The "Double-Tap"

Training Training and Tactics
1

Caution! Rhetoric follows-

What is a “Double Tap”?
Is it two shots fired as fast as you can?
Are they fired at the speed of your mouse’s “Double Click”?
How do you see your sights?
Are you tracking your sights with each shot, or are your eyes closed on the second one (or, god forbid, both)?
What is your focus, sights or threat (or, god forbid, neither)?
What is the acceptable accuracy level of the shots?
At what range are they applicable for rifles? Pistols?

Rhetoric off.

After hearing the words “Double Tap” so many times I have grown annoyed in their usage, especially considering today’s training market. There are much more descriptive and relevant names for methods of shot delivery, or at least ones that have some sort of institutional standard.

The above questions probably resulted in many different answers from those reading them (except for those that already know where I am going with this). About the only thing that everyone can agree on is the number of shots fired. (That would be 2, as evidenced by the word “double”.)

So we are talking about 2-shot engagements, or at least the method of delivering 2 shots. The problem comes in when understanding that there are different ways to deliver the shots depending on range, skill, circumstance, weapon, and sighting systems. There are essentially three types of pairs- Hammer Pairs, Controlled Pairs, and Dedicated Pairs. Let’s define each type, assuming a target size of 6" (as this is my accuracy standard for combat prep training) must be hit consistently with both shots to be considered effective.

The Hammer Pair. This is what is generally thought of by people when the term “Double Tap” is thrown into a discussion. It is generally defined as one sight picture and two shots, followed by a second sight picture during follow-though. The shots are taken as rapidly as the shooter can press the trigger, generally around 0.20 sec split times. Grip and stance are critical to achieve acceptable accuracy with the second shot at speed. It is generally applicable with a rifle/carbine at 15 yards and under, and with a pistol at 5 yards and under (more on this later). Sight picture for Hammer Pairs will generally be a soft-focus flash sight picture due to proximity (see what you need to see).
As I understand it was developed around the 1911/.45 ACP to allow shooters to quickly deliver two shots from a Weaver stance/grip.

The Controlled Pair. This is the most frequently encountered standardized method of pair delivery within institutionalized programs. It is generally defined as two shots with a sight picture for both shots (sights, shot, sights, shot) followed by the follow-through sight picture. The shots are taken as rapidly as the shooter can acquire flash sight picture, with split times dependant on distance and shooter skill. Solid grip/stance will mitigate recoil, enabling the shooter to more rapidly acquire flash sight picture. The shooter will actively drive the sights for the second shot to ensure that correct sight picture is acquired before the second shot is fired. Split times will generally range from 0.30 to 0.60 sec with average-level shooters (more on this later), dependant on distance. Sight focus will also be dependant on distance, as the Controlled Pair is generally considered to be applicable from 15 yards to 50 yards with a rifle/carbine and 5 to 25 yards with a pistol, with the longer range shots (25+ for rifle, 15+ for pistol) having a target area of 8".
As people have begin to learn how to drive guns this method of delivery has become more and more the “way” to shoot pairs, especially with the evolution of the Modern Isoceles for pistol and an aggressive weight-forward rifle stance which permit the shooter to track the sights during recoil.

The Dedicated Pair. This is not a commonly referenced method, as it is somewhere inbetween the two. I believe it originated at Gunsight as people evolved the Weaver Grip into the “Modern Technique”, which more effectively manages recoil. In the case of the Dedicated Pair the shooter can track the sights for both shots, but is applying the speed of the Hammer Pair, thus can see the sights align for both shots but is not correcting the flash sight picture for the second shot. The shooter can call the second shot, though it may or may not necessarily be within the targeted area.
Many people are shooting Dedicated Pairs thinking that they are shooting Controlled Pairs, accounting for poor shot placement on the second shot (rushing the second shot). Many proficient shooters are shooting Dedicated Pairs instead of either Hammer Pairs or Controlled pairs because their eyes are fast enough to track the sights and their grip and stance have become good enough that their sights do not deviate significantly from their initial aim-point during recovery (forecasting immediately acceptable sight picture).

