hammers, controlled pairs, dedicated pairs, deliberate pairs, double taps…
Whatever you call them, why are we still so obsessed with two rounds to a target in training environments?
and if you do use them, what terminology do you use for them and how do you define those terms?
I think more or less because for years it was the defined way to teach shooters a minimum response to a threat(s) and it took hold then the gaming community took it and ran as well… I backed away from teaching them except in the more so called basic levels of my program.
while they may still have there place(limited capacity guns possible) i teach shooters if its a single threat they give them at least 4-5 rounds in a rapid manor (yes i know in single stack guns its 50% of the guns capacity),
we also know handguns suck at killing people too, well and others times 1-2 rounds will do the trick others it takes 23 rounds> so were is the standard?
with the guns capable of holding 13 to 18 rounds in today’s guns why not give them more by today’s measure vs the 60’s-80’s of wheel guns and 1911’s(which i often still carry both) of 5-8 rounds
controlled pair as 2 aimed rounds fired with 3 separate sight pictures usually used at distance of 15 yards or greater
hammer or accelerated inside 10 yards 2 shots rapid 2 sight pictures one for the first pair fired then a follow up sight picture in case…
now that siad its riar i ever use that since i usually fire 4 or more
Who is “we” and which training environments are you referring to?
“We” meaning the training community as a whole and training environments being any kind of formal instruction, whether a commercial class, LE class, whatever.
I think there is utility in introducing people to the concept of doing more than shooting once and dropping the weapon and looking at the hole in the target. It is an introduction to proper mindset.
I never have understood the need to make all kinds of little distinctions between this kind of pair and that kind of pair. Beyond an introductory level class, I think there really is no need to focus on any type of “pairs.” The so-called Non Standard Response sort of has become the standard response these days, which is good.
I have read where Paul Howe considers a failure-to-stop drill as five rounds COM, then the transition to the ocular window.
I thought Randy Cain’s explanation of the terminology used in multiple shot was excellent. Although, I hate to misuse Randy’s terms, I will try to recall what I think he used and meant.
Deliberate pair: two shot on a target, taking time and precision to deliver the best possible shot placement possible. Time is not of the essence so to speak.
Hammer/Double tap: I think most trainers are getting away from double tap, from what I have heard, read, and attended. Hammer, one sight picture, two rapid shots with the single sight picture.
Controlled pair: Sight picture, fire, sight picture, fire
I hope I didn’t screw those up too bad.
So if I’m reading you correctly, you think “doubles” are an important part of training but that you see defining sight picture criteria certain definitions as unnecessary?
I have always been taught/gone with:
Controlled pair- Two sight pictures, two shots; ~25m
Hammer- One sight picture, two shots. ~10m or less
I have also seen, but never practiced, something called a “zipper”, which is used for 5m or less (I think); with a rifle you start low on the target and fire three rounds with one sight picture, the recoil is used to space the shots up the target’s torso, hence the “zipper”.
The context I saw it was in a three gun match. A sherriff’s deputy (not SWAT) used it on targets that were only supposed to be engaged twice. But under stress of competition, the shooter defaulted to an ingrained habit and fire three rounds each, thus causing an unnecessary reload and hurting his time.
Which is why I never program myself to any one specific string of shots; controlled pair, hammer, or especially not the zipper. For me it is more important to have a good technique to fire accurately and quickly; and I practice coming from the low ready and firing.
I say again, I do not want to program myself to any string of shots.
I think getting the novice shooter used to the idea of more than one round per presentation is important.
I think a lot of time and effort is wasted on a list of definitions for various “pairs.” Perhaps for the novice shooter the idea of shooting fast at close range and a little slower at longer range should be stressed. As the shooters progress, the idea that the target provides the feedback to the shooter should be emphasized.
After all, shouldn’t all shots be broken as fast as they possibly can while still achieving the required accuracy? If you use this as your basis, then you don’t need all of those fancy definitions.
