View Full Version : What is the shooting protocol now?

March 30, 2002, 10:10 AM
When faced with multiple BG's can anyone tell me what is being practiced now to handle self-defense situations?

I heard it was one shot per BG as rapidly and as accurately as you can? Then back up and repeat as long as necessary.

I know the widely accepted practice is double tap each BG.

What do you practice?

March 30, 2002, 10:58 AM
One each, starting with closest, repeat. Then more as necessary.
Modified to fit different situations.

Sam, situational awareness is life insurance.

March 30, 2002, 03:15 PM
"I was lucky in the order..."

Unforgiven was on the other night - couldn't help it.

I practice the same as Sam. I think the practice part is more important than the order or number of shots to each target...

Double Naught Spy
March 30, 2002, 03:59 PM
I read somewhere that this sequence is called "boarding house rules" where nobody gets seconds until everyone gets firsts.

As noted, modify as needed. If the group all stands still, then it applies. Once folks start running for cover or to escape, you may not need to or have the opportunity to give everyone their firsts.

Another plan is that you address each threat in order of perceived danger to you. If there are five guys, one up close and four further back, you take care of the one posing the greatest risk to you, probably the guy up front. If you shoot him once and he isn't acting like much of a threat anymore, maybe fiddling with his wound to try to stop the bleeding, then find the next most threatening target and shoot it. If you shoot the first guy and he does not go down at all and is still aggressive, why waste ammo trying to shoot around him to guys in the back? He is your number one threat and is the closest. He is the greatest threat to you and is the one that you can most likely overcome the easiest (less likely to miss at closer ranges).

That all sounds really good, but reality isn't the same as theory. In Football, the guy running the ball must first avoid those threats that pose the greatest risk to tackling him. Sure, there are guys down field he wants to avoid, but they aren't the most pressing. If you have ever played football and run with the ball, how many times did you make bad decisions in your threat avoidance or how many times did you not know just which of the guys coming to tackle you posed the greatest threat to you? In a split second, high level threat assessment decision making may not be all that accurate.

I sort of like the idea that if there is a closest guy, shooting him as much as necessary and the problem of the other guys MIGHT take care of itself as they flee. Maybe not and if not, then boarding house rules after the major threat is gone.
Just food for thought...before you have to do it in real life.

March 30, 2002, 05:42 PM
It all depends on a lot o' things, including number, location, cover, et al, ad naseum. The most important thing it that you remember to MOVE! Away and to cover. Get small.

I see a lot of people who standing stock still like some gun game. "Wow, look how great I'm shooting. I need a soundtrack just like an IPSCer!"

Just remember the cardboard isn't shooting back.:eek:

March 31, 2002, 02:07 AM
A. Do I have cover or concealment?

B. Do I have cover or concealment within reasonable timeframe & direction?

C. How are the threats distributed in my field of fire?

For example, on the "slice the pie" exercise of shooting around a barricade, I consider the barrier cover, and I do two shots apiece as I peek'umout'emdacorner'oda hiding place.

Same if I'm shooting around the barrel or mailbox, IF I'm not right up against it (not best position for such usuallyonlycover stuff, in most circumstances). If right up against the barrel, shoot-throughs are more likely to get me so I do one per, then repeat. This is probably "tactical sequence" if you can stand to use the T-word.

Out in the open, it's definitely one per and then repeat.

Modify for weapon type threat level first, then by order of proximity.

But remain situationally aware for reasons to deviate from the theme. Gut feelings count, too.

March 31, 2002, 04:14 AM
Runner with football analogy not comparable. If three armed guys make a move on you, the farthest is equally dangerous. If it is an open situation, one good move is to tap em each once in whatever order and the first hit will be getting his seconds before the results of the first are discernable.

Do not wait to analyze the effects of each shot before proceeding to the next.


Double Naught Spy
March 31, 2002, 11:15 AM
C.R.Sam, you bring up a good point, but I think some clarification is needed.

Statistically, multiple bad guys at varied distances armed with guns are not equal threats to you. While they may all be able to kill you from their location, it does not mean they they are all an equal threat to you. The greater the distance away, the less likely they are to be accurate. As the saying goes, proximity negates skill. I would rather gunfight with a fully capable person with a handgun at 100 yards than a legally blind person at 3 feet. That is an extreme hypothetical example and not realistic. However, with greater distance, it becomes much easier to miss the intended target. For handguns and rifles, that is a fact.

As far as shooting everyone once and then deciding on who needs to be shot a second time, versus shooting and evaluating how your shot performs, both have advantages and disadvantages. Shooting everyone once means potentially inflicting painful wounds to potentially incapacitating each person. If there are three bad guys, that means you will need at least three sight pictures and two transitions between targets, combined with the fact that after the first shot goes, your targets likely will not remain stationary, so you will have to be trying to transition while tracking and obtaining a sight picture. That ends up with a lot of down time between shots.

Let's say you shoot each one time because that is the good way to do it. Let's say the first threat you shot was the most dangerous to you as that would be the good way to do it. Let's say that shot didn't do anything to the greatest threat to you and now you are wasting time trying to track and shooting other targets when the one closest to you, most dangerous to you, has not been taken out of the game. Targets 2 and 3, by being more distant and likely trying to flee are not posing nearly the threat that target 1 poses, target 1 now being the really pissed off bad guy who was the greatest threat to you and still remains the greatest threat to you, only you have your gun pointed in a direction and are trying to find threats who may not actually be threats to you anymore.

Here, the key is that Target 1 is a threat and if you fail to nullify that threat, transitioning to Targets 2 and 3 isn't going to do you any good because Target 1 will be shooting you while you try to shoot Targets 2 and 3. Bummer, no?

The advantage of focussing on Target 1 is that you want to nullify the greatest threat to you and you selected Target 1 because he was the greatest threat. You know he is a threat, but once you start shooting, you don't know if Targets 2 and 3 will remain threats or not. So, you deal with the most pressing matter first and Targets 2 and 3 potentially will remove themselves from the battle or be ineffective while trying to egress. That is a best case scenario, of course, but it happens in real life. Honor amongst thieves and watching each other's 6 isn't terribly common. Of course if they are a trained hit squad come to kill you, then you are just screwed.

The disadvantage of fixating on Target 1 is that you can lose contact with the situation as it is developing, plus you can unload all your ammo into one target in a very brief amount of time. So, you can end up with a singular and very dead primary threat, and be killed by the secondary threats that you don't even realize are there. Fixation is a very real problem that can coincide with tunnel vision.

Sweeping one's head around to check for additional threats will help reduce the effects or nullify tunnel vision, a good thin. So, by being forced to transition to shoot each target may be advantageous to not getting caught in a tunnel vision mode, but once again, if you fail to nullify Target 1, then you end up being killed with normal, not tunnel vision. Being killed with or without tunnel vision does not matter. Dead is dead.

There really are no simple strategies or tactics. Gun fights are not static situations, but dynamic even if the shooters are static themselves in that they remain stationary. People around the shooters will be moving and as ammo and shooters go down, the situation changes.

Part of what makes situations dynamic is movement. Stationary and out in the open is bad, very bad in terms of potentially getting shot, but gives you the best shooting perspective from being fully upright (hence seeing more), stable shooting platform, and ability to pivot in place and cover a large arc. Moving while out in the open is much better from a point of trying not to get shot. Moving targets are harder to hit, but it also makes it harder to shoot well. Statinary behind cover may be good for defense, but you are limited in the range of motions to fire and your actions can become predictable. Plus, you can end up trapped.

Nothing is truly simple and nothing is fixed in stone.