2 to the chest 1 to the head but what if...

[gdeal]

there are two people? then would it just be a double-tap to each person? I might have to put up four bulls-eye targets to simulate two people. right now I have one round target above another round target. I shoot two to the bottom target and one to the top target. I print them out from the Remington web site and it's cheaper than buying the human sillouette targets at the range. Anyway back to my original question... What should the shooting be if there are two people side-by-side?

[comn-cents]

It depends on the situation. Is one guy closer, is one armed?
For me if both are the same distance away and one is armed armed guy gets a couple, not armed guy may get a pass, depending on their reactions.
Both armed one closer than the other, closer guy gets one farther guy gets 2 then back to the close guy. Same distance both armed same thing, one in BG #1 then 2 in BG#2 then back to BG #1

[Nowhere Man]

Two shots each. Go back to first for head shot. Finish with head shot to the second target.


Dave

[Dragon55]

Carry something that will go through and through. Quickly run to their flank and start firing at the first BG ...... shots go through and get #2 also:D:p:p

[THEZACHARIAS]

If you are to a point where you know they are both armed (most likely because 2 barrels are pointed at your chest), im gonna have to say its too late to be trying to shoot anyone. By the time you clear your holster, theyre gonna have half a magazine in you. Best bet is to talk the situation down or wait/hope/create enough of a distraction so you can draw and fire.

Cant hurt to practice a 2 to each chest followed by 1 to each head kind of drill, though. You never know, if its dark you just might get your shots off. The trick in this situation will be doing it without getting yourself shot too.

[markj]

For more than one assailant I would recommend a hand grenade.

If a person or two attacks you and you draw upon them I doubt if you will get a chance to double tap each one unless they are far away.

Try one shot to center mass on each then cover them until 911 gets there.

Better yet try to avoid any type of confrontation like this, you will feel better.

[serf 'rett]

The closer/farther and armed/unarmed thing is sensible.

Nowhere, since I have no tactical training, I’m wondering why you wouldn’t take the head shot at #2 while you’re still locked in on them from the double tap, before switching back to #1 for head shot?

[comn-cents]

Dragon55 That's a great answer:rolleyes:

THEZACHARIAS armed with what? Armed can mean many things.
Armed doesn't mean that the BG is prepared or alert. It is very possible to draw a shot before they can react.
I've seen this and practiced this many times.
My mother in-law was a cop for 27 yrs and told me this story. There was a cop that walk into a bank robbery, not knowing what was going on. He was in street clothes and the three BG all had hostages with guns to their heads. He shot all of the BG before any of them could responded.

[THEZACHARIAS]

This is true. But resolving this kind of scenario sounds more dependant on the specific circumstances rather than the actual disparity in the number of participants.

[peetzakilla]

What should the shooting be if there are two people side-by-side?

I believe the saying goes "Everyone gets firsts before anyone gets seconds."

[comn-cents]

+1^

[MLeake]

First, as other posters have noted, avoidance is the best tactic.

Second, sometimes we lose our situational awareness, or the environment is just rife with hiding places despite our best efforts. EG, one avoids the shadowy doorway by moving closer to the street while walking down the sidewalk, but a BG pops out from behind a parked van...

So, if there's more than one attacker, and if you think engaging is the only viable option at that point, just bear in mind that moving will cause them more problems than it will cause you. IE, try to move in such a way that you put one of the attackers between you and the other attacker(s). You can shoot down that line and hit BG's either way; the farther BG(s) risk hitting their teammate if they try to shoot at you.

We do these sort of drills vs melee weapons or open-hand all the time in aikido; it's called "randori." One learns very quickly the value of trying to move so that your opponents get in each other's way.

But again, the best thing is to avoid the problem in the first place.

Cheers,

M

[Nowhere Man]

serf 'rett wrote;
Nowhere, since I have no tactical training, I’m wondering why you wouldn’t take the head shot at #2 while you’re still locked in on them from the double tap, before switching back to #1 for head shot?

In theory, the body shots to #1 and #2 only shook them up. You want to return to #1 with a head shot before he is able to return fire. Taking the head shot on #2 first may give #1 enough time to rejoin the fight.


Dave

[Trigger Finger]

There was a drill we went through years ago that was taught in the academy.

When confronted with more than one opponent in a shooting situation, shoot one shot in the 10 ring in each opponent targeting the closest first then return to fire a second or third shot in those that need it!
If I recall correctly it was called the Hickok Technique. Supposedly named after a bar room shooting Wild Bill was involved in.

