How would you really engage multiple targets?

[Shane45 807]

I am not trying to pick on any discipline or type of competition. I am merely opening the the topic for some discussion and ideas. Here are my thoughts. Although its nice to think we are all the Sundance Kid or Doc Holiday, I have some real concerns that you would be able to engage multiple armed targets with anything more than a single shot. I shoot IDPA mostly. Although I enjoy the competition aspect of it, my real motivation is to use it as a bit of training/practice. However, I notice MANY stages are 2 or 3 shots per target. Well... I have done some observations on human reaction times. Its my belief that you would be VERY hard pressed to get 1 shot on multiple targets let alone 2 or 3! I may not be the most accurate shot in the room but I do believe Im pretty quick. I do not believe I could get 2 or 3 shots on 2 targets before the third guy puts one in my brain bucket! So if I was faced with a multiple armed threat of 2 or 3 bad guys, I believe I would engage a single shot on each target and then re-engage. If they both have a shot in them then at least I hope it will negatively impact their ability to return fire. I am speaking of a mutually aware scenario. If I had the element of suprise, I might go for multiple shots on 2 bad guys but not 3.

[Krdshrk 3,877]

Good point. Last IDPA match they had some single shot target engagement stages. I personally would take multiple shots with a pistol, in case I miss or fail to stop the threat. With a shotgun I'd shoot a single shot, as there is a much greater chance of stopping the threat.

[Shane45 807]

I dont mean to pick on IDPA specifically. I have had this conversation with trainers from various shoot schools as well. There are some varying schools of thought on this for sure.

[vjf915 456]

Closest target first, as you stated one shot per target then re-engage with who appears to be closest to a threat. But there are so many factors that play into it that it's a hard scenario to play out. I think the most important thing is to start with the closest threat, and work your way out. If you are good enough that you can double tap quickly and accurately, then do it.

[Krdshrk 3,877]

Closest target first, as you stated one shot per target then re-engage with who appears to be closest to a threat. But there are so many factors that play into it that it's a hard scenario to play out. I think the most important thing is to start with the closest threat, and work your way out. If you are good enough that you can double tap quickly and accurately, then do it.

 

But what if the closest target is less of a threat? Closest target has a screwdriver while the furthest target has a gun?

[NJ609 22]

But what if the closest target is less of a threat? Closest target has a screwdriver while the furthest target has a gun?

 

Depends how close. Just because there is no gun doesn't mean a close target is not a huge threat. What if they take you down in the *instant* you acquire and fire on the distant target? Then you are just as screwed.

[Malsua 1,422]

Better question...why would you engage multiple targets?

 

Shootouts NEVER EVER happen like a police simulation with Mugsy the robber popping out from behind a wall or any shooting event. They are dynamic, fast and totally by surprise. They are almost always over within 10 seconds. Threat, shoot, cover, done. The only thing you can hope for is that training kicks in and your shots hit.

 

I read other places and it always cracks me up when someone mentions engaging at 200+ yards. Why the hell would you do that???? If someone is that far away, LEAVE!! This doesn't apply to military maneuvers obviously but if and when you engage multiple targets you need to do so with 3-1 fire superiority. If you can't bring that to bear you're outgunned.

[67gtonut 847]

you have seen/heard the reports of shootouts...... 30 shots fired, suspect hit 2x... etc....etc...

 

Adrenalin causes a lot of bad shots..... thats were training comes in.

 

That guy with the screwdriver that is 10ft away is a greater threat then the guy with a gun 30ft away.... Good chance the guy with the gun is gonna miss, while the guy with the screwdriver is going to be on top of you in seconds.....

 

In less then a second.... 2 shots into screwdriver guy, and then go for "gun" guy....

[Krdshrk 3,877]

you have seen/heard the reports of shootouts...... 30 shots fired, suspect hit 2x... etc....etc...

 

Adrenalin causes a lot of bad shots..... thats were training comes in.

 

That guy with the screwdriver that is 10ft away is a greater threat then the guy with a gun 30ft away.... Good chance the guy with the gun is gonna miss, while the guy with the screwdriver is going to be on top of you in seconds.....

 

In less then a second.... 2 shots into screwdriver guy, and then go for "gun" guy....

 

I didn't quote a specific scenario but just wanted to say - the closest guy may not always be the greatest threat. If say screwdriver guy was at 20 feet, and gun guy was at 25, I would probably go for gun guy first.

[axeman_g 128]

"Wh-wh-when confronted by superior numbers, the experienced gunfighter will fire on the best shots first."

 

"Little Bill told me that. You killed him first, didn't you?"

