which was founded by some experience shooters (Vickers, et al) calls for the first. 3 targets in front of you with equal target priority - unless otherwise instructed - you would shoot 1,1,2,1,1. That's 1 for each of the 3, 2 in to the last, then one more for the last 2

People like Clint Smith however argue that the time it takes to simply add an additional rnd is negligible, knowing how notoriously ineffective handguns rnds are, teaches multiple rnds per target from the start, so 3 equal priority targets in front of you, would be 2,2,2, I recall, then deal with the situation as circumstances dictate.

I have been to courses where both methods are taught. I shoot the former as a regular IDPA shooter, but often practice the latter as it seems more natural and instinctual, etc.

Which do you follow/teach and why?

**Obiwan** · 09-07-09, 15:28

I get a headache trying to work through it

While I agree that the time to add a round is negligible I also think it is worthwhile to hurt each of them as soon as possible

I am also a fan of moving off the line to amke it hard for them all to shoot at you and not (potentially) hit each other

**Failure2Stop** · 09-07-09, 18:06

What has been taught for a long time for competitions and CQB have been discovered to be inapplicable to real fights.

For a long time we were teaching (and many still are) to engage each threat with a pair and then hit the heads in reverse order. Great concept, and fairly efficient.

The problem is that when the bullets are going both ways and the other guys are trying their damnest not to replicate stationary IDPA targets, the drills just don't happen, even with guys that are trained to engage with that technique.

It's simply in too dire a contradiction to the body alarm reaction. The natural response to a lethal threat is to shoot the ****er into the ground. It's hard enough to get people to transition to effective headshots if the body shots aren't working sometime before the mag is emptied.

Feel-good range shooting sessions might seem to indicate that the 2, 2, head, head sequence is doable, achievable, and really cool. In my experience, once the shooters are brought inside an enclosure and away from the square range where they are told exactly what to do, they don't use the technique even when given the obvious opportunity until corrected several times. Watch what people do under something as "low stress" as simunition training. I do a lot of it. I have never seen anyone pull out anything other than target-fixated "make the bad man with the gun go away" responses.

My opinion is therefore that you either must constantly train multiple target transitions or accept that it isn't going to happen and work on getting people to be able to eliminate a single threat at a time and move sequentially on once it is no longer a viable threat- simply remove (completely, unquestionably) one threat at a time as quickly as possible.

**SeriousStudent** · 09-07-09, 22:33

Originally Posted by Failure2Stop

......

The natural response to a lethal threat is to shoot the ****er into the ground.

............

And another sigline is born. Thank you, sir.

And thank you for the good advice, as always.

**KUTF** · 09-08-09, 00:26

Originally Posted by Failure2Stop

In my experience, once the shooters are brought inside an enclosure and away from the square range where they are told exactly what to do, they don't use the technique even when given the obvious opportunity until corrected several times. Watch what people do under something as "low stress" as simunition training. I do a lot of it. I have never seen anyone pull out anything other than target-fixated "make the bad man with the gun go away" responses.

This has been my experience during training as well. Add reactive targets, or hostile roleplayers during dynamic scenario training, and the tendency is to service one target until it's down. On the first run with reactive targets there can be some puzzled looks.

I was pleased to notice that the transition from body-to-head shots occurred quickly.

Multiple hostile subjects is still a hard training goal, although in those situations I have seen a tendency to move to stack and/or mask bad-men to minimize the incoming damage and allow one-at-a-time engagements. People learn rather quickly that standing still is a losing proposition.

Reactive targets can be cheaply made with some cardboard silhouettes, various-sized cardboard boxes (that simulate your "good hits" zone for the torso/head, from all angles if possible) a glue-gun, balloons and some string.

**zushwa** · 09-08-09, 02:48

Failure2stop, write a book and get it over with....

Will, you posted the same topic over on shadowspear so I won't rehash it here.

**rob_s** · 09-08-09, 05:04

A mentor of mine once asked me "if you are faced with three threats in front of you at equal distance, which one do you shoot first".

X____X____X

_____O_____

At the time I wasn't even an IDPA shooter so the "everyone gets firsts before they get seconds" wasn't something I had thought of. My answer was something along the lines of hammers (at the time we were still calling them double-taps) to each and see who was left standing. What the asker wanted me to do was think a bit, and he suggested moving so that instead of all three targets presenting you put them in a line away from you.

O____X____X____X

This was an intentionally simplistic answer as the targets are just as likely to start moving as you are, but it was intended to make me think and to stop thinking about the scenario as a static situation but as a dynamic one. From there we started discussing the targets moving, your counter movements, the "stand and deliver" concept, etc. Interesting discussion.

Then you' have the Josey Wales method.

Lone Watie: How did you know which one was goin' to shoot first?
Josie Wales: Well, that one in the center: he had a flap holster and he was in no itchin' hurry. And the one second from the left: he had scared eyes, he wasn't gonna do nothin'. But that one on the far left: he had crazy eyes. Figured him to make the first move.
Lone Watie: How 'bout the one on the right?
Josie Wales: Never paid him no mind; you were there.

I've always liked this exchange because I think it addresses a few different issues. Not the least of which is the concept of shooting the one that's the biggest threat first, and perhaps repeatedly. If you're presented with a badguy with a gun, one with a knife, and one with a mean look on his face, which one do you shoot first?

I always thought this was a good one as well.
Alley Scene from Collateral

Shoots the guy with the gun first, shoots him to the ground, and then moves on to the one with his hand in his pants.

Of course, there's something to be said for "everybody gets firsts before they get seconds" in some situations.

**zushwa** · 09-08-09, 06:02

Because Rob brought up some points that are related I'll copy/paste from another forum, although it's been covered.

Originally Posted by WillBrink

I have noted there seems to be two primary ways people are taught multiple threat engagement with handguns.

Assuming for sake of the example, same target priority, there is:

I would argue that is a big assumption. There IS some priority. Whether it be proximity, weapon, aggressiveness, etc. By you assuming they are the same priority immediately means this is competition. That's the problem. Some competitive drills utilize fundamentals of shooting that can be applied for the real world but typically they don't drive tactics.

Each target gets at least one rnd before the others do

Or

Each gets multiple rnds from the start

For example, IDPA, which was founded by some experience shooters (Vickers, et al) calls for the first. 3 targets in front of you with equal target priority - unless otherwise instructed - you would shoot 1,1,2,1,1. That's 1 for each of the 3, 2 in to the last, then one more for the last 2

The statement above could imply that this is how LAV (and others) teach. I would confirm whether or not this was for competition or combat. Just because a certain drill in part of an organization that certain well known Instructors were involved in doesn't mean it's what they profess.

People like Clint Smith however argue that the time it takes to simply add an additional rnd is negligible, knowing how notoriously ineffective handguns rnds are, teaches multiple rnds per target from the start, so 3 equal priority targets in front of you, would be 2,2,2, I recall, then deal with the situation as circumstances dictate.

I have been to courses where both methods are taught. I shoot the former as a regular IDPA shooter, but often practice the latter as it seems more natural and instinctual, etc.

Will, what other courses have you attended since the Jeff Gonzales class? From your post in February it was your first so have you taken a course since then??

Which do you follow/teach and why?