There is also the possibility of simply taking two well-aimed shots. Generally any circumstance that causes the sights to be off of the target following recoil forces the shooter to break each shot down individually. If it takes more than 1 second to get the second shot off it is highly probable that the person you were shooting at will not be around for the second shot. This is in the context of longer distance shooting, outside the “knife-fight in a phone-booth” envelope that defines close-range gunfights. Traditional sight alignment and sight picture are required for these shots to ensure effectiveness. I include this note only to prevent the notion that firing any two shots with sight picture automotically includes it in the “Controlled Pair” category.

Now, these are simply defining the types of pairs. Actual application is something else entirely.

The leading IPSC/IDPA pistol shooters shoot aimed fire for each and every shot. Whether you define the shots as Controlled Pairs or Dedicated Pairs is irrelevant. They see what they need to see. Whether that means their level of focus on the sights or position of sight picture, they are not spending any more time on the shot than absolutely necessary to ensure that they hit what they need to hit. They are utilizing some method of aiming for the shots; those that shoot without aiming both shots do not become GMs. True, there are circumstances where they might not be using sights (rare as it is), they are still aiming each shot if only by controlling the gun, and know where the bullet is going before it gets there. For more depth on this read the thread by gotm4 HERE. While it is competition oriented it gives excellent insight into how GMs get to where they are.

While I do not use or advocate Hammer Pairs for pistols at distances where sights are necessary, I believe that they do have application for rifles/carbines. Long guns are easier to control for multiple successive shots at close range and are less apt to “slip” out of the target area as long as stance and grip are solid. The time that Hammer Pairs are most applicable is at 10-15 yards and under with magnified optics. The perceived bounce in the sights can cause the shooter to second-guess sight picture during recovery. I found that my Hammer Pair and Controlled Pair groups are virtually identical when pushing for maximum speed at close range (for me- 15 and in), and the Hammer gets it done in about 0.1 second faster. This means that I can transition to the next target(s) faster while still efficiently delivering damage to the initial target. That is not to say that everyone can do that, or that they can’t do it at longer ranges than I can. It is simply my benchmark. With non-magnified optics I am content with Controlled Pairs and Dedicated Pairs since I have a solid fix on the dot and target throughout the pair process.

Really though, it doesn’t matter what method you use or where your grey area is. What it comes down to is being accurate enough, fast enough. I would rather simply teach people how the methods work and let them figure out their own effective limits than force them to utilize a specific method at a specific distance. Of course I try to push people to become more accurate, faster; but not at the expense of hits. It doesn’t matter how fast you pull the trigger, if the shots don’t go where they need to go you are not effective. I personally believe that with a rifle/carbine it is imperitive to properly seat stance and grip, then move on to Controlled Pairs (permitting the shooter to build skill/confidence in utilizing the sights rapidly), and then to Hammer Pairs (builds off of Controlled Pair skills, but accelerates the second hit).

This is just my opinion, though it has been successful when training many people. I do not at all mean that this is the “one true path to tactical enlightenment”, but rather an observation on the often misunderstood and misquoted “Double Tap” issue.

If I am wrong about the birth-place of any of these techniques or their reasons, I apologise and welcome any corrections. I wrote this from memory and could very well be wrong on who did what, when.

Just my .02 and 30 minutes.

2

The whole concept of “see what you need to see” really dovetails into this.

You may very well be seeing everything you need to without even having the gun in your peripheral vision, and then simply pulling the trigger and keeping the gun in control is “seeing what you need to see.”

The speed at which you can deliver followup shots is determined by two things:

[ol][li] Your ability to make mental decisions about whether you’ve got adequate “see what you need to see” coverage, and
[/li][li] Your ability to control the gun to guarantee that shot will land were you want them to.[/ol]
[/li]
I was squadded with Robbie Leatham at an IDPA Nationals and one of the stages involved shooting three targets that were on the opposite side of a card table from you. The stage was held inside one of the Mid-South shoot houses and was technically a “low light” stage … you could use your flashlight if you chose to.

