Request: Double taps

[Sasa]

Hello everyone,
can you tell me where I can find good informations about double tap shooting technique.
I just started with pistol shooting training. Any information would be helpfull.
Thank you all
Regards

[ShakesFIST]

Whats to know? Instead of shooting once, you shoot twice thus making it a double tap.

[Sand Man]

Here are some links I Googled. Maybe these could help -- "double tap" was mentioned in passing, though.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj95/spe-ed95_files/mcgowan.htm

https://atiam.train.army.mil/soldierPortal/atia/adlsc/view/public/11116-1/tc/7-98-1/chap2l18.htm (SLIDE 18-5)

https://www.benning.army.mil/198th/A%20Soldiers%20journal/index.htm (great pics in there, too)

Double tap has also been discussed here several times. Just do a search and set it to "show posts" intead of "show threads"...

[GorkoSan]

You could also take a look at these links:

Wiki: Double Tap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_tap)

How to shoot double Taps (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wbg2s2bfjhw)

Hope this helps. Cheers!

[Pook2]

Hammered Pair versus Controlled Pair.

[Sasa]

Thanks for info!

[arkel]

Wouldn't it make a lot of sense to have 2-round burst units in military and police pistols?

[Seraphim]

Wouldn't it make a lot of sense to have 2-round burst units in military and police pistols?

No

1234567890

[Pook2]

I don't like the term double tap either, but the guy in the video seems like he's trying to hide the fact that it is a pair. Despite them being two separate well aimed shots, they are still a pair. Not that I could do it anywhere close to where he can, I'm just arguing semantics.

[arkel]

Ok, let me be a little bit more elaborate: there is a huge debate about the inferiorness of the 9mm round, and a huge portion of today's service pistols are high-capacity 9mm weapons. Add a few theories on effective forms of rapid fire modes and techniques, and stir well. Put together, this should lead to a myriad of "machinepistols" with burst limiters, how come it didn't?

I'm not saying I should be awarded with the nobel peace prize or anything, I'm just wondering why the double-tap trend didn't create more offspring.

[Pook2]

Ok, let me be a little bit more elaborate: there is a huge debate about the inferiorness of the 9mm round, and a huge portion of today's service pistols are high-capacity 9mm weapons. Add a few theories on effective forms of rapid fire modes and techniques, and stir well. Put together, this should lead to a myriad of "machinepistols" with burst limiters, how come it didn't?

I'm not saying I should be awarded with the nobel peace prize or anything, I'm just wondering why the double-tap trend didn't create more offspring.

There are weapons out there that have 2 round burst modes, but they never caught on. There are plenty of people here who can explain it better, but basically you have more control over a semi-auto weapon than you do with 2 round burst.

[LRPV]

Ok, let me be a little bit more elaborate: there is a huge debate about the inferiorness of the 9mm round, and a huge portion of today's service pistols are high-capacity 9mm weapons. Add a few theories on effective forms of rapid fire modes and techniques, and stir well. Put together, this should lead to a myriad of "machinepistols" with burst limiters, how come it didn't?

I'm not saying I should be awarded with the nobel peace prize or anything, I'm just wondering why the double-tap trend didn't create more offspring.

Police: In Australia police are generally taught to fire single aimed shots. ie fire, re-assess, fire if necessary. Each officer/agent is accountable for what happens down-range. Two rapid shots won't cut it in a court room.

Military: Not comfortable posting on this one.


Machine-pistols: Beretta 92R, Stechkin, Skorpion....They are some examples. Use your Google-fu to research their issue and role.

[Mastermind]

In action, in reality, when slugs are ripping in your direction from both seen and unsee sources, you tend to shoot at what ever seems necessary at the moment. The fire you put down range is basically two kinds of fire...suppression and neutralization fire. There are three types of targets; the seen target, where you actually identify a person holding a weapon and have cleanly identified it as a threat. Second type is the "I saw him go behind that bush" type...you don't actually see the target but have an excellent idea where he is likely to be...police almost always must hold their fire on this target...military will lite them up with rapid area fire if there is a good chance of a hit. Third is the enemy is not seen but strongly hinted at...either intelligence has placed them in a location or they are known to be there by direct observation and have not had a chance to escape..they are well hidden with both cover and concealment (think trenches of WWI) If they absoutely must be dug out, you either call in artilelry and air support to flush them or bury them or you send in fire teams to scour them out. Police search with well armed, usually SWAT types and dogs. Military may suppress the area with direct fire at every and any potential place an enemy might use for C&C. This was the primary use of for US ammo in Vietnam...why it took hundreds of thousands of rounds to kill each NVA.

