To Double Tap or Not.... And Why??

[topsykretts]

It is more efficient to place two shots in a short timeframe than it is to place multiple shots across a wider time frame. Doubletaps are simply a sequence, or a burst. You could still wind up firing until the threat is no longer present, but it how those shots are sequenced that can effect the overall efficiency of the use of available ammunition.

Think of pulse detonation propulsion. For the same amount of fuel, you can achieve greater propulsive efficiency by detonating that fuel in specific ways, rather than continuously burning the fuel.

.. .. (guys dead) . . . . . . . .

.. .. (guys dead)

.. (guys down, you assess the threat, hes still shooting at you, you're injured) . . . . . . . . . . (guy's dead)

Whats the most efficient?

In the third sequence, you are continuously analyzing the behavior of your target. However, in the first sequence you waste ammunition. In the last situation, you are thinking too much about your ammunition and not simply observing and reacting simultaneously. You should not deliberately react. Your observations should automatically, without thinking, result in your reaction. It is the sudden and energetic disruption of the operation of an adversarial, threatening system, that is the primary objective of defense. It doesn't matter if that system is a person trying to shoot you, or an arm that is trying to stab you. You respond to the system by disrupting it. This disruption always requires a sudden application of sufficient energy that that energy interrupts the flow of energy that animates the system.

[thanker92]

Depends on the situation... how many perps, what weapons, distance etc.
One perp with an AK....keep shooting until threat is gone.
Half a dozen perps with baseball bats... fire once on the greatest threat and keep retreating. (Always retreat if you can safely)

[H.E. Pennypacker]

I just read somewhere about a technique (forget the name) where you double tap aiming at the torso, then follow up with your third shot aimed for the head. Makes sense to me.

[Steve in PA]

I would shoot until the threat eaither runs away then falls down.

Along the same lines I talked to the greensberg police chief a month or two again and he said that if it comes to a defense shooting the best thing you can do is empty your gun. He said it didn't matter weather you shot the perp or the ground as long as you empty your gun. The way he explained it is that you want the situation to look like a panic situation when the cops arive.

Cop: "Sir, how many shots did you fire"
Shooter: "I don't even know, I panicked, I just pulled the trigger until I couldn't anymore"

Josh

That is the stupidest (not sure if that is even a word...) advise the a police officer could give. He obviously doesn't know crap from shinola.

Do you seriously wanted "I panicked" on a police report?????????????????????

[markheck1]

I just read somewhere about a technique (forget the name) where you double tap aiming at the torso, then follow up with your third shot aimed for the head. Makes sense to me.

It's called a Failure Drill, as in Failed to stop the threat.....

This comes from I believe the FBI and is a result of targets wearing body armor.
2 to the chest.....one to the head. If all goes good, target is stopped......if not the target is slowed/stunned enough to make for a better head shot......

[kpw]

I just read somewhere about a technique (forget the name) where you double tap aiming at the torso, then follow up with your third shot aimed for the head. Makes sense to me.

Mozambique drill

[H.E. Pennypacker]

Mozambique drill

Yes, that is the one.

[markheck1]

Mozambique drill

Yeah, that too

[eXceLon]

I would shoot until the threat eaither runs away then falls down.

Along the same lines I talked to the greensberg police chief a month or two again and he said that if it comes to a defense shooting the best thing you can do is empty your gun. He said it didn't matter weather you shot the perp or the ground as long as you empty your gun. The way he explained it is that you want the situation to look like a panic situation when the cops arive.

As has been stated numerous times here, the police cannot be relied on for legal advice. There is almost zero evidence that "emptying your gun" will aid in your case for self-defense, and at least one case where it has proven to be a detriment to the victim's defense.

I've spent the past half hour searching online for this case, unfortunately the search terms are too broad to come up with anything specific. Perhaps someone else will remember the case from my description.

The situation was generally like this: There was a gathering of some sort in a park, and one of the men started getting a bit angry and aggressive. Seeking to defuse and avoid the situation, another man who had been on the receiving end of the first mans abuse decided to leave. The only problem is that they all happened to be staying at the angry man's home, so that's where he headed.

The aggressive man followed the other one back to his home. The second man noticed that the angry man had gotten out of his vehicle behind his truck, and spotted in the side-mirror that he was approaching him with a handgun. He got out of the vehicle, and the two started to wrestle. Eventually he managed to take his attackers gun, and as his attacker lunged towards him started firing. He fired something like 8 rounds, and killed his attacker. Remember, this wasn't even the man's own gun used here: He took it from his attacker.

The man was convicted for killing his attacker. One of the more amazing statements from the judge was something along the lines of "with each additional round he fired, the defendant moved further away from justifiable self-defense". That's ridiculous of course, as we know people scared and under stress will tend to fire a lot of rounds. However to this judge, this constituted some sort of excessive force.

...

I don't think that the correct answer is necessarily to pause after each shot to re-assess the situation. Nor is the answer to "empty your gun". That's just one of those myths of self-defense that gets passed along, right along with the idea of dragging a bad guy you shot outside of your front door into your house.

It's especially indefensible given the relatively high capacity of modern defensive handguns. When it's not uncommon for a defensive handgun to carry 15+ rounds, you're going to have trouble explaining why you shot those extra 10+ rounds into the lifeless body of your attacker when it only took the first 5 to drop him to the ground. That may very well be perceived as "finishing off" your attacker, which is not legally defensible.

[Yoder]

I read that around 60-70% of all rounds fired by trained Police Officers miss their target in an actual gun fight any you think you're going to calmly pull off a two to the body and one to the head? You are dreaming. You are going to be pissing your pants and a million things are going to be racing through your head. Hope you have enough sense to remember fronts sight middle of bad guy pull trigger as many times as needed. I'm guessing until he falls or runs. How ever many rounds that is will be how many you fire. I really can't see anyone pondering a double tap while being shot at, or shooting once, checking for a reaction, shooting again, checking.