Can somebody explain to me the "double tap"

[Arizona Fusilier]

Do we have a concensus on what is "best practice" here?

Jeff, appreciate your "appropriate time" perspective, but do we have anything better then "depends on the terrain and situation" to hang our hat on? Something we can incorporate into a drill, with the belief we are reasonably prepared for most situations?

I was taught the "two to the chest, one to the head" mantra. I think it's a good, all-round training paradigm, all things considered. Even so, I'd like to think I could think outside the box if I had to, and so if there were more than three perps, I think I would instinctively distribute my fire accordingly, and do a lot less assessing and a lot more firing

Training is powerfull, and as has been ably illustrated in this thread, we tend to do what we are trained to do. However, I think some of us here are a little obsessed with the "assessment" phase, as if some of us are breaking out a calculator or something. I think we fire two rounds (sighted or not sighted) because the handgun is an inefficient manstopper, and we instantly double our odds when we press the trigger twice. "Assessment", IMO, is nothing more than thinking about where our next shot is going, and the time devoted to that mental task is probably less than a second. After which, either "one to the head" or the "empty the magazine" approach could be the the school solution.

Body armor, or not, 5-shot revolver, or 15-round magazine with three reloads, shaking-hands distance, or beyond normal engagement range; these are all variables that need to be considered, and trained for. Yet I don't think I've read anything here that persuades me that our core competency, when it comes to handguns, is anything other than the "double-tap".

I can, however, be convinced otherwise. The point is not, however, that the "two to the chest, one to the head" is sometimes ill-advised; certainly it is. The point should be what is the next best "drill" that can be reflexively employed, and suitable for 90% of the reasonable contingencies.

[Jeff Gonzales]

We teach a simple technique called a Non-Standard Response or NSR. It is basically allowing the shooter to determine what he feels is appropriate for each drill. The parameters are at least two, but no more than five. This helps to avoid the preprogramed responses that are often times ineffective. Once the shooter has developed this basic skill we then add the variables such as failures, missed shots and obscured targets. Hope this helps.

Later,

[pbass]

Presscheck wrote: two shots using one "flash" sight picture.

Seems reasonable in terms of making the most of one's time.

Good idea or bad:

1) Legally?

2) Tactically?

IOW, should I train for it or not?

I ask because I know for sure I'm going to shoot under pressure the way I trained (that's the problem with nonstandard response for me, at least in the micro-world of how I pull the trigger).

I just developed a passion for IDPA just because it's close enough for me to go maybe monthly. It seems DT is good for scoring but I don't care; if it's bad in the RW I'll sight twice per target even if the stage calls for 2 shots before moving on. In any case, they'll let me shoot my pocket gun in matches but it doesn't count for anything, which is fine by me because in the RW my scores won't count for anything.

What I'll have when the chips are down might be relevant, so:

1) Glock 17, armed security at a movie theater where gangbangers drive by and drive up, already been 2 shooting incidents, 1 in the parking lot and 1 in the plaza in front of the theater (timed after the police officer left, which means if another happens that way the deputy and I'll be out there by ourselves).

2) Kahr PM9, daily front pocket carry.

[spacemanspiff]

i've only had marginal success trying doubletaps at the range, and that was way back when i was shooting 9mm. for the life of me i have a tough time shooting my kimber all that quickly.

[CarlosDJackal]

Someone might have already mentioned this, if so I apologize. But the first time I ever heard of that term was in teh Infantry. When you conduct an ambush, you double-tap any enemy soldiers down in the kill zone just before you search them for anything of intelligence value.

This way you make sure that the enemy soldier you are about to search is in fact, "no more".

I did not hear about the double-tap in handgunning until I bought my first 9mm (Ruger P-85) and started shooting some "Action Pistol" at Fort Meade.

[chiz45]

Spiff, i would recommend a training course, or for a good read on the subject:

http://www.opstraining.com/Store/Store.asp

I first read the book "Surgical Speed Shooting," then took the 2 day class. Andy explains in detail his method quick succession shots (we didn't do that many DT's from what i recall). You'll learn alot.

[AKJD]

Someone might have already mentioned this, if so I apologize. But the first time I ever heard of that term was in teh Infantry. When you conduct an ambush, you double-tap any enemy soldiers down in the kill zone just before you search them for anything of intelligence value.

The term double tap was used, misused, and misunderstood a lot early in my military career and was often described as CarlosDJackel said, however this is not correct. The term isn't used very much officially because it gives the impression of shooting survivors or wounded instead of taking prisoners. To clarify this and I am sure this is what CarlosDJackal meant, is that as you assault across the kill zone or OBJ, you shoot any enemy left in the AO as you assault across to ensure you don't catch it in the back. Once you have reached your limit of advance, you then send back your search teams and aid teams to search dead and wounded and the objective area and render first aid, they are not shot again unless they are still combative. Basic Infantry and Ranger School training. Shooting wounded or anyone else after seizing an obj and prior to searching if they are not resisting would probably (will) land you in prison.

AKJD.

[smince]

Someone earlier mentioned going for a headshot if for some reason the perp didn't go down from body hits because of armor(or perhaps marginal hits, drugs, etc.). Because of adrenaline dump and the fact that a head is a small moving target, I believe many are teaching going for a pelvic shot to stop your assailant as proper procedure nowadays.

[gibbleth]

I subscribe to the 'aimed fire' approach. I've never much cared for double-taps, having started with a large, heavy target revolver in .357 magnum, which was not a gun one double-tapped lightly. However, I could absolutely expect to pick which eye at 35 yards if I had time. So, the theory is to seek cover immediately. This does two things: first, it allows the time necessary to assess and place a shot so that your first shot will be a lot more devastating. Second, it makes his first shot miss. That's a gain in the psychological game, particularly if you're dealing with more than one. There's nothing more demoralizing than to have your guys picked off one at a time by aimed fire while you empty magazine after magazine to no effect.

Of course, the response must be tailored to the situation, and if you're in handshake range, taking a step back, shooting from the hip, and shooting until he drops is a good tactic, as well. So, I've practiced shooting from the hip, shooting rapidly until the slide locks back and shooting from cover. And, for the fun of it, sometimes I run a target out to 100 yards and see if I can consistently hit it...

[joerng]

well i know what all of you are saying. i use the "double tap", only i call it a controlled pair. i have been taught to also use a third sight picture aswell, refering to the sight pciture obtained after your controlled pair has been fired. this allows you to asses the target and fire agian if needed.

PS: i would rather teach students learning to use firearms to protect them selves. when to use and when not to use there weapon. rather than weather or not to kill someone. that way there is never a question, they always know. when they break leather, someone is going to die.
hope that is not to harsh for the forum just feel srongly on that topic that is all. thanks... joe.