[HuntAndFish]

^ +1. Also commonly referred to as boarding house rules. Everyone gets a helping before anyone gets seconds.

ETA: However, it has been shown to me in a timed drill that with only two opponents a quick hammer to both targets is a fraction of a second faster than a box drill on them. You need to decide what to do for yourself and practice it.

[stephen426]

Not productive.

Can we keep to the real issue and useful suggestions.

Also, suggestions from folks who have trained for such are better than speculation.

GEM

[Kyo]

I practice by doing 3 COM in each target, then the last target going to the head, and then going back to the rest with the head as the target.
I do this with 3 targets.
with 2 I think I still would shoot 3 each in the center.
oh and I can shoot just as well with my left. doing a double carry must be a PITA

[MLeake]

... this is really one of those situations where training to move and shoot would be beneficial. Standing still and trying to play quick-draw with two or more shooters who have unobstructed lines of fire is not good odds.

[Skan21]

No such thing as a "double tap" anymore. Technically, it's a "controlled pair", now. I guess DT's got a bad name, so they changed it. A lot like Blackwater, now that I think about it.......

[akamdg]

You should be able to deliver a controlled pair to the center mass pretty rapidly. So I think it makes the most sense to fire two controlled pairs into both guys and then if they're still a threat to either continue shooting at center mass or aim at their heads.

"If a person or two attacks you and you draw upon them I doubt if you will get a chance to double tap each one unless they are far away."

I'd have to disagree with that statement. I think an example of why that's not true is the shooting that involved Bernhard Goetz. Goetz was surrounded by four guys on a subway train who were going to rob him. He drew his five-shot S&W revolver and shot all four of them in 1.6 seconds or less and stopped them from being a threat.

[Trigger Finger]

Goetz didn't double tap each opponent!

[MLeake]

Bernie is a diversion from the issue.

[koolminx]

Not productive. Also, hint - don't use words that bring up the language filter. If you see stars = **** - go back and edit your post.

[akamdg]

No Bernie!!

[MLeake]

NO Bernie!

[Trigger Finger]

akamdg, not to belabor the point but markj said that " I doubt if you will get a chance to double tap each one unless they are far away." This is what you quoted!

And I said that Goetz did not double tap each opponent. I think if the attackers were armed he would not have had the time to double tap each one before they began shooting. I am not talking about fast draw or beating all of them to the shot so to speak but I mean taking the fastest course of action to increase your survival/ success rate and trying to stop or injure as many as possible before they open fire. Thats my opinion!

[HuntAndFish]

then would it just be a double-tap to each person?

Back on topic please.

Purely as a drill, different instructors teach this differently. A Hammer is two shots as quick as possible, with a sight picture only for the first shot. COM is Center of Mass of the target.

A box drill in this situation as taught by a well known instructor is; Hammer to COM on #1 followed by a Hammer to COM on #2, then a head shot on #2 followed by a head shot on #1. Because the figure you make when doing this is a big C or rectangle, it is referred to as a box drill.

Some instructors refer to a box drill as one shot to COM to #1 then one shot to COM to #2 then a head shot on #2 followed by a head shot on #1. Or the same drill, all COM shots.

As always, these are just drills. A real situation is a lot more complex.

@koolminx - LOL. You don't need to practice this. Chances are excellent that you won't ever need these skills. You'll probably never need to run a fire extinguisher either.

[comn-cents]

MLeake when did this turn into "since the discussion is on two (or more) attackers with guns drawn." The OP said nothing of armed BG or more than 2.:confused:

[MLeake]

and it didn't have that...

If they are armed with melee weapons, then this really becomes a case where movement training will be handy. Their options are either to close very quickly, in which case you need to move, or they will run away when the gun comes out, in which case you don't need to shoot.

Unless the OP meant an ambiguous situation, though, Goetz still does not apply.

[Tom Servo]

it wasn't too surprising that Goetz got off as easily as he did.
He still owes over $40 million to one of the plantiffs from the civil suit, and he went bankrupt over the process. Not to mention the complete disruption of his life. I'm not sympathizing with Mr. Goetz, but there's a whole other thread in the matter regarding the unreliability of eyewitness testimony, as well as the reliability of one's own testimony following such a stressful event.

