The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - Can somebody explain to me the "double tap"

Arizona Fusilier · July 5, 2004, 09:25 PM

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.

July 5, 2004, 09:25 PM	#26
Arizona Fusilier Senior Member Join Date: September 19, 2000 Posts: 1,082	O.K., so where do we stand? 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.