how do you double tap with a .40 s&w?

I know what you're getting at, brickeyee, and I just want to make sure I'm not being misunderstood. I should make clear that the reason I put 'sight picture' in quotes above is because I'm talking about aimed fire v. unaimed fire, and you don't need a true-blue sight picture to make an aimed shot. But the way I understand it, a double-tap, or hammer, is one aimed shot and one unaimed follow-up shot - by definition the second shot is unaimed. So, while a shot does not always require a textbook sight picture and subsequent refinement to be an aimed shot, you do need from the gun what you need to know to make your shot. If that's a well-refined index that allows you to verify the guns alignment without a classic sight picture, then that's all you need. But it's still an aimed shot, so not, technically, a hammer/dbl-tap.

That's the way I define it, and I think it's the correct definition: a double tap/hammer is to align the gun with the target and just hit the trigger twice.

My point with all this is that there is no reason for the second shot to be unaimed. Yes, with enough practice you can time your gun to keep that second shot on target through pure timing, without verifying your alignment in any way whatsoever. But it's a parlor trick. Change the gun, change the load, start the target in motion, start yourself in motion, change your grip pressure, shoot at a target that's not directly in front of you, change pretty much anything and what you have is one aimed shot and one shot that you don't know where it went because you didn't aim the gun. Maybe you'll have a hit, maybe you won't. And it's a common misconception that if the target is close enough you can't miss. Go to any practical shooting match and see how many people miss the arms-length targets just by thinking they couldn't miss. :)

I can consistently put (most of the time ;)) 6 shots into the A-zone of an IPSC target in 2.2 or 2.3 seconds from the holster (unconcealed) at 7yds. Give it 2.5 and I can do it every time and I can do it in 2 flat warmed up about half the time, and I'm nothing special in the fast shot department- I'm a B-class IPSC shooter and an Expert-class IDPA shooter. But even from me, a very middle-of-the-road shooter, that's from about 1 to 1.2 for the draw and anywhere from to .16 to .2 for the splits. The point being: that's 6 aimed shots. If, with a little practice, you can put 6 aimed shots into a target in a hair over 2 seconds after wasting half that time on the draw, what good is an unaimed shot? For most shooters without alot of practice, they'd be hard pressed to put two shots into the dirt with a better than .16 split.

That's my whole point: there's no reason for it. Make two aimed shots, quickly. With practice it's not appreciably slower than just hitting the trigger twice and you know where the shot went, you know you're going to get your hit and you can adapt to changing circumstances because you're confirming your alignment on both shots...and with proper technique, that can be more than two shots. It can be as many as you want it to be.

- Gabe
 
Gee, thanks for the thoughtul reply. I appreciate the condescension, too.

Look, I just want to make sure that I state the opposing view clearly so anyone reading this thread can make up their own mind, so this is for their benefit, not yours:

- You don't need to let unaimed shots fly to get very, very rapid hits.
- You don't always need a classic sight picture to aim the gun, but you do need to get enough information from the gun to make sure you're going to hit what you want to hit where you want to hit it. Don't accept anything less.

Relying on 'muscle memory' and nothing but blind timing to put rounds into a target quickly is an unnecessary liability, reduces your chances of making a solid hit, is a skill that will fall apart under stress, is extremely sensitive to changes in the gun, load, grip, stance, fatigue and target relationships - basically it perishes when faced with all those things that make up 'real life'.

If you're relying on 'muscle memory' to fire your shots for you what happens when adrenaline dumps into your bloodstream and your grip pressure is 5 times what it normally is? How about when you are firing at a target pivoted off 90 degrees to your left and you're falling down? The gun isn't going to recoil like it did when you were practicing your 7 yard hammer on a static target in your perfect squared off stance - now how wild is that second shot going to be? Even a variable as simple as using different ammo for carry and practice will render this 'muscle memory' gimmick all but worthless.

And that's the point: If this hammer/dbl-tap technique is so suceptible to so many variables, it better offer me something miraculous as a trade off. But what does it offer? Nothing. At the very best it offers, maybe, a couple hundreths of a second in reduced split time. Which is completely irrelevant in 'real life'. Shot placement is what matters.

So you see, you dismiss aimed fire techniques for getting multiple rapid hits on target as a 'game' trick, but really it's the hammer that's the game trick.

If shot placement is the goal (and it is), why put the ability to place that shot in jeopardy for a possible couple hundreths of a second in speed, maybe?