Back on topic, you won't know until the situation presents itself. With multiple attackers, identify and neutralize the alpha male of the pack, if possible. Then evaluate.

The more rounds you shoot, the more critical it is to be aware of backgrounds and periphery. It's best to disengage from the situation as quickly as possible.

[BobbyT]

As I recall the story, Goetz didn't just decide some "kids" looked like hooligans and preemptively attack them. I remember reading it as 4 gangbangers cornering him on a train, demanding money, and blocking his escape while armed with sharpened screwdrivers.

All were adult multiple prior violent criminals with warrants out, with one of them beating and raping a pregnant woman as soon as he got out of the hospital.

As far as this thread is concerned, if you're looking for some awesome tactic that'll impress your friends, just go with two to the face, one to the knee...

/discussion

[pax]

No such thing as a "double tap" anymore. Technically, it's a "controlled pair", now. I guess DT's got a bad name, so they changed it.

You're on the right track, but it's a little more complex than that. There are two different techniques for getting two rapid shots on target. The first is historically called the "double tap" and the second is called the "controlled pair." The two skills look pretty much identical to an observer, but the shooter is doing things just slightly different depending on which technique is being used.

The difference between the two skills is that the double tap uses a single sight picture and the shooter simply pulls the trigger the second time as rapidly as is humanly possible without realigning the sights. Done properly, this tends to result in hits that are a little further apart than the controlled pair, with the second directly above the first.

In contrast, the controlled pair uses two sight pictures, one for each shot. The shooter pulls the trigger for the second shot as soon as he is able to get a rough index on the front sight. This is very marginally slower in some cases, but more controlled; the hits will land closer to each other than in the double tap.

To muddy the waters still further, some schools call the historic double tap the "hammer," the two-sight-pictures technique the "controlled pair," and then use the term "double tap" as an umbrella term that encompasses both of the techniques described above.

None of this really matters except that the drifting terms can make it difficult to carry on an online conversation between people with different backgrounds: everyone needs to define terms carefully to be sure they're talking about the same things! :)

What should the shooting be if there are two people side-by-side?

As a rule of thumb, I prefer boarding house rules (everyone gets firsts before anyone gets seconds), but of course it would be entirely situational.

Some reasons I favor boarding house rules in general:


Good tactics dictate that you deal with the more severe threat first. Problem is, you won't always know which individual represents a greater threat. On the range with cartoon cardboard targets in full daylight, you'll always see the weapons and know exactly what they are. In a dark alley late at night, against wily and aggressive human beings, you may not be able to tell whether the shiny object you spot in the more distant attacker's hand is a gun or a knife or a bludgeon or something else. So it may be impossible to prioritize your order of engagement, and you'll be best off to get all of your shots where they need to go as rapidly as you can get them there.


Forcing yourself to move swiftly from one attacker to the next also forces your mind to continue focusing on the entire scene, rather than allowing you to tunnel in on one individual. Of course this is also true if you're doing "double tap, double tap, double tap" just as much as if you're doing "single shot, single shot, single shot" -- but for myself, it feels as if the boarding house rules mindset would make it easier to avoid getting fixated on the first individual.


Ammunition management issues come into play. If you are facing two or more attackers, you need to manage your ammunition very carefully. Boarding house rules allow you to save your follow up shots for the attackers that really need it, and avoid wasting ammunition on those that don't.


pax

[Dwight55]

My training scenario for this starts out with whoever is closer, . . . or whoever seemingly offers the greater threat.

In the reality of the situation, . . . you either have 2 bg's that are dead set on doing major bad stuff to you, . . . or you have 2 dumb perps and the one not shot will break and run like the coward he/she is.

In my scenario, . . . the second perp will determine how I respond (hopefully) by either pressing the engagement, . . . or getting out of Dodge, and living to rob another day.

I tend to think boarding house rules for a mob, . . . but more like a fighter pilot with 2 or 3, . . . meaning I take care of them for sure, 1 at a time.

But then, . . . this is all conjecture until we are confronted, . . . the situation will determine the response.

May God bless,
Dwight

[scottycoyote]

first tactic i always try..................hug it out

[domininance]

Hello everyone, I felt inclined to join the forums just to respond to this thread.

I know many valid opinions have been shared here, well, this is what I have been taught by the US Training Center (formerly Blackwater Training).

