Double Taps

[DoubleTapDrew]

I was watching an episode of personal defense TV and Gresham was working with one of the instructors from Gunsite who explained the two techniques as:
Double Tap: Two shots, two sight pictures
Hammer: Two shots, one sight picture

Don't know if he's right but it made sense at the time.

 

[KodiakBeer]

I invite any critics to demonstrate their own shooting. I don't think we'll see any, because it's a lot easier to play the Internet expert on a forum than to demonstrate shooting on a video.

 

[David E]

Mathematically impossible to prove given the setting and equipment used.

I told how I arrived at that conclusion. Feel free to arrive at a different one.

Even that flawed technique does not provide sufficient empirical data to classify a man in a division he isn't even firing in.

Taken in total (including the "instructive" text) I think it does. No slight was meant, I was just appyling observed, factual experience to an internet video.

You won't hear any more from me about this.

Somehow, I doubt it......

 

[David E]

I invite any critics to demonstrate their own shooting. I don't think we'll see any, because it's a lot easier to play the Internet expert on a forum than to demonstrate shooting on a video.

Sure it is. Remember, tho, in Post #2 you were begging for critique and comments.

But since you brought it up, what do you want the video to show?

A shooter's arms extended firing a gun semi-fast for 2 shots without immediately showing the results downrange? Then do a cutaway angle showing ONLY the targets being hit, presumably by one person firing his gun at an unknown distance? (when it could be more than one guy firing from 5 FEET)

A video like that would prove absolutely nothing.....

Or would you want to see a video that actually shows the shooter firing shots AS they are being fired? Like, over his shoulder hitting a steel target, preferably with a timer in view, right?

THAT would be a fun video to watch.

(let me see what I can do....)

 

[Ryder]

A controlled pair from me empties the gun A pair of strings would be more descriptive of how I shoot and I simply call it "fast fire". I get some very tight groups doing this and without flyers. It requires that I take a couple shots to get a feel for the recoil of the gun/load combination but that's ok because careful aim is key to setting this up. After that it's just a matter of timing, doesn't have to be a semi-auto either, it's quite a lot of fun with a revolver.

A generalization if I may... Preconceptions are a major limiting factor to self-improvement. You don't know what is possible until you try it.

 

[BullfrogKen]

I'm using just 115 grain ball from several manufacturers, in a Hi Power.

I've tried it with my 1911, and didn't get great results, but then I've been concentrating on this Hi Power for several months. I'm sure it would work just as well with a .45, but it will require a lot of shooting to get there.

...


Recently, I've bought a couple of Hi Powers. These are what I've been playing with lately and I find this platform works very well with the technique I'm describing.

...


In these clips, I'm actually gripping the gun quite lightly because I find doing so brings the gun back on target. When I bear down on the gun (I'm a 1911 guy originally), I find the second shot goes low.

Anyway, Hi Powers are new to me and I find I can do things with them that I can't do with a 1911. This is one of those things.

Two points.

One - a light grip on the handgun isn't a good grip technique for defending yourself. You can do that in the gun games if you'd like, but this isn't the competition forum.

Two - a technique that will only work for a certain gun in a certain caliber isn't a sound technique.


The allure of the 9mm is that it is a light-recoiling round that can be shot in ways other, more powerful handguns rounds cannot. For some reason it's become all the rage in some schools and with some instructors to shoot 9mm handguns as fast as possible. And they can be shot very fast.

There's nothing wrong with shooting quickly in and of itself. But many of the "gimmick" techniques developed around those handguns and the 9mm round itself do not transfer over when shooting other handgun platforms and rounds. The goal of serious students is mastering fundamentals, not chasing after gimmicks.

 

[David E]

One - a light grip on the handgun isn't a good grip technique for defending yourself. You can do that in the gun games if you'd like,

Agreed. And a light grip isn't used by the winning shooters in the gun games, either.

Two - a technique that will only work for a certain gun in a certain caliber isn't a sound technique.

Agree again. While some minor changes might need to be made for certain weapon types, (revolver/semi-auto, etc) the overall stance/technique should remain constant.

 

[KodiakBeer]

One - a light grip on the handgun isn't a good grip technique for defending yourself. You can do that in the gun games if you'd like, but this isn't the competition forum.

"Light" is a very subjective term.

Two - a technique that will only work for a certain gun in a certain caliber isn't a sound technique.

Why would you think it wouldn't? I suspect it will, but I'll have to change my grip tension for each platform. Obviously, as has been pointed out, it worked quite well with 1911's as demonstrated by Cooper and friends.

