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.
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.
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,
Disrupt his Central Nervous System with hits to the brain or spine; those are very hard targets to hit.
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.
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.
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…
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”).
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:
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.
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.
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.
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:
Ceases hostile action
One of the weapons involved malfunctions or runs out of ammunition
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…?