Basically, no two situations for exchange of gun fire are going to be the same. "Double tap" is, in my book, a training aid, to teach how to control rapid fire. Well aimed interval shots are always preferred...letting the weapon stabilize after each shot. To fire two in quick succession might work for exhibition shootists...but the average cop or GI is best served with steady, aimed shots at intelligently selected targets. In a fire fight, you might use the old axiom, "Shoot first, shoot lots and run like hell...either sideways, away or foward...but move!" You shoot until the threat is neutralized. If that means emptying the mag, so be it. If that means a single shot to the head, so be that.

There is one thing certain, all the training in the world will never completely prepare you for being shot at. Being shot at from close or even long range by determined, crazed people armed with deadly weapons is a very unique experience. What you do when the time comes will make your training sergeant either proud or a pall bearer.

[Sand Man]

Great post, MM.

[Asheren]

Police: In Australia police are generally taught to fire single aimed shots. ie fire, re-assess, fire if necessary. Each officer/agent is accountable for what happens down-range. Two rapid shots won't cut it in a court room.

In Poland in Police, Security and in Army security its same as above in normal situation. I guess in most of countries around the world its not much diffrent. Those customer branches would have no much use for duble round mode. And lets not forget that in normal circumstances in most of countries you are suposed to fire a warning shot before you use your firearm.(i am using term use firearm as its described by my country law aka aimed shot at someone). In stress you might easy accidentaly set gun to duble round. You would waste one extra round on warning shot creating additional danger for nearby peoples. Person might stop or migh not and then propably you will not get enough time to set gun back to single. Hell you would not even think propably about it. If you are practicing any kind of fast reload/shot technique you would also be prone to accidental seting duble mode. Ive set my AKMS few times on full auto when my finger sliped when i was learing to reload and turn safety off in one move before i learned to do it properly. Its difficult enough to learn to behave properly. Two round burst would be more a trublesome/dangerous thing than usefull and in all situation that would allow to use it i can just pull the triger one more time.

Machine pistols have lower recoil than assault rifles and are designed to fight on much shorter ranges.

[Seraphim]

What country are you from where they fire a warning shot??

[Asheren]

I am from poland.

[kamarian]

In Poland in Police, Security and in Army security its same as above in normal situation. I guess in most of countries around the world its not much diffrent. Those customer branches would have no much use for duble round mode. And lets not forget that in normal circumstances in most of countries you are suposed to fire a warning shot before you use your firearm.(i am using term use firearm as its described by my country law aka aimed shot at someone). In stress you might easy accidentaly set gun to duble round. You would waste one extra round on warning shot creating additional danger for nearby peoples. Person might stop or migh not and then propably you will not get enough time to set gun back to single. Hell you would not even think propably about it. If you are practicing any kind of fast reload/shot technique you would also be prone to accidental seting duble mode. Ive set my AKMS few times on full auto when my finger sliped when i was learing to reload and turn safety off in one move before i learned to do it properly. Its difficult enough to learn to behave properly. Two round burst would be more a trublesome/dangerous thing than usefull and in all situation that would allow to use it i can just pull the triger one more time.

Machine pistols have lower recoil than assault rifles and are designed to fight on much shorter ranges.


you are taught to fire a warning shot?

so what happens to that bullet that you fire as a warning shot? where does it go? what could it potentially do?

why do you think most countries DON'T fire warning shots?

[Asheren]

Yes in normal situation i shoud fire a warrning shot. This goes with bunch of rules when not fire it. Soo far i didn't heard about anyone hit by such bullet here. Situations when firearms are used even only to fire a warrning shot are rare here.

I wrote that i think that in most countries its nor much diffrent.

[kamarian]

Yes in normal situation i shoud fire a warrning shot. This goes with bunch of rules when not fire it. Soo far i didn't heard about anyone hit by such bullet here. Situations when firearms are used even only to fire a warrning shot are rare here.

I wrote that i think that in most countries its nor much diffrent.

Personally, i think you are mad if you fire a warning shot. Why? What if the bullet you fire goes down somewhere and kills someone. Imagine the legal ramifications for that. I was always taught you only fire if you have a clear target and a valid threat. Warning shots can kill innocent people, and just waste time.

[Canadian Sig]

so what happens to that bullet that you fire as a warning shot? where does it go?

Into the ground........where I was trained to fire it?

[Jippo]

Imagine the legal ramifications for that.


Imagine this: you don't fire a warning shot and you have definately a court sentence coming your way.

One must fire the warning shot so that it will not cause danger, and that it can be verified by later investigation. Very simple.

[LRPV]

Imagine this: you don't fire a warning shot and you have definately a court sentence coming your way.