BOARDING HOUSE RULES, (the didn't call it that) as the previous gentleman referred to it. They teach to shoot everyone once, starting with the closest threat/first threat detected, then move down the line. After you've dosed out a first course, you return to provide seconds for bad guys that are still standing and still need it.

We performed this exercise drill with multiple targets, with two slight variations. the first variation is one shot for each, then a second shot for each, then if required a third shot for each, going back and forth dow the line for each volley of shots. The second version of the drill we would shoot one shot for each bad guy, then go back and shoot two more shots (second and third) into each bad guy, moving up and down the line.


No matter how you arrange the details of your excercise you are never going to exactly replicate a real world situation. the most important skill learned from these excercises is fast aquisition of multiple targets. you can practice this at your local range by simple setting up two targets and going back and forth between the two in different combinations of volleys, making sure that you mix up your routine as to not get overly predictable.

and not to beat a dead horse, but yes, the best tactic is avoidance. the instructor at the US Training Center had a saying i loved. "Rule number one for a gun fight is: don't show up."

[comn-cents]

scottycoyote "first tactic i always try..................hug it out"
Note to self: Never go to southwestern va.:p

[Edward429451]

Ok so it was a movie, and the last head shot on the fallen perp would have sent him up but it was a practical response I think.

A box drill in this situation as taught by a well known instructor is; Hammer to COM on #1 followed by a Hammer to COM on #2, then a head shot on #2 followed by a head shot on #1. Because the figure you make when doing this is a big C or rectangle, it is referred to as a box drill.

[Tom Servo]

first tactic i always try...hug it out
That's what gets me into these situations in the first place! :)

[jamaica]

I don't get it. One shot to the brain with most anything will end it now.

Why start shooting at the body? Just put one in the brain and get it over!

Multiple targets? One in the brain for each.

Ya, you might put a couple in the chest area, but the guy still has to bleed to death, in the meantime he can fill you full of lead.

Put one in the brain, and he goes down like dropping a wet dishrag.

Remember, right between the eyes every time!!!

I can'timagine why you would want it any different?

[Trigger Finger]

In a very stressful situation it is much harder to hit someone "right between the eyes" than it is to hit him in the 10 ring!

[jamaica]

Learn to shoot! The brain is larger than the heart. Hitting something big as a man's brain at 7 yards is a snap. Stress or not. If he is further away than that, he probably ain't a threat anyway.

[ATW525]

Lance Thomas is probably a better real world example than Goetz. His second and fourth gunfights were against multiple armed assailants, and he won them both. Based on Massad Ayoob's article on the man, it appears he concentrated on each bad guy one at time, switching targets only after the current one was out of the fight.

[stephen426]

Learn to shoot! The brain is larger than the heart. Hitting something big as a man's brain at 7 yards is a snap. Stress or not. If he is further away than that, he probably ain't a threat anyway.

You don't have to hit someone directly in the heart to drop them right away. There are lots of large blood vessels feeding the organs in the torso that will end a fight very quickly if hit. Besides, any hits are going to reduce the bad guy's ability to fight. A miss on the other hand does nothing to the bad guys and endangers innocent bystanders. Besides, the head is not a flat target, there have been multiple situations where a bullet failed to penetrate the skull. I'm sure they hurt like heck anyways and would take the fight out of most people. The main issue is better to get solid hits first.

By the way, your comment about the bad guy probably not being a threat if he is more than 7 yards is full of crap. Last I checked, bullets travel more than 7 yards. If someone is pointing a gun at you, THEY ARE A THREAT!!! I don't care how far away they are (assuming you are within range). How you respond may be different for different ranges and different scenarios, but I sure as hell am not going to ignore someone (much less more than one person) with a gun pointed at me. If they are farther away and there is cover, it might make more sense to move for cover before engaging multiple targets.

One other think to consider is whether or not you really think you can draw from concealment and shoot two armed people before they shoot you. If the answer is no, you do not draw unless absolutely necessary.

[Trigger Finger]

"Originally Posted by jamaica
Learn to shoot! The brain is larger than the heart. Hitting something big as a man's brain at 7 yards is a snap. Stress or not. If he is further away than that, he probably ain't a threat anyway."

This sounds like someone who has never even come close to being involved in a real shooting. And for what it's worth, yes I have!

[Tom Servo]

Put one in the brain, and he goes down like dropping a wet dishrag.
Remember, right between the eyes every time
Sorry, but "right between the eyes" is a pretty hard target when the appendage to which it's mounted is moving erratically, and perhaps firing back.

