User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/4/2015 10:55:19 AM EDT
[#1]
You're asking for black and white answers for gray area questions. It all depends on the scenario. For instance: 1) One guy has a visible gun. He gets drilled till the threat is abated then assess the others. 2) Two or more visible guns. The one that is closest or has the best line of sight (Ie: deemed the most imminent threat) on me gets drilled first then assess. The others may run, dive for cover, I may be diving for cover.
If you go into a gunfight with a pre-conceived notion of how its going down, there is 99.9% chance it will go down differently. No strategy survives first contact. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2015 10:56:06 AM EDT
[#2]
The way I see it is you keep shooting the guy who is the immediate threat until he stops. Then you move to the others if they are trying to engage.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2015 10:57:15 AM EDT
[#3]
Do you put one drop of oil on each axle until they are all satisfied... or do you oil the loudest and most squeakiest one first?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2015 10:59:05 AM EDT
[#4]
Too many variables.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2015 11:01:29 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Too many variables. But... If I were to generalize I would give each man a round if there were 3 or more. 2 assailants I would be tempted to give #1 a couple of rounds while I was on target before moving to #2. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2015 11:02:31 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Too many variables. That's what I said. I just used a few more words. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2015 11:04:38 AM EDT
[#7]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2015 11:05:13 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're asking for black and white answers for gray area questions. It all depends on the scenario. For instance: 1) One guy has a visible gun. He gets drilled till the threat is abated then assess the others. 2) Two or more visible guns. The one that is closest or has the best line of sight (Ie: deemed the most imminent threat) on me gets drilled first then assess. The others may run, dive for cover, I may be diving for cover. If you go into a gunfight with a pre-conceived notion of how its going down, there is 99.9% chance it will go down differently. No strategy survives first contact. This. There's no right or wrong answer because you just can't lay out every single aspect of a hypothetical situation, and then seek to train against that one unique occurrence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2015 11:06:58 AM EDT
[#9]
Tactical order....
I rather be lucky 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2015 11:07:57 AM EDT
[#10]
People are unpredictable.
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2015 11:08:55 AM EDT
[#11]
I guess the assumption is you only have one gun instead of a gun in each hand. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2015 11:10:03 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's what I said. I just used a few more words. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Too many variables. That's what I said. I just used a few more words. Big words and long sentences scare me. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2015 11:11:03 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
People are unpredictable. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Some of them just wont go down  Fucks up my rhythm
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2015 11:11:18 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But... If I were to generalize I would give each man a round if there were 3 or more. 2 assailants I would be tempted to give #1 a couple of rounds while I was on target before moving to #2. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Too many variables. But... If I were to generalize I would give each man a round if there were 3 or more. 2 assailants I would be tempted to give #1 a couple of rounds while I was on target before moving to #2. i agree, if all the bad guys are next to each other then move around but if you have to rotate more than a few degrees, it doesn't make sense to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2015 11:11:35 AM EDT
[#15]
Tactical priority is the term i've heard tossed around by various folks.
What represents the greatest threat? decide that and engage that threat first. Of course this is all very rigid concepts for what can turn out to be a very fluid and changing situtation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2015 11:12:28 AM EDT
[#16]
Shoot the first one until you feel that you've shot him enough and then move onto the next.