It makes no sense.

Get the information you need from the gun to know you're going to make that hit. Accept no substitute. Hits count. Shot placement counts. My advice to people just getting started, looking for teacher or a technique to learn and pursue: disregard any technique or teacher that doesn't put shot placement first on the list. Everything is subordinate to that.

- Gabe
 
“Relying on 'muscle memory' and nothing but blind timing to put rounds into a target quickly is an unnecessary liability, reduces your chances of making a solid hit, is a skill that will fall apart under stress, is extremely sensitive to changes in the gun, load, grip, stance, fatigue and target relationships - basically it perishes when faced with all those things that make up 'real life'.”

Muscle memory has nothing to do with blind timing. It has to do with the ability to position the weapon identically from shot to shot.
The tales of adrenalin dump have gone on for many years, but people involved in actual shootings do not seem to have had problems with controlling weapons, reloading weapons, etc.
I worked as an EMT and never had a problem performing fine skills like starting IVs under any conditions, including ones that placed my life at risk. It takes an enormous amount of practice and the ability to stay calm. The basic skills must be learned so that no higher thought is involved. This allows you to preserve situational awareness while performing the task at hand.

The games are interesting for what they are. Games. They emphasize scoring hits in the fastest time possible against targets that are not shooting back. They advocate techniques and methods that are at best often foolhardy, and at worst just plain deadly.

The ‘score’ in any actual combat event is who survives. Not how many shots in the kill zone in the fastest time. I have relied on a number of skilled people with real world experience in surviving some really serious events for my training. Not techniques and methods developed to answer a ‘problem’ created for a game.

In the real world you do not chase after bad guys unless you are a LEO. If they leave, the event is over. You have won if you are not dead.
How many stages at a game are won by retreating to cover and having the target depart? Can you ‘win’ any stage without firing a shot?

The first response to anyone pointing a gun at you should be to try and increase distance. Distance is your friend. I have seen to many game stages that involve drawing and advancing on a target. Draw and retreat. Head for cover. Head for concealment. Winning is not about scoring a hit. Winning is about leaving the scene in one piece.

Hammers are a useful method at close range. They are not useful at longer ranges. As a civilian you have a better chance of being hit by lightning than engaging in a gun fight, let alone a gun fight at any range past spitting distance.

How the gun recoils does not matter for muscle memory. The 'memory' is the ability to repeat the position. It takes a lot of practice. Many thousands of rounds.

Look to the survivors of real life events for techniques.

Force on force training beats any other game hands down. Now you have real targets that shoot back. Try it sometime and see how you really stack up to looking down the barrel from the receiving end. It can instill a certain confidence and coolness under stress that is one of the most important skills needed for surviving a real encounter.
 
The tales of adrenalin dump have gone on for many years, but people involved in actual shootings do not seem to have had problems with controlling weapons, reloading weapons, etc.
Click to expand...
We're not talking about reloading a gun, we're talking about a very subtle, pure feel skill to place hits on a target. I can't believe that you don't think the pressures (physiological or otherwise) associated with getting shot at won't affect you ability to get the gun on target by pure feel, 'muscle memory' and timing.
It takes an enormous amount of practice and the ability to stay calm.
Click to expand...
Another strike against the 'hammer'. Why not just verify your gun alignment to the target instead of relying on your inner peace to preserve your ability to remain calm in the face of danger and therefore allow you to complete this delicate skill correctly. What is the point?
Hammers are a useful method at close range.
Click to expand...
Prove it. I disagree and I've explained exactly why. I state that the hammer is a useless unnecessary skill that serves no purpose. It is dangerous, provides no tangible speed (or any other) benefit over skillful aimed fire, is difficult to perform under stress and requires perfect circumstances to be reliable. Show how this is not the case.

About the rest of it, you seem to understand the difference between gun games and gunfights, at least academically. That's not what we were discussing, or so I thought. My point, and the point of this thread, was to examine the difference between a 'hammer' which by definition has an unsighted shot and a 'controlled pair' and how the two techniques can be used to put multiple hits on a target quickly...or not. That's it. I used the Bill Drill example as nothing more than that, an example to illustrate a point I was making about shooting a gun quickly, but you've seized on it as if it is the whole question: IPSC v. Gunfights - which is not the question on the table.