Specifically regarding sight picture, I think it is another mindset thing that should be ingrained as part of a proper follow-through. If you shoot someone, you should re-acquire a sight picture. There are exceptions to this of course, but there are usually exceptions to everything.
Totally agree.
I agree that breaking the “one shot” syndrome is definitely a habit worth breaking, but for most novice shooters or more to the point, “new” shooters, their tendency to want to shoot fast far overrides their tendency to shoot accurately. I’m no pro by any means, but I’ve shown lots of people how to shoot pistols and I still prefer to start them out one round at a time. Once they can demonstrate the necessary skill to put the round where asked to, I work them up to two well placed shots until proficient.
Getting them to a point where double taps or hammered pairs or controlled pairs is even on the roster takes a whole lot of trigger time for most people, even people who’ve been shooting for years and just want to get more serious about it. Nine times out of 10, teaching them about sight picture and faster shooting has more to do with stance and a good firing grip, recoil management basically.
I’ve never seen a need for definitions of the type listed above either. I look at it more as increasing speed while retaining the same (or close to it) accuracy as slower firing sequences. So, when teaching people, I tend to get those definitions well out of the way at the beginning simply to facilitate a different mindset. Get control of it before even considering speeding up.
I think sight picture should be identified. That is what slows down a shooter, and of course a novice shooter should be made to slow down enough to get a good sight picture before shooting again.
That, and the concept of shooting a hammer, two shots on one sight picture, is a big leap. That second trigger pull while in recoil from the first is not an easy thing to do the first few times.
Shooters should know what the standard is for sight pictures when firing.
At what point are they no longer a novice and able to address multiple shots?
and peripherally, how do we address feedback with a paper target that does not react? In other words, how do we know when the target has had enough?
I am actually starting to place more emphasis on “fancy definitions” than I used to, as well as knowing the history of the term, how it was originally defined, what that definition meant, how it has perhaps evolved and/or been misused, and alternates that may have been proposed by one entity or another.
Not necessarily spending 15 minutes on the line giving a history lesson to people that just want to shoot, but for my own depth of knowledge (something else I am really coming to appreciate in an instructor).
Knowing commonly used definitions isn’t a bad thing. In fact, I guess it helps in my case to be able to push people away from their established thought process. For instance, if someone is new to shooting and they ask “When can I do some double taps?”, it’d be good to know what they’re referring to so that they can be guided away from that notion until they are proficient enough to handle faster shooting.
One time, a guy asked me about hammered pairs and I simply told him that there’s no need to call them that because that associates some sort of time limit whereas I think he needs to focus from the tip of the pistol to his toes on getting rounds where they need to go first, the speed will come later (much later in his case). I just prefer to not use them and focus on proficiency.
Related question…
Do you see a place for “pairs” or “doubles” at all then? If we start with a concept that the shooter needs to be able to “put a single round on a single stationary target while standing still” before anything else, and once they are capable of doing so, do we move straight to NSRs and the like or do we stop off at the various types of doubles and address the sight picture issue?
The definitions, in terms of rounds fired and sight picture acquired, as told to me by Randy Cain and as taught to him by Jeff Cooper (paraphrased as I don’t have the actual book in front of me).
Deliberate Pair:
Acquire a good sight picture and fire a shot, recover to a second good sight picture and fire a shot, recover to a third good follow-through sight picture.
Sight Picture - 3
Rounds Fired - 2
Dedicated Pair:
Acquire a good sight picture and fire a shot, recover to a second flash sight picture and fire a shot as soon as you see the front sight (or dot) covering the target, recover to a final good follow-through sight picture.
Sight Picture - 2.5
Rounds Fired - 2
Hammer Pair:
Acquire a good sight picture and fire two shots as fast as you can pull the trigger, recover to a final good follow-through sight picture.
Sight Picture - 2
Rounds Fired - 2
Wasn’t there a sticky on this topic just a while back?