Maybe that's one round. More likely it's several. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2015 11:16:33 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're asking for black and white answers for gray area questions. It all depends on the scenario. For instance: 1) One guy has a visible gun. He gets drilled till the threat is abated then assess the others. 2) Two or more visible guns. The one that is closest or has the best line of sight (Ie: deemed the most imminent threat) on me gets drilled first then assess. The others may run, dive for cover, I may be diving for cover. If you go into a gunfight with a pre-conceived notion of how its going down, there is 99.9% chance it will go down differently. No strategy survives first contact. prioritize the threats and address appropriately. who's closest? who has the most potential to do immediate/serious harm to you? then other things like what is your ammo situation? do you have cover? an avenue to retreat? can you fight your way to cover or create an avenue of retreat? any absolutes or hard rules like "everyone gets one before anyone gets two" dont belong in a gun fight.....besides survive. thats the only absolute. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2015 11:17:06 AM EDT
[#18]
There's a video where a cop shoots the bad guy and then the wounded guy gets up and kills the cop while he is engaging a second suspect. I think it's in the stick up robbery thread. You just never know till the bullets start flying. Depends on the situation.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2015 11:22:32 AM EDT
[#19]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2015 11:27:27 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You're asking for black and white answers for gray area questions. It all depends on the scenario. For instance: 1) One guy has a visible gun. He gets drilled till the threat is abated then assess the others. 2) Two or more visible guns. The one that is closest or has the best line of sight (Ie: deemed the most imminent threat) on me gets drilled first then assess. The others may run, dive for cover, I may be diving for cover. If you go into a gunfight with a pre-conceived notion of how its going down, there is 99.9% chance it will go down differently. No strategy survives first contact. This. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2015 11:29:31 AM EDT
[#21]
one size doe not fit all.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2015 11:33:33 AM EDT
[#22]
Depends. What kind of cover do I have? Am I out in the open and need to neutralize everyone as quickly as possible, or do I have cover or they don't quite know where I am where I might have time to engage each target multiple times before moving on? What weapon am I using? A weak handgun that may require follow-up shots to ensure bad guy stoppage, or a rifle with some power that's guaranteed to drop them unless it's a really bad shot? How many of them are armed? Are other people in imminent danger of dying?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2015 11:33:44 AM EDT
[#23]
Mozambique drill for everyone.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2015 11:42:41 AM EDT
[#24]
Given that all opponents were armed, I was taught to put one in each. Leader (if obvious) first and henchmen next.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2015 11:44:14 AM EDT
[#25]
I'd really like to put two in the first threat in tactical priority then assess further.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2015 11:45:03 AM EDT
[#26]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2015 2:06:04 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're asking for black and white answers for gray area questions. It all depends on the scenario. For instance: 1) One guy has a visible gun. He gets drilled till the threat is abated then assess the others. 2) Two or more visible guns. The one that is closest or has the best line of sight (Ie: deemed the most imminent threat) on me gets drilled first then assess. The others may run, dive for cover, I may be diving for cover. If you go into a gunfight with a pre-conceived notion of how its going down, there is 99.9% chance it will go down differently. No strategy survives first contact. FPNI |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2015 2:09:43 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's what I said. I just used a few more words. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Too many variables. That's what I said. I just used a few more words. Yes, and yes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2015 3:19:56 PM EDT
[#29]
As said, pretty vague, but I'd rather kill one than wound two. To each their own.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2015 3:33:25 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As said, pretty vague, but I'd rather kill one than wound two. To each their own. Even if #2 is shooting at you the entire time?
I really hope that is your lisc. plate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2015 3:38:32 PM EDT
[#31]
Kinda like Josey Wales said. You size 'em up according to how ready they are. If somebody is clearly primed to go, he gets a couple before anybody else gets one. My inexperienced $.02.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2015 3:40:32 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Even if #2 is shooting at you the entire time?
I really hope that is your lisc. plate. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
As said, pretty vague, but I'd rather kill one than wound two. To each their own. Even if #2 is shooting at you the entire time?
I really hope that is your lisc. plate. Having two wounded people shooting at you is worse that one person shooting at you. Just basic math man. Sorry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2015 3:47:07 PM EDT
[#33]
I like the idea but think that if you have one target acquired, go ahead and give them a couple of servings rather so you don't have to come back around. How about everyone gets three servings before anyone gets fourths?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2015 3:50:03 PM EDT
[#34]
Double tap the most imminent threat. Situations are fluid. Follow up on the ones hit, if need be. Just get some hits on target.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2015 3:59:16 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Having two wounded people shooting at you is worse that one person shooting at you. Just basic math man. Sorry. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
As said, pretty vague, but I'd rather kill one than wound two. To each their own. Even if #2 is shooting at you the entire time?
I really hope that is your lisc. plate. Having two wounded people shooting at you is worse that one person shooting at you. Just basic math man. Sorry. It's not math. Getting "metal on man" will severely alter their proficiency, giving you more time to clean up the mess. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2015 4:03:46 PM EDT
[#36]
There are no right or wrong answer, tactical order and tactical sequence are both tools, and it heavily depends on the situation and the shooter's skill level.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2015 4:06:14 PM EDT
[#37]
Aren't followup shots on the same target faster than transitioning to a second target?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2015 4:13:20 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As said, pretty vague, but I'd rather kill one than wound two. To each their own. I would rather stop 2 than kill 1. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2015 4:15:28 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Aren't followup shots on the same target faster than transitioning to a second target? My splits are normally in the 17-20 range. Transitions depend entirely on target size and distance. Putting 2 on each would definitely be quicker than 1 each and return for another 1 on each. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2015 4:15:38 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's not math. Getting "metal on man" will severely alter their proficiency, giving you more time to clean up the mess. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
As said, pretty vague, but I'd rather kill one than wound two. To each their own. Even if #2 is shooting at you the entire time?