 

"I was lucky in the order. I always been lucky killin'folks."

 

Shane I think you are on it. I would want all my targets incapacitated, injured or distractred ASAP. Then around the horn again.

[tommy3rd 132]

That's where a full auto pistol with 20 rounds would come in handy. Lol

[Old School 611]

Situational awareness is your best friend period!

[Krdshrk 3,877]

That's where a full auto pistol with 20 rounds would come in handy. Lol

 

Full auto means you just miss faster.

[usnmars 136]

Look up Alvin York, one of the biggest bada$$es in US military history. He personally captured over 125 Germans in WWI, all by himself with nothing but a 1911 and a 1903 Springfield at one time. At one point 7 Germans began to charge him from a trench. He started with the furthest one first. According to him, that way they 1) thought he was missing as he was firing and 2) didn't bunch up on him. As he fired, the guy didn't know that the guy behind him just bit the bullet. According to him, he was afraid if he took out the first guy, the guys behind him would group up and coordinate.

 

A little side note, when York was bringing his prisoners to the American lines the Americans almost called in artillery on them because they thought it was a counter attack. I highly recommend reading his diary from WWI it really puts the word "Hero" into a whole different meaning

[vjf915 456]

I didn't quote a specific scenario but just wanted to say - the closest guy may not always be the greatest threat. If say screwdriver guy was at 20 feet, and gun guy was at 25, I would probably go for gun guy first.

20 feet away is actually considered close enough to be posed as a "threat" when someone has a knife/screwdriver or whatever it may be. Even if there was ONE target 20 feet away with a knife, you can bet your a** I will be brandishing my firearm and taking aim.

 

One more thing to mention, just so everyone can keep this in mind. You have a higher chance of being assaulted when being robbed by one person than you do when being robbed by two. When criminals go in groups, even two....their entire motive is money. They are also much less afraid of the victim fighting back since they know they outnumber the victim. When someone tries to rob/mug someone alone, they are more afraid of the victim fighting back and are pretty jittery and act a lot more impulsively, and there is a greater chance that they have some sort of mental problem. In a way, you have an advantage when there are two.

[Caine 147]

I didn't quote a specific scenario but just wanted to say - the closest guy may not always be the greatest threat. If say screwdriver guy was at 20 feet, and gun guy was at 25, I would probably go for gun guy first.

Look up the "Tueller drill". I'm with Troy on this one - screwdriver guy gets at least one shot first while I'm moving off the line before engaging pistol guy.

 

To answer the OP, I would say in an ideal world, each threat should get one shot before re-engaging the threats again. That said, I would imagine having the presence of mind to not unload your entire magazine into the first threat would take lots and lots of practice. That's why we train I guess

[Babaganoosh 192]

I think without a lot of training and the whole thing happening so quickly I would engage closest to furthest. If I close my eyes and visualize it I see myself letting off 2 to 3 rounds per bad guy then reasessing and firing again.

[Shane45 807]

All scenarios have a dynamic element. All will require split second analysis. Its a high demand for sure. Which is the very reason I opened this discusion. What you do in training is what you will do during an adrenaline dump engagement. Which is why I have some concern about the repetition of 2 or 3 shots per target.

 

A couple responses to some coments. Indeed I do not constrain these thoughts to self defence. In my eyes a combative situation has little difference so these discussions can certainly incude the battlefield in the context of a cqb engagement understanding that in military context there will likely be some noteworthy differences.

 

I suspect the screw driver guy will run once I shoot his buddy In that given scenario I would personally engage the shooter first. I see the shooter as the greater threat. The only thing that would change that is if the screwdriver guy charged.

 

vj, I think this is dated thinking. The rise of the suburban gangs(and even wannabe gangs) and a very sharp increase in incidents were the victim has complied and is still assaulted or killed has LE sure that many of these incidents are an "initiation". It has been my own personal experience having been in a few scraps that the group is the greater threat due to things like bravado, one upmanship and mob mentality.

 

Situational awareness and threat level anaylysis, always essential!

 

Great discussion so far

[bulpup 98]

I remember an Ayoob article that pointed out manuever and its importance in engagimg multiple targets. His contention was that in that kind of engaement you should be moving, and your movent should try to have the closer guy mask the further guy.

So to use the example here ( and I assume "screwdriver guy" and "gun guy" are in a field of sorts where there is nothing to hide behind) would be that you would move sideways until gun guy's line of sight is blocked by screwdriver guy.

 

This seems like a plausable tactic in many instances, even hand to hand.

[Shane45 807]

I remember that article and believe it to have merit!

[Old School 611]

I haven't heard one word about retreating and taking cover.

