Perhaps it’s just local, but the double-tap seems to be seeing a resurgence in popularity from what I’m seeing at the range. And that’s unfortunate.
A staple of handgun training for decades, the double-tap went out of vogue with the advent of terminal ballistics research and serious analysis of real world shootings. The automatic response of firing two (and only two) rounds eventually gave way to the concept of shooting at something until it didn’t need to be shot anymore. Outside of IPSC and IDPA, the double-tap appeared to be a thing of the past.
But for whatever reason, I’m seeing it a lot at the range lately. Shooters — usually mediocre shooters — are chasing the satisfaction of shooting fast in an unproductive way by hammering two shots at a time on a very close range target. The problem is that they’re not shooting fast, they’re simply moving the trigger fast. Not the same thing. The goal is to get controlled speed so you can fire one, two, three, six, or however many shots you want and still keep them where you are aiming.
Problems with the double-tap as a training goal:
- You’re preprogramming your body and mind to stop after two shots are fired. Everything we’ve learned about gunfight statistics and trained response tells us this is a bad, bad combination.
- Most people don’t measure or worry about the speed of the first shot in a double-tap. Taking three seconds to align the gun, stabilize your grip, and carefully aim before hammering the trigger twice is counterproductive.
- Shooters tend to fire the gun as fast as they can pull the trigger with no regard to seeing their sights or controlling recoil. The gun is quite literally out of control after the second shot. Following up with more hits then requires starting all over again with stabilizing the grip and finding the sights to align them.
- Related to the last point, because the second shot isn’t aimed the shooter can’t really know where it’s going. While this may suffice for a large, wide-open close range target at an IPSC match, it has no relevance to breathing, moving targets at various unknown distances.
The double-tap doesn’t serve a defensive purpose because you have no way of being sure two shots will be enough. It doesn’t serve a training purpose because you’re not controlling the gun… learning to move your finger faster is just one very small part of shooting fast. About the only thing the double-tap gives you is a false sense of proficiency.
Train hard & stay safe! ToddG
Perhaps it’s due to the movie Zombieland where Rule #2 is “Double-Tap”. 🙂
Good article. The first time I hear of a double tap being called a “controlled pair” I laughed. Why fire a “controlled pair” when you can fire a controlled 3,4,5,6,7, etc.
I am GUILTY! I shoot DA/SA, but considering switching to SAFE action/LEM/DAG or SA for a constant trigger pull. The DA/SA proficiency is very difficult for me and creates another barrier to overcome.
“DAK” not “DAG”
You’re aiming at a very close targets? Really?
If I had to hazard a guess, I would bet that at least a simple majority would say that they’re doing it to save on ammo and still send more than one shot. If the round count is a couple hundred, truncating the string of fire is perceived to be valid while still accounting for each round. However, practice doesn’t make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect. And while I’m busting out cliches, slow is not fast. Slow is not smooth. Slow is slow, fast is fast, and smooth is smooth.
Ray — Simply firing pairs isn’t the same as worshipping the double-tap. Working on two shot drills to master a DA/SA gun is perfectly valid. When people begin to care only about the split time between the two shots that’s when things go wrong.
It is interesting that a lot of people think that they should be shooting 2 shots off of one sight picture…
I do recall Enos’ book calling BS on that.
ToddG – Thanks for the clarification.
Hello,
I would like Todd G, to contact me because I would like to host him for a class.
Thank You
Robert
Please contact me
“Simply firing pairs isn’t the same as worshipping the double-tap.”
Good point, and one Greg Morrison pointed out in his book. Greg says the true double tap should be a controlled pair of shots (with 3 sight pictures, BTW) but most people fire a hammer (2 shots, one sight picture)instead because they focus too much on speed and not control. Interesting how many of the same problems come back over and over.
Something I have been wondering about.
I fully support the concept of shooting until you stop the attacker, but what about multiple adversaries? Would a controlled pair (not a “double tap”) still be a valid response when multiple targets need to be engaged? With the shoot until stopped concept, when do you decide to break off and service the other target? My fear is that it might take you so long to stop the first aggressor that the other one will be on you, while servicing all targets with 2-3 shots might at least get their fluids leaking before they reach you.