I really hope that is your lisc. plate. Having two wounded people shooting at you is worse that one person shooting at you. Just basic math man. Sorry. It's not math. Getting "metal on man" will severely alter their proficiency, giving you more time to clean up the mess. Quoted:
Aren't followup shots on the same target faster than transitioning to a second target? This is what I was speaking of - it seems entirely logical that I can get two shots on Target A before I can bounce back and forth between Target A and B while they are both moving around. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2015 4:18:35 PM EDT
[#41]
Most dangerous target gets shot until he's down, then move on to the next dangerous one.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2015 4:24:18 PM EDT
[#42]
Too many variables for such a black and white answer. Things to consider:
1. Which threat is closest? 2. What is the threat level from light to extreme, and their proximity to you? 3. What type of cover do you have? 4. What are your surroundings, i.e. bystanders, your ability to improve your position before shooting anyone or shooting anyone again, etc? 5. Does shooting the first threat change the minds of the threat's buddies? 6. Do you have sufficient ammo to continue shooting? (such as if you are only carrying a 5 shot revolver) There are very few scenarios that lend themselves to black and white answers. People seeking black and white answers usually don't know enough about levels of force, use of deadly force, deadly force statutes, report writing, the force continuum, the three requirements for use of deadly force (ability, means, and intent) and other "bookish" knowledge things related to use of deadly force. After studying all these things, most people realize that giving black and white answers to scenario questions is a fools errand. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2015 4:24:50 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Too many variables. "The variables are too damn high." 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2015 4:30:08 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Mozambique drill for everyone. Yo homie... Is that my briefcase?  |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2015 4:31:08 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The way I see it is you keep shooting the guy who is the immediate threat until he stops. Then you move to the others if they are trying to engage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2015 4:33:27 PM EDT
[#46]
Seems like something I may add to the Weekly Challenge for science and all.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2015 4:37:04 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Shoot the first one until you feel that you've shot him enough and then move onto the next. Maybe that's one round. More likely it's several. Shoot the first one 'till HE thinks you've shot him enough. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2015 4:39:45 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is what I was speaking of - it seems entirely logical that I can get two shots on Target A before I can bounce back and forth between Target A and B while they are both moving around. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Even if #2 is shooting at you the entire time?
I really hope that is your lisc. plate. Having two wounded people shooting at you is worse that one person shooting at you. Just basic math man. Sorry. It's not math. Getting "metal on man" will severely alter their proficiency, giving you more time to clean up the mess. Quoted:
Aren't followup shots on the same target faster than transitioning to a second target? This is what I was speaking of - it seems entirely logical that I can get two shots on Target A before I can bounce back and forth between Target A and B while they are both moving around. Logic is not experience. Spend one weekend and 1500 rounds shooting multiple targets under my tutelage and you will be hitting 2 targets .02 seconds slower than 2 shots on one target. Have you tried this with a shot timer? Realistic split times for multiple, somewhat aimed shots is 0.20 seconds, 0.17 - 0.16 with practice. Initially transition split (one hit on a target and then another target is about .35 sec. 1,000 rounds later you target transitions will be in the .22 - .18 sec zone. If you put 5 rounds into one guy while 2 others are shooting at you unimpeded that is one second of directed fire from 2 assailants. Now you're going to drive #2 to the ground while number 3 gets a full second of undisturbed shooting practice with you as the target. Even with an untrained 0.35 split you can shoot everyone in the first second of gunfire. Now in the next second everyone is hurting from your superior marksmanship. someone flinches and gets 2 more. Now you have 2 guys with a bullet in them to fight and one guys with three in him. No one is taking any unhindered shots at you. So my way you are fighting 3 wounded, possibly severely guys at 1.5 secs. Your way you have shot one guy to death, you're working on number2 and number 3 is dumping rounds into with no distractions at all. Where would you really want to be at 1.5 secs. In your scenario or mine.* *All times are estimates from extensive shooting on the shoot timer to decide on certain tactical decisions, i.e. experience. Don't even get me started on moving while shooting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2015 4:42:00 PM EDT
[#49]
Self defense shooting situations are too varied to have any such "rule".
For instance not all bad guys are necessarily in view when the shooting starts... One bad guy might pose more of a threat than another... like them having a gun... You'd want to make sure that one isn't capable of firing back before moving on to lesser threats. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/4/2015 5:02:06 PM EDT
[#50]
Multiple targets?
Greatest threat to least threat, closest to farthest. You probably won't have time to evaluate it properly when the SHTF. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