One must fire the warning shot so that it will not cause danger, and that it can be verified by later investigation. Very simple.

??? Not sure I follow your logic. State police here (WA) are not to fire warning shots. How is it that a warning shot will not cause danger?

[Jippo]

??? Not sure I follow your logic. State police here (WA) are not to fire warning shots. How is it that a warning shot will not cause danger?

You shoot the warning shot to an obstacle (or ground) that it will not penetrate?

It is far less dangerous in a concrete wall, for instance, than in the suspect/ presumed threat. And as we are using rifles, the round will penetrate the threat causing harm elsewhere. How is that NOT dangerous? Think about the suspect too.

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

I just started with pistol shooting training.

FWIW

Start at very close range, two metres or so, keep it slow to begin with. As your accuracy improves speed it up and increase the range.

As your confidence and ability improves incorporate stress excersises, transition drills, etc.

[Hydro]

I picked up a pistol for the first time about a month ago. Ngati's got it right, keep it slow. Don't think you can just pick up a 9mm and start putting Tom Cruise Collateral style headjobs on the target. Pistols can be very unforgiving. Practice, practice, practice then practice some more.

When I started double tapping, I found my first round landed where I wanted it, but the second would be wild due to me not having a consistent firm grip, and I would take the shot before the sights aligned properly. Take your time with the second shot at first, and when you get confident that your second shot will land where you want, start speeding it up.

[kamarian]

Imagine this: you don't fire a warning shot and you have definately a court sentence coming your way.

One must fire the warning shot so that it will not cause danger, and that it can be verified by later investigation. Very simple.

so you will go to court if you file a warning shot? What about yelling?

??? Not sure I follow your logic. State police here (WA) are not to fire warning shots. How is it that a warning shot will not cause danger?


None of the police forces in Australia are taught to fire a warning shot. Personally i think of nothing more scarier than firing a warning shot. there is always a chance that your bullet could always go not where you intended it to go, and that could be the last thing you want for your bullet to do.

[Jippo]

so you will go to court if you file a warning shot? What about yelling?
Personally i think of nothing more scarier than firing a warning shot. there is always a chance that your bullet could always go not where you intended it to go, and that could be the last thing you want for your bullet to do.

???

What about yelling first, then shooting a warning shot, then shooting at the threat?

If yelling does the trick, fine. If warning shot is the thing that makes him believe I'm serious, good. If not even that helps, bullet through the thigh it is then.

I find it interesting that you find warning shots scarier than actually shooting a person! To me actually shooting somebody is really scary ****.

[Seraphim]

Are we not talking about law enforcement? Around here, warning shots are a no no.

[Asheren]

Diffent countries diffrent law systems. Our lawmakers seems to consider chances that someone would be hurt by warrning shot bullet low enough compared to be sure that person is aware that you will use firearm. Yup our lawenforcment basicaly every branch of it shoud fire a warring shot in normal situation. Our firearms deployment rules are almost similiar in police, private security and army. Main diffrence is(beside what you will yell befor stop or ill shot) in those are side rules that deal with certain special ceases. Considering common sense most of situations where you would use firearm are those when situational rules would apply. I am perfectly aware about warious kinds of holes and illogical rules in firearms useage regualtions. Its not a matter of comon sense its law and you have to obey it or end in jail.

[velvet-cream]

Diffent countries diffrent law systems. Our lawmakers seems to consider chances that someone would be hurt by warrning shot bullet low enough compared to be sure that person is aware that you will use firearm. Yup our lawenforcment basicaly every branch of it shoud fire a warring shot in normal situation. Our firearms deployment rules are almost similiar in police, private security and army. Main diffrence is(beside what you will yell befor stop or ill shot) in those are side rules that deal with certain special ceases. Considering common sense most of situations where you would use firearm are those when situational rules would apply. I am perfectly aware about warious kinds of holes and illogical rules in firearms useage regualtions. Its not a matter of comon sense its law and you have to obey it or end in jail.

Good post.

I can understand why as a matter of policy, the police don't want officers to fire warning shots (ie, they don't want police to fire unless absolutely necessary, which mean shootint the suspect centre of mass).

As a matter of personal opinion, I'm sitting on the fence. However, I think it does depend on the circumstance and the best judgment of the officer in the situation. If the police can resolve a situation without shooting someone (even if it was justified according to their rules), that is the preferable option. And that alternative solution may involve a warning shot...

Note that in some countries, police don't have the option of using other weapons such as collapsible batons, pepper spray or tasers. So "warning shots" may be there only option before applying lethal force.

