Why you should almost NEVER use the “double tap”

[Taurian]

http://preparedgunowners.com/2016/02/18/why-you-should-almost-never-use-the-double-tap/

[oldranger53]

I didn't read the whole article yet, but at first glance the content here seems in direct opposition to the ideas and methodology of a man on this forum whom I've developed healthy respect for...and therefore hold in much higher regard than the one (s) responsible for this article.

Sooooo, for the time being I'll say NAY on the author and the content, at least until I read it more completely.

<Sent from phone. Typos possible.>

[Taurian]

Well, that is why this is a forum - an exchange of ideas - for opposing or agreeing with a thought or thoughts.

There is some credence to the article. I have had to force myself to slow down a bit when performing the Mozambique Drill for the same reason mentioned int eh article.  Although my first shot was controlled, the second shot was not.  By slowing down a tad, I was able to improve the result that I needed to see.  With that said, and because I carry a 1911, it is easier to achieve a well-aimed double tap with the 9mm fired in a comparably-sized sized pistol.  With that said, I have been changing up my drill with 3B + 2H strong and weak hand.

I feel that a lot has to do with the firearm being used. Attempting to perform a double-tap with a full-load .357 magnum in a snub-nosed revolver, like the GP101, is much more difficult than trying to perform the same with a GP100 with a 4-inch barrel.  Performing a double-tap effectively with Glock G17 is much easier than with the Glock G36.

The conversation about this should be interesting.

[oldranger53]

Indeed.

Interestingly enough, I once was a single tap only kind of guy.

Here's a small outline of what got me thinking in the double tap way...

Excitement of the moment can cause an impact point to be outside a critical area...and even the best, calmest, and most seasoned of us will fall prey to that.

....oops....Suzi just walked in.

Hold that thought.

I'll be back

<Sent from phone. Typos possible.>

[oldranger53]

Ok I'm back.

Still haven't read the entire article.  Lately I've been snowed under with projects and visitors...and dog sitting, and...and...and...

Anyway, after watching many many shows wherein the bad guy(s) hold a hostage in front of them, with LE mere feet away, and demand that the LE lay their weapons down...when a head shot is definitely possible, I vowed to never allow something like that to disarm me IF I could make a "one shot, no reflex" shot.

One shot.
One shot stop.

A few years ago I dedicated myself to just that, one shot kills.  I even purchased a .44spl revolver in effort to FORCE myself to strive for greater accuracy with each and every pull of the trigger.

It is the declining conditions in our world that got me to move away from that very noble notion of the "one shot stop."

The bad guys of today will usually have auto loading weapons.
The bad guys of today will, ever increasingly have body armor.
Some of the bad guys are "experts" with weapons...although I think that's the exception rather than the rule...but I'm not about to gamble on that!  I'll treat every life or death adversary as if they are a highly trained and motivated killer who wants nothing more than to rip my guts out and feed them to me before I die.

Hold nothing back.  Don't half step.  Don't give em even a small chance to gain advantage over me...and mine.

Then there's this other thing, accuracy.

Often times my first shot is a "spotter" round.
The second shot is almost always better than my first.  That's me.

So, I'm only speaking to the general tone of that article when I say these things, and not the entire content since I haven't read it all yet.

I hope I don't sound too "bubba-fide" when I say these things, cuz I am all about one shot kills...but not brave enough to gamble my life, or the life of my loved ones on that...not when it's me defending, or more precisely, counter attacking.

[M1911A1]

To me, the most important observation in the article to which we are linked is: "2. You don’t want to train to ALWAYS shoot ONLY 2 shots. In an actual defensive shooting it may take just 1 … or it may take 10 aimed shots to stop a threat..." [emphasis as in the original]

I was taught to hit multiple targets with one shot, each, and then to go back, to reassess, and then to fire more shots as needed.
Generally speaking, any hit will stop a fight for at least a short while, giving you observation time as you "reset yourself" for any necessary follow-ups.
Also generally speaking, if your good-quality body hit didn't stop the fight for good and all, then he's probably either wearing armor or he's hopped up. In both cases, you're going to have to bear down and make a good-quality head shot, to adequately do the job.

There is a lot good to be said about the "Mozambique Drill," two to the body and one to the head into each opponent, but that technique presupposes a large-capacity magazine.
My EDC guns carry either nine .380 ACPs (Colt's Pocket Hammerless) or six .45 ACPs (AMT .45 Backup), so the Mozambique Drill is not one of my options.

And neither is an automatic "double tap."

[oldranger53]

Ok I just read the whole article.

I think my main objection, no kidding, is the condescending tone of the author.

After reading more carefully, it seems as if the guy has seen quite a few other guys practicing that are considerably "less skilled" than himself, and holds a bit of contempt for them...forgetting that he was once a "lesser skilled" shooter too.

I have to confess, I am not versed in the modern jargon of stances, and drills and other stuff that I hear many talk about on the forums.  So technically speaking, compared to many...I would be considered a "less skilled" shooter.
Shooting is a skill, IMHO, that enhances ones ability to fight.

Shooting is a stand alone skill, in that one doesn't have to be fighting in order to develop shooting skills.

I'm convinced that a guy can be a great and "highly skilled" shooter, and still be a total flop as a fighter.

So anyways, I take back the posture I levied earlier on this topic of double taps.  I realize now that I was only taking issue with the condescending tone of the author.

I concede.

<Sent from phone. Typos possible.>

[M1911A1]

...I'm convinced that a guy can be a great and "highly skilled" shooter, and still be a total flop as a fighter...

I have to agree completely with your assessment.
Now, admittedly, I have never been in a fire-fight. (I've come close, though. Twice.)
But I have noted that the really highly-skilled SWPL/IPSC competitors I've known, when confronted with a realistic, live-fire shooting scenario, usually did extremely poorly in it.

The poor performances noted had many origins. Here are two.
First was always the attempt by the experienced competitor to "game" the realistic scenario, the way that he would have "gamed" an IPSC-standard match. Chief among these "gaming" techniques was always to stand up on two hind legs and shoot, rather than to seek cover before or during the shooting.
Second was to stand there as if frozen, awaiting a "start" signal. The practical solution to the problem, of course, would better have been to react to the dangerous social stimulus provided.

[CR Williams]

If I got my definitions right he's describing a hammer, not a double-tap, in the article. And he's right in that you can't control recoil, but you can learn to manage it, which is what I teach people to do. Learn to do that and you can fire aimed bursts, which is what I recommend and teach as a counteroffensive response to lethal-force assault.

[Taurian]

If I got my definitions right he's describing a hammer, not a double-tap, in the article. And he's right in that you can't control recoil, but you can learn to manage it, which is what I teach people to do. Learn to do that and you can fire aimed bursts, which is what I recommend and teach as a counteroffensive response to lethal-force assault.

To which, I agree.  I would also interject that the same applies to running a long gun?