Can somebody explain to me the "double tap"
- Thread starter frank4570
- Start date
Scott Evans
Staff Alumnus
Rapid miss placed shots do no good. It matters little if they come singularly, in pairs or by the mag full.
I see the reasoning behind the notion that double taps may inadvertently train you to stop shooting when you need to continue. The same logic can be applied to the reverse and you could find yourself shooting targets until the weapon is dry. Neither is a desirable result. Possibly training with a verity of reactive targets would be better in that such would interject mental awareness of shot impacts.
Along that line… for speed, on single or multiple targets, over the years of training I have progressed from the practice of always acquiring a proper sight picture for each shot to some form of mental trade back and forth while shooting between an aligned sight picture and that of watching impacts. Mentally I am always referring back to the sights but the entire field of view is also influencing when I pull the trigger.
I see the reasoning behind the notion that double taps may inadvertently train you to stop shooting when you need to continue. The same logic can be applied to the reverse and you could find yourself shooting targets until the weapon is dry. Neither is a desirable result. Possibly training with a verity of reactive targets would be better in that such would interject mental awareness of shot impacts.
Along that line… for speed, on single or multiple targets, over the years of training I have progressed from the practice of always acquiring a proper sight picture for each shot to some form of mental trade back and forth while shooting between an aligned sight picture and that of watching impacts. Mentally I am always referring back to the sights but the entire field of view is also influencing when I pull the trigger.
Jeff Gonzales
New member
The problem with this line of thinking is the presumption you hit. People get really wrapped around the axle with soft armor and what they don't realize is two things. First is the blunt trauma, if we can agree that damage delievered by a handgun is marginal at best at stopping dedicated opponnents then the same could be said about the blunt trauma delivered. However, that is still trauma being delivered. Second, nobody really understands the degradation process that soft armor goes through when absorbing rounds. It doesn't last forever and it is not as sophisticated as most think. NIJ standards require it stop the round it was rated to within 3 inches of the sides. So, if you are hitting them in the high chest, most armor will not perform as you have imagined.
If you were shooting the individual with a rifle caliber round of some sort, then you might have more validity in this line of thinking, but a handgun with the hit ratios generated across the board, presumptuoust training & thinking.
When dealing with multiple threats again there is a big misconception and lots of presumptuous training in this industry. If you find yourself having to deal with more than one opponnent in the intial engagement and you rely soley on your ability to apply a range drill to deal with them, then you have no concept of what is really happening during this situations.
Time and time again, we prove that if you just stand there and attempt to duke it out, you get hit or get killed. However, if you can prioritize and manuever, the odds shift towards your corner. Here, putting the first threat down hard and fast is the first priority. If you do a half ass job of putting the first one down because you are so worried about the second, is the first one out of the fight and if not what have you really accomplished.
Nobody is saying that conducting a post shooting assessment is a bad thing, as long as it is done at the appropriate time. The favorable margin of delivering rapid, repeated and solid hits on the threat until the hostilities cease will be more effective than delivering the prescribed standard response and admiring your work. Folks have got to understand that there is a huge difference between shooting at 2-diminsional static paper targets that are not agressing you versus the real thing.
Later,
Arizona Fusilier
New member
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.
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
New member
Non-standard response
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,
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,
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.
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
New member
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
New member
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
Aimed fire
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...
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...
the sheepish double tap
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.
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.