You cannot afford to miss, ever. Every bullet that misses carries the potential for collateral damage.

COM provides a larger, more stable target.

The whole idea of headshots ranks up there with warning shots and not having to aim with a shotgun for me.

[troy_mclure]

the best phrase for this topic is "aim small, hit small".

doing cqm training we were told to aim from the chest at elbow level to the mouth.

like this great pic! lol 3 in the triangle.
http://173.74.246.25/ktmtalk/photogallery/galleries/members/ACF4A45.jpg

the head is a very hard target to hit, it is moving constantly in up to 4 directions at once, and if they have big hair it may mess up your aim/target point.

depending on my caliber, ill be aiming for the chest and or pelvis. you break the pelvis they are going down, even on PCP. plus there are major nerve bundles, and major arteries there. its supposedly the most painfull place in the body to be shot, and if one of the femoral arteries is hit they will bleed out in as little as 3 minutes. unconscious is in 45-90sec.

[SpectreBlofeld]

Threads like this make me feel uncomfortable.

Before I continue, I'd like to say that tactics involving 'doubletap+headshot+doubletap+headshot' don't hold up to the mathematics of carrying a 5-shot snubbie. I suppose the final 'headshot' could be the hurling of a revolver at an assailant's head.

In my estimation, 90% of confrontations can be diffused with words, which clear up misunderstanding. 80% of what remains (aggressors, specifically) can be avoided by retreat. 99% of that can be diffused by show of force.

I'll accept that there are scenarios in which events transpire so quickly that the initial stages of discourse, retreat, and 'showmanship' are bypassed by necessity of survival, and a trigger must be pulled, but even after these factors are eliminated, there remains only a vanishingly small requirement to kill one's opponents, and doubly vanishingly so when considering multiple assailants.

It seems to me that when one contemplates shooting one person twice in the abdomen, moving to shoot another person in the abdomen, and moving back to shoot the first person in the head, and then moving again to shoot the second person in the head to 'finish them off', that person has crossed some sort of line beyond 'shoot to stop'. We're now in the territory of 'kill any aggressors', and I shouldn't have to explain why this mentality is not only immoral or destructive, but also contrary to the philosophy that those who espouse a respect for 2nd amendment rights wish to uphold.

To get more on-point, or on-topic... this may be only be a common sense warning to some, but a stern warning to others - if you find yourself in this extremely rare situation, the first order of business is to GTFO. For those who are acronym-challenged, 'get the f*** out'. Run. Retreat. Find cover. Trust me, nobody will think less of you or accuse you of being cowardly. If you're facing two assailants armed with guns and you've got your lightweight carry piece tucked in the small of your back, you don't stand a snowball's chance of survival. You might tuck a slug in someone's rotary cuff, but his friend is going to ventilate you in the meantime. You might be lucky enough to die knowing one of two of your attackers suffered the same fate. Small reward.

The goal is to live. Survive. When you're beaten by the odds, don't even reach for your gun. Give them your wallet if that's what they want. Don't think you can outdraw and outfire multiple assailants. This mentality will get you killed.

If this scenario calls for assailants armed with screwdrivers and not firearms, then you don't need to be performing doubletaps + headshots. If you've shot a human armed with a screwdriver and can't find a way to overpower them or otherwise extricate one's self from the situation after firing a shot into said assailant then you would certainly fail the most basic of physical fitness tests.

At this point, I'm not sure I had a point, so I'm signing off.

[armsmaster270]

I go with boarding house rules if done properly you will not need a followup shot and most BG's aren't wearing Kevlar vests where you would need the head shot..

[Dannyl]

Hi,

SpectreBlofeld is so far the closest one to my opinion.

If luck has been so bad that you are facing more than one oponent, and your best options like disengaging or avoiding conflicts have been exhausted, your best chances (even if you happen to have your favourite piece with a 32 round mag) are to fire at whatever oponent you are most likely to hit WHILE MAKING YOUR WAY TO COVER.

The last thing you want to do is stand still and act like the targets you practice on regularly (not moving and waiting for a bullet to catch up with you).

In most cases, cover may only be a step or two from you, but even if you have to run a short distance towards the nearest cover, you will be harder to hit than if you stand still. Remember, your aim is to survive, not necessarily to take down as many BGs as you can.

Once you get to cover, re-assess and engage as and if required.

