Why not shoot each target twice? 2-2-2
This is a good question!
In fact, it was also one of the goals of this shooting drill: to compare single tap times to the double tap times to the triple tap times. Are double taps
really that much slower?
The target set up, suggested by another poster (favoring triple taps) who had said he'd already run it to compare his times, but he had a friend with a stopwatch. This isn't very accurate at all, so I decided to try it with a shot timer to determine specific time frames, including how long it took for the double taps and how long it took to get the first shot on #3.
I ran the single tap drill 4 times. The average time was
1.98 to get to #3.
I also ran the double tap drill 4 times. The average time to get to #3 was
2.25
Triple taps took me an average of
2.55 to get the first shot on #3
Personally, I was surprised how well I did with the triple taps, but allowing over 1/2 second for #3 to do something isn't something I want to do.
Double taps gave #3 slightly over 1/4 second, which, for me, seems to be right on the line.
But this target array was fairly spread out. The poster that had set it up previously never said which target he engaged first, so I purposely chose the slowest, most difficult target engagement sequence.
Another scenario would be when the badguys were lined up fairly close together at 4 yds instead of 7. It seems to me that it becomes even more prudent to engage each one once the closer they are. I only did this drill once with the Glock 21-SF for a total time of
.92
Double tapping them took me to
1.42 total, first shot on #3 was
1.25
When I was a cop, we had several shootings where getting the first hit was
far more important than running for cover. Of course, we had a couple where cover
was paramount. One incident started with our guy getting out of where he was, (and took hits in the back, stopped by his vest) and the subsequent exchanges took place outside without any cover available.
I think it's good to know how to do it either way, but not everyone agrees with that.