 

[David E]

Obviously, as has been pointed out, it worked quite well with 1911's as demonstrated by Cooper and friends.

If you're referring to the Weaver, Cooper did not alter his stance or technique when he changed guns/calibers.

He didn't say, "Ok, with the .45, you need to do it this way, but with the 9mm, you should do it this way..."


If you're referring to semi-autos vs. revolvers, then the grip and reloading protocols may have to change due to physical dynamics, but the technique itself remained constant.

 

[KodiakBeer]

If you're referring to the Weaver, Cooper did not alter his stance or technique when he changed guns/calibers.

Who brought up stance? Are you one of these people who think the stance they use is the only proper one?

He didn't say, "Ok, with the .45, you need to do it this way, but with the 9mm, you should do it this way..."

No, he said: "If you're not shooting a .45, you're doing it wrong." And he was probably correct back then with the bullet designs available.

 

[BullfrogKen]

"Light" is a very subjective term.

Yes, it is. However from your descriptions of what you're doing, and the video you posted, it both sounds and looks too light.


Put another way - use that same grip pressure on your 1911 and shoot some standard .45 hardball loads. How much control do you have over the gun? I'd wager it'll flip around in your hand enough that you'd have to re-acquire a good grip after every shot.

That is too light of a grip.


You can get away with it in a full size, steel framed Hi Power. But you can't get away with it in anything lighter, like aluminum or polymer frame guns. Or something not full-sized. Or with something more powerful than that super-light 115gr 9mm.

It's not a good technique. Not even the schools and instructors teaching speed are teaching students to shoot with such a grip technique.

Why would you think it wouldn't?

Because it wouldn't.


You're able to get away with a grip like that with those soft 9mm's in a full size, steel frame gun. As I mentioned, try it with say, a Glock 23 in 40 S&W. Or a LW Commander in .45 ACP. Or even a Sig 229 in 9mm with some rounds that have a better performance than light, 115 gr range practice rounds.


You can let that Hi Power jump around in your hands under it's own power specifically because of the gun you're using - full size and heavy - and the round you're shooting - light and gentle.


It's a poor technique. Hey if you want to use it, have fun with it. But you're not going to convince me it has any value for a serious student of the art.

 

[KodiakBeer]

Put another way - use that same grip pressure on your 1911 and shoot some standard .45 hardball loads. How much control do you have over the gun? I'd wager it'll flip around in your hand enough that you'd have to re-acquire a good grip after every shot.

Gee, you think so?

I've tried it with my 1911, and didn't get great results, but then I've been concentrating on this Hi Power for several months. I'm sure it would work just as well with a .45, but it will require a lot of shooting to get there. Not sure if I could transition easily back and forth from guns with varying recoil levels... Time will tell.

 

[KodiakBeer]

Because it wouldn't.

So Cooper and all those people who graduated Gunsite weren't doing this?

It's a poor technique. Hey if you want to use it, have fun with it. But you're not going to convince me it has any value for a serious student of the art.

You sound like one of those people who attended a class and are convinced that they've learned the only "correct" way to do something.

I've had lots of instruction over the last 35 years and learned something every time. And each of those instructors was quick to tell me how their method was the only correct way to do it. And I was just as quick to smile and nod and take away what worked and discard the rest. There is no sole "correct" method.

One mistake I believe you (and others) are making here is assuming that the recoil shown in the slo-mo is more than what you're getting with your own pistol and technique. The fact of the matter is that you simply don't realize how high the muzzle rises when you fire it, because it happens faster than the eye can see it.

That's the mistake (pointed out above) that Cooper and friends made, assuming that their grip style was actually holding the pistol down. It wasn't.

 

[BullfrogKen]

You sound like one of those people who attended a class and are convinced that they've learned the only "correct" way to do something.

Oh really?

That's a bit of a leap, since I've not once advocated any one particular stance, grip, or a specific technique at all whatsoever in this conversation. The most I've done is state this technique you're toying around with is a poor one. I know of no reputable school teaching such material.

And I've been to more than just "a class". I've seen a pretty broad cross section of what the schools and instructors are teaching these days. I've been fortunate enough to meet and train under, alongside, or help mentor many of the trainers in the industry today. And those I haven't met personally, there's a good chance I've seen their material through their student base.

There is no sole "correct" method.

While we both agree on that, there is junk. This is junk. You've been told it is junk by several others who've responded. While I've not met them personally, I have an appreciation of their background and their progress in the study through their posting patterns over the years. Those criticizing you are not novices.