As for shooting again at a fallen oponent; I will be surprised if there is a law anywhere that allows you to shoot a wounded person if he is no longer an immediate threat to you. The whole issue of shooting again, should only be considered if the chap is still holding a weapon and is trying or capable of harming you.

Brgds,

Danny

[MLeake]

is citing a scene from Collateral.

Good scene; notice, though, that Cruise's hit-man doesn't just shoot; he initiates with some verbal distraction, then closes on the alpha, uses his off-hand to deflect the alpha's pistol's muzzle, and moves in such a way that the others don't have a clear line on him; as he does this, he is drawing and firing.

This movie came out after The Last Samurai, and it's pretty obvious Cruise and/or his fight choreographer decided to integrate some of the sword technique that Cruise had to learn for that movie.

This goes back to my earlier post: definitely work on shooting skills, but also work on movement skills, so you can use one BG to foul the sight-lines / lines of fire of the other BG's.

Not getting hit is one of the main goals of any fight.

Cheers,

M

[MLeake]

I'm not claiming the guys he shot were good guys, by any stretch.

I'm also not saying he didn't have reason for fear.

I am saying that other train passengers had not been harmed by the guys involved, and that Goetz' description of events didn't quite mesh with those of the witnesses on the train.

I'm also saying that Goetz set himself up for serious problems by putting the second bullet into a BG that was down and not fighting, and making his stupid "have another" comment.

He got off easily on the criminal complaint; unlawful possession of a firearm, if I remember correctly, is the only charge that stuck.

The civil suit's outcome was mostly of his own making. Again, his second bullet and comment hurt him; he is an abject example of the value of keeping one's mouth shut.

[Claude Clay]

the first shot is a point-shoot coming out of low ready at the perps bellybutton [Mozambique lower plate]. second shot is semi-aimed at his COM [ m. upper plate] 3rd shot is aimed at the 2nd perp's COM [ m.upper plate only].

from buzzer this drill puts 3 shots from concealed draw on target in 1.5 seconds. threats are at 3 to 5 yards. people ask 'what is good when you practice?' this is one component of measuring good. under 2 seconds starts the 'good'.
situational awareness is another--better to avoid the gun play completely.

[Deaf Smith]

2 to the chest 1 to the head but what if there are two people?

Boarding house rules might then apply. Or move and stack your opponents before firing. No one technique works for all situations. You adapt and improvise.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

It seems to me that when one contemplates shooting one person twice in the abdomen, moving to shoot another person in the abdomen, and moving back to shoot the first person in the head, and then moving again to shoot the second person in the head to 'finish them off', that person has crossed some sort of line beyond 'shoot to stop'. We're now in the territory of 'kill any aggressors', and I shouldn't have to explain why this mentality is not only immoral or destructive, but also contrary to the philosophy that those who espouse a respect for 2nd amendment rights wish to uphold.

I must disagree with this analysis. I also must say that I don't respect the comments about morality or the 2nd Amend. I also, also say that the analysis fails to appreciate the actual situation.

First, using an opportunity to get of Dodge and disengage is the way to go. However, in lethal force situation, faced with foes with weapons - a shot in the abdomen is not guaranteed to stop any attack. The Mozambique drill is a response to a failure to stop. That means the opponent is still in the fight and a lethal threat to you.

You need to stop the threat if still posed. As a shot anywhere in the torso can be lethal - I fail to see the differential morality to add more shots to the original seeing the opponent is still in the fight.

Next, we have:

If you've shot a human armed with a screwdriver and can't find a way to overpower them or otherwise extricate one's self from the situation after firing a shot into said assailant then you would certainly fail the most basic of physical fitness tests.


That's simply not reality. Perhaps the poster is someone of superhuman physical abilities. But some folks might shoot a big person in the stomach and if he doesn't stop, not have the physical ability to go H2H.

Thus, the tactical and philosophical aspects of that post do not stand up to analysis.

[Nowhere Man]

It amazes me how some threads take on a life of their own.

From the OP asking how to shoot a simple 6 round drill to SpectreBlofeld's coment on how "Threads like this make me feel uncomfortable".

:confused:


Dave

[comn-cents]

jamaica "shoot them between the eye's"
That might be the biggest "Movie Answer" ever on TFL. Maybe from the hip too.:rolleyes:

[pax]

This thread appears to have run its course.

Thanks to all the non-chest-thumping answer-ers for the good discussion.

pax