Historically, “double tap” was used to identify a standard response of two shots before performing action-xyz. It was further broken down into two sub-categories:
[ul]
[li]Hammer: pulling the trigger twice as fast as possible without any thought about aiming the second shot; often considered a “close range” technique
[/li][li]Controlled pair: firing two distinctly aimed shots as quickly as visual confirmation of the second shot would allow
[/li][/ul]
The term “double tap” is also sometimes used specifically to describe one or the other of those two techniques.
The entire concept went out the training window years ago. As rob_s alluded to, it’s hard to create a “reactive” paper target so, as the_katar explained, the double tap was created to break people of the one-shot habit. Like most things, it became a tactical totem unto itself and for years people thought it was The Way. As modern terminal ballistics investigation began demonstrating that two rounds was not, in fact, sufficient in many cases there was a change to the so-called non-standard response.
As for the “third sight picture” follow through thing, we had a long discussion about that, too, a while back. I’ll just reiterate that as techniques evolved, the concept of a good follow through changed with it. Bringing the gun back down on target to verify your last sight picture works fine for static targets at slow speed but does not mesh with shooting at high speed or dealing with more dynamic targets, etc. By definition, if you need to bring the gun back down for a third sight picture to verify your shot you’ve failed to call it properly off the sight lift, plus you’re failing to track the sight and break your next shot at the earliest possible visual confirmation. Finally, if you assume the target is moving and/or falling (because he’s got multiple caliber-sized boo-boos) then bringing your gun back down to the same spot in space you were aiming at is purposely not aiming at the threat, while bringing the gun back down to the same spot on the target is purposely not verifying your last sight alignment.
Is this the correct assumption to make? Obviously this is not going on in a vacuum in real life and you are aware of movement of the target if they are running or falling, but aren’t you still following through at the very least to where you want the shot to go?
It’s not just fire two and then let the gun wind up wherever it may, right?
Having no experience shooting humans I’m thinking of the way I have engaged moving paper targets as well as hogs. My first hog dropped with a single 75 grain BH round through her heart/lung while running perpendicular to the bullet path as fast as her little legs would carry her. I was using a 3x compact ACOG with both eyes open and engaged her at 15-25 yards IIRC. I do distinctly recall tracking her, leading her, firing the shot, and recovering to where I expected her to be after the shot if she had continued running. Once I saw an “empty” sight picture (for lack of a better term) I panned back along her track to find the body.
Second hog required multiple shots, some fired as what I would term Dedicated Pairs and she was not impressed with quite a few of them, but each time I recovered to where I expected her to be on her last known trajectory and re-engaged if I saw fur.
@ robs
It depends on what they are wanting to learn. If they’re wanting to get into bullseye shooting (timed), then they need to focus on recovery and sight picture in a far extended window of time(think 1 shot every 1.5-2 seconds) compared to putting bullets on a bad guy.
The problem arises with how much the shooter knows (or doesn’t know what he knows to use a phrase from someone here). If their knowledge base is all Hollywood, then breaking them of the BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM ideas they have in their head takes much longer, IMO.
The level of proficiency I’m getting at is more about calling a shot (multiple targets) and having them make the shot, then once they can do it reliably, push up the tempo until they can’t make the shot anymore and back it down a bit. My good friend who was the trainer for the PD here, just passed away a couple of weeks ago sadly, and he taught me a lot in the same manner. I just try to break the notion that shooting faster is better. I’d rather them put one well aimed shot (to start with) on a bad guy than 4 wildly thrown shots with little to no control. Any idiot with a finger can pull the trigger fast, but it takes some serious work to be able to put them where you want them to go. I’ve went so far as to tell some people that I won’t train with them because they simply don’t get it. I’m not saying that my way is the right way, but results speak for themselves. When they refuse to slow down and then bitch about how they’re all over the place and it just “must be the pistols fault, or the ammo’s fault”, I don’t see the need to beat a dead horse.
To more directly answer your question, yes, there’s a place for them, but it probably ain’t in the first year or two for a new shooter, and generally speaking, that’s when people are going to learn all the bad habits of shooting unless they’re willing to break their currently held thoughts on the matter.