Robbie was the first guy in our squad to shoot the stage. When he came out, one of the other shooters asked him if he needed a flashlight to see his sights. Robbie’s response was, “If you use your sights on that stage, you’re going too slow.” :cool:

He could see everything he needed to without using his sights.

3

Bravo! Awesome…

4

I agree. I read a thread recently where someone asked “when did you notice that you didn’t use your sights at targets 10yds or closer” or some such. One guy responded with “when I started missing targets at 10yds”, This is a wake up call for some shooters. Can I make a hit on an IPSC target without using my sights? Yes. Can I make a headshot at 10yds without using my sights? Not 100% of the time so I use those sights! Shooters who shoot a lot and are very ‘in tune’ with their gun can make ‘instinctive hits’ at that distance with no more though than getting the gun out of the holster and pulling the trigger. Not all shooters can shoot at that level, Robbie can and will make all A hits almost all the time, I can but will have some A and some C hits. Robbie can because he’s there and it’s his job to be that good. We can’t compare our speeds with Robbies…it’s just not right. It would be like comparing your lap time on a race track to that of Dale Earnhardt Jr.

That’s what I love about USPSA/3gun/IDPA and even GSSF…it’s all about finding that perfect balance between speed and accuracy. 1/2 of the fun of it’s is figuring out what you need to do and the best way to do it.
I’ve bested a few GrandMaster USPSA shooters a few times in GSSF simply because I knew what mattered most in that ‘game’, and hits were WAY more valuable then a few 10ths of a second. Sometimes the ‘best’ shooters are not always the most highly ranked ones…

5

Ahhh, the good old days. I remember that stage, there was plenty of daylight coming in through the openings above the “walls”.

6

If any of you follow brianenos.com and the relationship between zen and shooting there is definately something to be said of “instincive shooting”.

For those who this idea is new to I will try and explain it. For anyone who has ever participated in sports or followed sports and either was in or watch someone who was in “the zone” that is essentially what I am talking about. It is a combination of muscle memory and simply not thinking too much. The idea of Zen is not a religious one but a difference between the subconcious and concious. Take bow shooting for instance(not my analogy but one of the best I have found) there are guys shooting longbows or something similar with no sights and they are able to make fast instinctive hits with the “trick” type shooter shooting coins or something as small as asperin out of the air. They are able to do this because they are allowing their subconcious to control their body. The subconcious can do more thing profeciently than the concious. But at the same time you wouldnt take a high powered rifle and expect to instinct shot it at 600 yrds. You have to understand that the concious can do more fine precise things but creates tunnel vision due to concentration. Also the subconcous must be trained and then simply does what it knows without thinking about it. Much like seeing what you need to see. The subconcious will fill in the gaps.

I know that I am not good at explaining things or spelling so srry if i was a bit confusing.

7

threeheadeddog, I think you explained it well enough.

Some of the more “contemporary” people may understand this better…

8

lol I often get funny looks when I use the word Zen around family or others in my church. The simple fact is most of us from a athletic background know it quite well under different names. The old mantra of picture what you are going to do before hand, practice, and when it comes time let you body do what it is supposed to do is simply “sports Zen”.

But it is important to also understand that extreem focus(concious), the exact opposite of Zen(subconcious), is also needed at times.

I am also not advocating not using sights, just that your body and mind can process everything including your sights faster than you can think about them if you just let it.

9

Agreed. The only thing more annoying to me is the erroneous usage of the “failure drill”. A “double tap” is a controlled pair. Period.

One small edit for clarity, in red…

10

If I ever have the chance to play cards with him, I’ll have to remember not to cheat.

11

Wow, all these posts over a so called proper usage of a term…

Double Tap, Controlled Pair, Dedicated Pair…a tad too technical for something sooooooooo simple.

12

Agreed, to a degree. I would much rather simply group them as “pairs”- allowing the individual to apply the technique as appropriate and capable.

That being said- defining the terms beyond “double tap” expands knowledge and explains exactly what the shooter is seeing while firing the pair. Much like sight picture, simply saying “sights” does not sufficiently explain the shooter’s perception or permit successful coaching. Defining how the sights are seen- hard front sight focus, soft focus, target focus, etc explains what the shooter is focusing on. The same applies to pairs- but on a broader scale, and can be applied to other shot delivery techniques- as it accurately describes the way the shooter interacts with the sights.