[Jippo]

Are we not talking about law enforcement? Around here, warning shots are a no no.

Both military & police, actually. We try to keep all our citizens alive, and not shoot them if it is not absolutely(really absolutely) imperative. Police officer got sentenced (I think he got only fined, but still) some years ago for shooting and killing a charging, machete wielding madman. The fellow had already slashed a police dog, and turned to attack two officers arresting him. One of the police officers shot the man through his thigh. The problem was that the bullet severed an artery, and they where in a forest when it happened. They couldn't control the bleeding nor get him to the hospital in time, and the man died.

For military drill goes basically like this (not talking about war in the frontlines naturally):

Condition 1
ROE must allow firearms usage. It might even be that firearms are not carried. Then batons etc. might be used instead.

Condition 2
There must be a direct threat on life or installation protected.


If both of these conditions are fulfilled, the following drill should be followed:

- Order:Stop, defense forces! (Police, MP, what ever. Idea is to order the suspect to cease what ever he is doing and identify who is giving the order)
- Order:Stop, or I will shoot! (To make sure order is heard/understood, and to inform the suspect of the consequences)
- Warning shot to safe place on the ground/other safe place near the suspect. (I think he should get the picture by now)
- Shot to lower limbs (if possible)
- Check situation, and shoot again if needed. (repeat this step until it works)


Basically what you have above is your "Get out of jail for free" -card, and you can cut the corners if you don't have the time to go through it all. But of course a inquiry will follow and more you cut corners the bigger chance of giving yourself a hard time then.

[Laconian]

It is interesting to see how different countries handle the same topic. Although individual agencies may have a different policy, most US agencies have done away with the warning shot. It offers increased liability w/o much else ("I fired a warning shot so he would know I'm really serious") In US law enforcement you are required to use reasonable force - not the least amount of force necessary. LEOs are required to give a verbal warning prior to using deadly force when feasible, meaning only if doing so would not put the LEO or other person at risk.

As far as double taps - two trigger presses with two sight pictures as fast as you can do it accurately. If you are just starting out with pistol shooting I would recommend (1) going to a shooting school (2) watching videos from reputable trainers (3) reading from some of the champions.

[kamarian]

I think yelling a warning is enough warning to someone you are serious. warning shots in my opinion, are too dangerous to shoot. it is weird to see the different proceedures some countries have.

[velvet-cream]

I'm just going to throw this out there. I have no law enforcement experience.

What if you were confronted and outnumbered by a mob of baseball bat wielding people. They are angry and really want to seriously hurt you or a person you have the duty to protect (for the sake of argument, lets just say a suspected child molester). You are on foot, and won't be able to run away from the situation. Backup is 15 minutes away.

Shouting a warning out to them doesn't work, because your voice is drowned by the mobs rantings. (and not everyone in the mob can hear your verbal warning).

You seriously believe your life or the person you are protecting is at risk. What do you do???

Personally, I would prefer to escalate the use of force. ie, openly displaying weapons, verbal warning and then warning shot(s). If it is possible to place a well aimed (ie low risk) warning shot to disperse the mob, isn't that better than the alternative of having to shoot someone?

What I'm trying to get at here, is that there may be some circumstances where a warning shot is appropriate.

On another note, I'm surprised at the "reasonable force" versus "minimum force" in US law enforcement.

[Seraphim]

Pepper spray. Draw your pistol at low ready. Shoot anyone that will cause GBH or death to you or the person you are protecting.

[James]

I'm just going to throw this out there. I have no law enforcement experience.

What if you were confronted and outnumbered by a mob of baseball bat wielding people. They are angry and really want to seriously hurt you or a person you have the duty to protect (for the sake of argument, lets just say a suspected child molester). You are on foot, and won't be able to run away from the situation. Backup is 15 minutes away.

Shouting a warning out to them doesn't work, because your voice is drowned by the mobs rantings. (and not everyone in the mob can hear your verbal warning).

You seriously believe your life or the person you are protecting is at risk. What do you do???

Personally, I would prefer to escalate the use of force. ie, openly displaying weapons, verbal warning and then warning shot(s). If it is possible to place a well aimed (ie low risk) warning shot to disperse the mob, isn't that better than the alternative of having to shoot someone?

What I'm trying to get at here, is that there may be some circumstances where a warning shot is appropriate.

On another note, I'm surprised at the "reasonable force" versus "minimum force" in US law enforcement.