What would be a good training technique to keep us from depending on and buiding a 2-shot mindset of the controlled pair, but not getting tunnel vision on a single target?
S — Practically speaking, once something has grabbed your attention because it’s an immediate lethal threat, it’s going to keep your attention until it’s no longer a threat. Expecting to “break off” from one lethal threat to engage another doesn’t make a whole lot of sense under most circumstances.
Thank you for your response Todd. It does make practical sense giving the average persons tendency to get tunnel vision.
Do you (or most top tier trainers) no longer teach the multiple target engagement? If you do, how do you do teach it? Maybe reactive targets would be the best option?
I attended FLETC earlier this year and all of our shooting was on a single target and with multiple shots in each string so I imagine that this reflects modern thinking, or maybe it was just a factor of my particular training course.
Thanks
S — I do teach multiple target shooting, as do all instructors I’m aware of. However, most (myself included) have moved away from the idea that there is a standard response for each target.
I’m not trying to sharpshoot you here. I am wondering what the best way to train for multiple target shooting is without developing a standard response mindset would be?
Thanks for all your insight, I recently discovered you web site and it has been wonderful.
Thank You
Here’s a Viking Tactics training video (for the carbine, not pistol, but you get the idea) showing an interesting way to practice multiple target engagements.
S — The easiest approach is simply to vary the number of rounds you use for each engagement. So do some drills shooting T1 four times, then T2 three times. Switch the round counts back and forth, change them around every couple of mags, etc.
Another approach you can take that works great with a turning target system but can also be managed with a shot timer using a par time: engage T1 with a set number of rounds and then engage T2 until the target disappears (or the timer beeps).
For example, I’ll put up a 2″ circle and a 6″ circle. Draw when the target faces (or the timer beeps), shoot the small target twice, then transition to the larger target and hit it as many times as I can before time runs out. I try to set a time so I’m getting 3-4 hits, on average, on the large target. Then I’ll reverse things, drawing on the larger circle and hitting it 2 or 3 times and then hitting the little circle as many times as I can.
You could just as easily do the same thing with two same-sized targets if you wanted to work more on marksmanship (smaller targets) or speed (larger targets).
Thanks a lot guys! I’ll admit that my initial military training back in the 1990s, did rely on the controlled pair concept and my shooting IDPA and the like has only continued to reinforce that mindset. While the training was good for the time tactics change and I’ll incorporate then in my training.
This is kind of funny, at my last IDPA match, there was a guy almost IRATE that we were NOT shooting the “standard” double tap or Mozambique and were going for different round counts on all our stages.
This guy considered it a “waste of ammo” but strangely burning through 100 rounds during the match itself would have been OK as long as it was double taps?
When he started complaining about the “Why the no double taps?” He couldn’t grasp the concept that sometimes it takes more than two shots and was quite certain that two shots of .40 would end any engagement…
Great site.
How about two to the chest, and one to the head?
I’m a learning shooter and I’ve been using double taps to practice re-acquiring sight picture, and recoil recovery. Unfortunately, the range that I shoot at does not allow rapid fire. When I fire many rounds rapidly they tell me to slow down. Maybe I could get away with triple taps.. I dunno.
Maybe explaining that NRA Rapid Fire is 5 rounds in 10 seconds OR LESS might break the ice for the rules committee at your range. This synthetic restriction on rounds/unit time is becoming more and more of a problem. I suffered along with these rules at an Issac Walton range, and when I questioned the policy was told that what I was looking for was a “Shooting club, and this is a conservation club”. It became very apparent that hunters were welcome, shooters need not apply.
When I first started shooting in the mid-80’s, the double tap was the nee-plus-ultra of a real pistolero. I remember putting a black paster up as the target at 7-yds, and it was always fire 2 rounds with a 3 second turning target, over and over and….
Anyway, new to the site, bumped over here via the CZ rant on Way of the Multigun. If Chris gets that Glock tattoo his mother and I will be very disappointed, maybe OK with a S&W, but not a Glock!
Regards,
JR