 

Everyone has their own situational senario. I live in a bilevel. I know where my threats would occur.

 

I know where my retreat and take cover points are. In my situation the threats would have to funnel into

 

the safe area. This would cause the threats to be "fish in a barrel".

 

This is more complicated based on the location of your loved ones relative to the threats.

 

Being that it is only my wife and I and a few dogs, my senario is a little simpler.

 

I'm making the GROSS assumption that this is an in home senario, being that NJ is a non CCW state and all the distances that have been discussed are relatively short.

[Shane45 807]

I know I didnt articulate this but my thoughts were more along the lines of loaction independant, all players at the table know its go time. I know this is simplistic and ignores legions of other factors. Its only meant to par down the discussion to how you would actually engage the targets, 2 on 1 and next or 1 per and scan for which one remains a threat, or one per and back to the begining for another strafing run

 

edited to add: My concern is that the constant repitition of matches that feed you a steady diet of 2 per may in fact cause an issue for you in making a dynamic decision. However, if 2 per is truly the best way, then the point becomes moot.

[vjf915 456]

vj, I think this is dated thinking. The rise of the suburban gangs(and even wannabe gangs) and a very sharp increase in incidents were the victim has complied and is still assaulted or killed has LE sure that many of these incidents are an "initiation". It has been my own personal experience having been in a few scraps that the group is the greater threat due to things like bravado, one upmanship and mob mentality.

This is a VERY good point. I was not trying to play down the threat of two attackers. One attacker with a knife should be taken just as seriously as five with guns.

I remember an Ayoob article that pointed out manuever and its importance in engagimg multiple targets. His contention was that in that kind of engaement you should be moving, and your movent should try to have the closer guy mask the further guy.

So to use the example here ( and I assume "screwdriver guy" and "gun guy" are in a field of sorts where there is nothing to hide behind) would be that you would move sideways until gun guy's line of sight is blocked by screwdriver guy.

 

This seems like a plausable tactic in many instances, even hand to hand.

I think that this tactic has TWO advantages. The first advantage being that it makes it harder for the farther attacker to hit you....second, it makes it easier on you to acquire the farther attacker once you drop the closer one.

[Babaganoosh 192]

Personally I think that anyone who shoots on a semi regular basis would have an extreme advantage over your common street urchin. Now take someone who shoots any sort of competitions and you probably double that advantage. One on one and one on two I think the experienced person will easily prevail in most situations. Add a third bad guy and I think you start running into problems. Most of these tards who end up in your house prob couldn't hit the broad side of a barn if it came down to it. Then again theres always the "oh sh#$" factor. A jam. Safety still on. They had the element of surprise on their side. Many, many variables that could screw you.

[Old School 611]

I know I didnt articulate this but my thoughts were more along the lines of loaction independant, all players at the table know its go time. I know this is simplistic and ignores legions of other factors. Its only meant to par down the discussion to how you would actually engage the targets, 2 on 1 and next or 1 per and scan for which one remains a threat, or per per and back to the begining for another strafing run

 

 

Like another poster alluded to... It is my intention to control and modify the situation to obtain an advantage.

 

IDPA and USPSA are, I agree, just games. So which shot do you take first? The greatest threat while you are taking cover.

 

Now here is a better question. At 10-20 feet are you going to raise the weapon and take a site picture? Let's throw that into the mix. Again my threat is in a 4 foot wide hallway.

[Ray Ray 3,566]

Damn, good topic. Point shooting FTW!

[MedicYeti 96]

I'm a fan of the theory that you shoot everyone once before giving out seconds.

[Old School 611]

I'm a fan of the theory that you shoot everyone once before giving out seconds.

 

 

Is that the official paramedic position? Drumming up more business?...

[axeman_g 128]

the problem with forums is that most people are just more verbose then I am.

 

I think all the ideas here are good and per the situation, would have merit. I discussed this topic with an ex-marine scout that has been there, I work with this gentleman, and he called it the "cunniglingus" approach. Back to front, repeat as needed.

[Shane45 807]

Old School, I would need to know what you are calling a sight picture. Do you mean an aimed shot or a flash picture of the front sight?

 

Babaganoosh, depends on the street urchin. There was a study done on why the perps were consistantly outshooting officers and getting much much higher hit ratios the the LEO's they were in shootouts with. The theory was that the perps were gang related and all much more indoctrinated to shootouts and were able to perform better as a result. Now if the urchins were of the thug variety, I would be inclined to agree with you. The problem is you just never know what skill level lurks in the hands of the other guy . So the short answer is be as prepared as you can but hope for a little luck