Lacking the ability to alter methods of delivery due to ignorance does nothing to advance the shooter- just as a boxer that only knows to “punch” and has never been taught the uppercut, cross, hook, jab, or straight or the tempo at which to strike will probably not advance far in his sport.

My intent was never to demean, simply to educate. While I really don’t think that 12 posts (with this one) is excessive given the 700-something views of this thread, I think that discussion and definition of technique can only help others seeking to improve their ability. If a shooter is simply trying to get two shots down-range as fast as their trigger-finger moves and can’t figure out why they aren’t hitting this discussion may help them become fast and accurate- which I believe to be the ultimate goal whether preparing one’s self to prevail in a violent encounter or the local USPSA match.

But, of course, that’s just me.
-F2S

13

Speed and accuracy work together, which is to get hit(s) as soon as possible.
Pressing the trigger at the speed needed to control the sights to hit your target is what it’s all about.

If the threat is in anyway difficult to hit, you will need to slow down on the trigger and focus more on sight alignment.
If the threat is close and easy to hit, then……this is no time for a bullseye type group, in fact, you need to be pounding shots into the threat as fast as possible and stop the threat NOW!
Most of the time you will be somewhere between the two above examples.

My rule of thumb for combat shooting;
If your threat is larger than your front sight, better get ta shootin’
If your threat is the same or smaller than your front sight, better get on them sights and fast.

Practice this process slow at first…remember, slow is smooth, smooth is fast. Speed will come with practice.

Your decision on how fast vs. how slow to press the trigger, how much front sight vs. combat look through and/or body index is based on two things, your perception of the threat situation AND your perception of your skill with your equipment.

If you practice only one trigger press and sight alignment you are a target shooter and not preparing yourself properly for the street, and doing yourself an injustice.
Recognize the need for different levels of trigger press and sight alignment, practice at those levels and in between. In the fight have the ability to adapt to the situation smoothly not to survive, but to decisively win!

14

Failure2Stop ummmm…I love you MAN!!!:smiley: the force is not with you ,YOU my friend are the force:D

15

Double Tap - One sight picture, two shots.

Controlled Pairs - Sight picture for every shot. Take your time - fast.

16

Failure2Stop, after reading threads like this I realise the caliber of people on this site & the amount of thought they put into educating themselves & those around them.

17

Instinctive shooting doesn’t mean you don’t use the sights. Only in type one (extremely close range targets) focus do I see someone not using the sights.

18

For crying out loud, people!

From Jeff Cooper’s Commentaries, Vol. 13, No. 11, November 2005:

“We note that a good many people who presume to teach modern smallarms technique are clumsy about their terminology. I make no claim to hold copyrights on these things, but since the doctrine is already established, using established nomenclature, it would be nice if people paid attention to these things more carefully. For instance, a “double tap” is not a “hammer,” nor vice versa. There are other examples.”

A “double tap” IS a “controlled pair”!

19

Posted by RWK:
For crying out loud, people!

From Jeff Cooper’s Commentaries, Vol. 13, No. 11, November 2005:

“We note that a good many people who presume to teach modern smallarms technique are clumsy about their terminology. I make no claim to hold copyrights on these things, but since the doctrine is already established, using established nomenclature, it would be nice if people paid attention to these things more carefully. For instance, a “double tap” is not a “hammer,” nor vice versa. There are other examples.”

A “double tap” IS a “controlled pair”!

One man’s opinion/definition. Not mine and not what I was taught. I don’t intend to take anything away from Jeff Cooper but he is not the ultimate source of training methods nor firearms terminology.

Controlled pairs are defined differently than double taps by quite a few high quality and highly trained military instructors. I trained under a few of these. Different techniques defined by different terminology. Makes sense on all levels.

20

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”.

IMO doubletap, hammer pair, controlled pair…whatever. Shoot the f*(&ker to the ground fast enough that you don’t miss your intended target. At closer ranges…speed and accuracy increase. At longer ranges you better have to be A LOT more “controlled”.