Frankly, I agree with you about the differences and nowhere did I try to say that gun games are 'training' for real life encounters. Never have, never will. You bring up force-on-force, etc. but fail to explain how a hammer is superior to two aimed shots in these or any circumstance, gun games or otherwise. You mention that your teachers have told you so. That's great - I'd love to get an explanation as to what, exactly, is so great about an unaimed shot when an aimed shot is just as fast? So far, all I hear is how gun games aren't real life. Fine. I agree. I've given exhaustive (at least it feels that way) analysis as to why I believe that aimed fire is superior. You obviously disagree, I'm all ears and would love to hear the reasoning. Even if it's just as fast as a controlled pair or a hair faster, is that enough of a benefit to justify failing to verify the gun's alignment before loosing your shot?

I think I've made the case that a controlled pair, with aimed fire for all shots, is superior to relying on muscle memory and timing alone. With the amount of practice you keep saying this requires (and, to tell the truth, at about 5 yards or so, I can hammer two into the COM just fine too, so it's no mystery to me how this works) I don't see why someone can't just be practicing putting quick aimed shots into their targets instead. A skill that will take them out to any distance and into any target.

This is what I don't get: why hammer? So far, I've not heard a single defense for that question, compelling or otherwise.

- Gabe (making too much of a small thing, but what the hell)

PS: And I'll restate what I think is the most important point: shot placement above all else. The hammer, by definition, places speed before shot placement.
 
"I can't believe that you don't think the pressures (physiological or otherwise) associated with getting shot at won't affect you ability to get the gun on target by pure feel, 'muscle memory' and timing."

It has not, and I expect it would not.
I am not at liberty to discuss the exact locations and details.
I can and have placed the hammer shots within inches of each other under real world conditions.

No matter what it takes time to view and align the sites
In poor lighting conditions it often becomes more problematic (let alone when muzzle flash issues from your weapon or someone else’s are present).
I have never has an encounter in even ‘good’ lighting conditions, and none of the guys I have met have either.

The hammer is a tool in a bag of tools to use when needed.
It is not always the answer, but training to always align the sites perfectly is not always the answer either.
I already know how to aim the gun for every shot. Being able to also place a second shot at shorter ranges without re-acquiring the sites and target perfectly (‘flash’ site picture or not) is just another tool added to the kit.

This reminds me of the arguments over ‘point’ shooting. I prefer the sites. I like to have a solid idea of were the shot will land. That does not mean I have not trained to fire from a low position. At zero range to target it may be all you have.

Any of these methods are just tools to apply if required under the circumstances. If you have never trained to fire a hammer you will never be able to cleanly execute one if it is needed.
 
There's alot in your last post I agree with completely and I think we're getting down to hair splitting real fast here. I'm not even sure we're talking about two different things any more. I hope I haven't been misunderstood to the point where you think I advocate a 'classic' sight-picture and adjustment for every shot, that's not true at all.

My only point is that it is no slower to verify the guns alignment before you loose that second shot than it is not to. That verification can take many forms. At less than arms length it may be pure body feel and relying on your index to align the gun. As distances increase, you will need more and more information from the gun to know you are on target, eventually you'll need those sights.

I only want to make clear that a true hammer (as I understand it) is a completely unaimed shot. And by unaimed, I mean unaimed. No alignment information at all. Just point the gun at the target and hit that trigger twice. The more you write, the more I think that's not what you're advocating here. Actually, for the last post or two, I think I've realized we're talking about basically the same thing - a misunderstanding I was trying to avoid.

- Gabe

PS:
I am not at liberty to discuss the exact locations and details.
Click to expand...
Nor would I ask you to. I'll take your word for it. And I'll also say that I for one am glad you're in one piece and able to discuss minutia like this over the internet ;)
 
Threads like this that turn into pissing contests are perfect reminders as to why I dont hang around here much.....

The thread started about a guy asking about how to properly execute a double tap, and here you guys are argueing about whose right and whose wrong... what is this? a grade school class or a shooters forum?
 
Well, you may not think it's important, but I know I do and I'll bet brickeyee thinks this subject is/was worth the effort to debate as well.

Don't like it? Don't read it. It's a discussion forum...we discuss things like this here. That's the point.

- Gabe
 
When and where did I say I dont think its important?

I did say that threads turning into a pissing contest because neither of you are grown up enough to just let it go.... is completely pathetic and childish. The original posters question was answered, thats all there should be to it.... but hey whatever floats yer boat.... I really dont care.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top