I think it's safe to say that most of us have seen this scenario at one time or another during our training; shooter standing at the firing line, 2 targets downrange at a close distance from the shooter (typically around 15 feet) and at a specified distance from each other (typically less than 8 feet), both of them presumed threats. On the start command, the shooter must access his/her weapon, present his/her weapon, and then engage both threats within a specified time period.
In the simplistic scenario above, and for the purposes of this thread, we are assuming that both threats are equal threats and pose an equal amount of danger to us.
In my training, I have always trained to engage each target with one shot in this situation, then re-assess each threat and continue engaging them in order of tactical importance until they are no longer a threat. The thought process has always been that, at such close distances, these two attackers simply won't allow you the time to perform a double tap on each of them. In other words, by the time you get your first double tap off, the attacker that you haven't addressed yet may well be on top of you. At such close ranges, it seems to me that we have a higher tactical probability of getting one well-placed shot on each attacker in such a short time frame and under such stressful conditions, than we would in getting a double-tap into each target under the same pressures of time and stress. In fact, I believe that a quick demonstration of the Tueller drill highlights the very brief reactionary gap that really exists in such a situation.
The thing is, I have seen a number of training programs, even some for law enforcement, that teach the shooter to engage each threat with a double-tap, then re-assess. This assumes that the shooter will actually have enough time to do this during a real, multiple-threat, life threatening encounter. It also seems as though some of the competitive shooting circles, most notably the IDPA (simply because that is the one I am most familiar with), emphasize the double-tap in almost all of the scenarios they utilize that address multiple threats at close distances.
My question here is most specifically directed at Rob and Grant, but certainly to anyone else who has knowledge in this area. What do you suggest is the best way to address a threat situation like the one I described above? I realize that there could be any number of variables involved in a real encounter, but given the simple scenario above, how do you teach your students to deal with the situation? Do you believe engaging each threat with one well-placed shot to begin with places the shooter in a more advantageous position than it would if the shooter attempted a double tap on each threat, or do you believe a double tap into each threat at such short range is a better way to go?
I would appreciate any input you could provide as I certainly respect your opinions on these subjects guys. Thank you in advance.
NRA Certified Pistol, PPITH, & PPOTH Instructor
NRA Certified RSO
Missouri CCW Instructor