I used to work as a civilian instructor for the US Navy's Anti-Terrorisim Force Protection Training Program. The curriculum we taught included drawing and/or displaying a firearm as deadly force, something that I wholeheartedly agree with. If you aren't ready or willing to shoot someone, you sure as hell shouldn't take your pistol out of your holster.
As a follow up, I do NOT agree with warning shots. If a uniform and/or a pistol pointed in the direction of someone doing bad things doesn't stop them from doing what they are doing, it is time to remove the threat.

As a side note, there is most definitely an "escalation of force". That said, you can go from a verbal warning directly to deadly force without using submission techniques or whatever they're called today (baton and pepper spray). You can go from "Hey man, what's going on?" to deadly force in about three seconds. There's no time for the in-between.

In the situation you wrote about, anyone who got shot chose to die by your hand. If brandishing a pistol and telling people to stay back or they'll be shot doesn't make them leave, what are you really going to do?

[LRPV]

I'm just going to throw this out there. I have no law enforcement experience.

What if you were confronted and outnumbered by a mob of baseball bat wielding people. They are angry and really want to seriously hurt you or a person you have the duty to protect (for the sake of argument, lets just say a suspected child molester). You are on foot, and won't be able to run away from the situation. Backup is 15 minutes away.

Shouting a warning out to them doesn't work, because your voice is drowned by the mobs rantings. (and not everyone in the mob can hear your verbal warning).

You seriously believe your life or the person you are protecting is at risk. What do you do???

Personally, I would prefer to escalate the use of force. ie, openly displaying weapons, verbal warning and then warning shot(s). If it is possible to place a well aimed (ie low risk) warning shot to disperse the mob, isn't that better than the alternative of having to shoot someone?

What I'm trying to get at here, is that there may be some circumstances where a warning shot is appropriate.

On another note, I'm surprised at the "reasonable force" versus "minimum force" in US law enforcement.


About five years ago here in Perth police conducted traffic stops on an outlaw motorcycle club. A brawl ensured and the uniforms were losing. Fearing that they were being overtaken and their firearms may be seized, and perhaps used a young connie fire a round into the traffic island (grass surface) the brawl ceased and police regained control. The connie was held up as an example of initiative under stress.

Point being that while the old "Stop or I will shoot" went out decades ago, there is still reasonable flexibility. The connie had the opportunity and a safe place to fire a round. I doubt he would have acted the same in the city mall.

[Jippo]

If you aren't ready or willing to shoot someone, you sure as hell shouldn't take your pistol out of your holster.
As a follow up, I do NOT agree with warning shots. If a uniform and/or a pistol pointed in the direction of someone doing bad things doesn't stop them from doing what they are doing, it is time to remove the threat.

As a side note, there is most definitely an "escalation of force". That said, you can go from a verbal warning directly to deadly force without using submission techniques or whatever they're called today (baton and pepper spray). You can go from "Hey man, what's going on?" to deadly force in about three seconds. There's no time for the in-between.

In the situation you wrote about, anyone who got shot chose to die by your hand. If brandishing a pistol and telling people to stay back or they'll be shot doesn't make them leave, what are you really going to do?


I think that what I wrote doesn't argue with what you wrote at all. There is no question about will to use deadly force and warning shots. Warning shots just give the threat one additional chance to think if it smart or not to continue.

If there is no time, even in here the threat can be shot straight away (of course). It is just that when ever somebody is shot the shooter will stand in court for it, and the things may look little bit less intimidating to the judge in the court.

There are places and situations where warning shots can save human lives like LRPV pointed out. If there is time for the warning shot, I'm all for it. For it being dangerous, 95% of times it is not. It is far more dangerous to shoot at a person than at ground or a brick wall. If it is dangerous for some reason (no backstop?), don't shoot it.

[Asheren]

And lets not forget that situation where person will underestimate you. Especialy when guy is drunk, druged or got friends around. Mr i am soo brave would most propably say something like: Or what you will shot me mr. cop? Warrning shot is a last bell of reson for such guy.

[Laconian]

OPINION: If you are not ready in the next millisecond or so to drop the hammer, then your pistol should not be in your hand. The EXCEPTION is tactical ops (arrest, search warrants, felony stops, etc.), where the weapon is shown to elevate awareness for the good guys and is a show of force to the bad guys, basically a de-escalation technique. Other than that your weapon in your hand is a hindrance. In velvet-cream's scenario I am going to assume I had no other intermediate type weapon. In that case the first guy gets his face turned into a canoe and we'll see what happens from there. Very few bad guys are really brave when you shoot their friend in the face. A lawful order has to be given one time before it is considered a lawful order.

One of the biggest influences a trainee has to overcome is the impulse to pull their weapon out because a subject disobeys or doesn't comply with verbal commands. There may be times when that type of escalation is appropriate, but mostly compliance can be gained by other means.