If you want to take your abilities to the next level, master the fundamentals and don't waste time pursuing the gimmicks.

 

[KodiakBeer]

I know of no reputable school teaching such material. This is junk. You've been told it is junk by several others who've responded.

I dunno, I'd consider Gunsite marginally reputable.

Again though, I'll point out that what works, works. It isn't how you get there, it's in the results. If your rounds hit the target, you're doing it "right".

 

[CoRoMo]

If your rounds hit the target, you're doing it "right".

Remember how I linked to your bolt action video thread? If the above were true, then you couldn't possibly state that one of those bolt action videos demonstrated an incorrect method. Because I'd venture a guess that the shooters who weren't maintaining proper technique were still hitting their target just fine.

The statement of course is false, there are right and wrong ways to shoot. Poor methods might still put rounds on target, but that alone does not turn junk into anything else.

 

[BullfrogKen]

It isn't how you get there, it's in the results. If your rounds hit the target, you're doing it "right".

I'm tempted to point out the absurdity in that statement through a video holding the gun upside down and pulling the trigger with my pinky finger.



On the other hand . . . enjoy your new technique.

 

[KodiakBeer]

Remember how I linked to your bolt action video thread?

No, I don't. But, I remember the discussion. If you dismount your bolt action rifle for each shot, you have to re-acquire your cheek weld and sight picture which means you shoot slower, for no good reason. The "results" would be not only hitting the target, but how quickly you delivered those shots.

That's hardly a good analogy.

 

[KodiakBeer]

I'm tempted to point out the absurdity in that statement through a video holding the gun upside down and pulling the trigger with my pinky finger.

Uh yeah, knock yourself out.

 

[David E]

First you cite Cooper/Gunsite to bolster your point,

I'll have to change my grip tension for each platform. Obviously, as has been pointed out, it worked quite well with 1911's as demonstrated by Cooper and friends.

then you put them down:

That's the mistake that Cooper and friends made, assuming that their grip style was actually holding the pistol down. It wasn't.

He never said that. He only said it would keep the muzzle flip down, as in MINIMIZE it. He never said it was totally eliminated.

Then extoll them again:

I'd consider Gunsite marginally reputable.

Again, when did they suggest changing technique or execution based on caliber?

Are you one of these people who think the stance they use is the only proper one?

Nope, but it's sounding more and more like YOU are.

There are "Good" techniques, "Better" and "Superior" techniques. There are also "Crap" and "What-the-hell-it-works-good-enough-for-me" techniques. While a "Good" technique will run rings around anything lesser, that does not mean it's the best there is. For example, I shot Weaver for 17+ years (and he's still mad about it! [ba-dum-pum]) and think a properly executed Weaver beats nearly every other technique out there. But when I came to recognize some flaws in that stance/technique, I began to question it and ultimately found one that is superior to Weaver.

Kodiakbeer: Come on! Nobody has a comment or criticism on this?

If you didn't want folks to critique or comment, why did you beg for it in Post #2?

 

[BullfrogKen]

Neither Jeff Cooper nor Gunsite ever taught that loose, sloppy grip. In fact, had a student arrived shooting that way, he'd be corrected on the spot.


I've seen people limp wrist a gun before. This isn't really even limp wristing. Someone limp wristing actually has the gun gripped firmly in his hands.

This is an intentionally loose grip, and its allowing the gun to flop all around. As I said before, you can get away with it using a Hi Power with soft recoiling rounds. Attempt that with a lighter gun, and moderately powerful rounds. The gun will short stroke, especially those with shorter slides and heavier springs.

 

[easyg]

Come on! Nobody has a comment or criticism on this?

Well, okay, since you asked for it....


I didn't care much for the music selected for the video clip.
Just not my cup o'tea.

And it is true that the barrel does not return to the first shot alignment before your fired the second shot on any of the double-taps.
Frankly, it looks rather sloppy.

But it's still probably better than I could do.

 

[Six]

I come back to wanting to see it checked with a shot timer.

If it's not a significantly faster split than when using the sights - what's the point?

 

[David E]

If it's not a significantly faster split than when using the sights - what's the point?

Because most people do not believe you can see the sights at speed, much less do it.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Because most people do not believe you can see the sights at speed, much less do it.

Even when shown how the eye can pick them up and acquire a flash sight picture, most people don't want to put in the practice to do it. It takes a commitment to work on the skill and practice to accomplish it. Like anything worthwhile, it doesn't come without some effort.