Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 25

Thread: Stacking wound cavities?

  1. #1

    Stacking wound cavities?

    I have a coworker who recently had a session with a firearms instructor. One of the items in the lesson was “double-taps” and the way it was conveyed was firing a shot, then following up with the next shot during the recoil cycle causing the next round to go just a bit higher than the first but close enough to combine the two wound cavities for more damage.

    It sounds like malarkey to me and I wasn’t able to research anything discussing such a concept. So, I figured I’d ask about the concept here and if there’s any sort of validity to the concept.
    “Conspiracy theories are just spoiler alerts these days.”

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by HCountyGuy View Post
    I have a coworker who recently had a session with a firearms instructor. One of the items in the lesson was “double-taps” and the way it was conveyed was firing a shot, then following up with the next shot during the recoil cycle causing the next round to go just a bit higher than the first but close enough to combine the two wound cavities for more damage.

    It sounds like malarkey to me and I wasn’t able to research anything discussing such a concept. So, I figured I’d ask about the concept here and if there’s any sort of validity to the concept.
    ''Stacking wound cavities''—if that is the way the instructor phrased it—sounds like so much B.S. to me.

    Under the stress of a life-threatening event, the idea that anyone would possess the ability to make such precise shot placement (hitting a moving assailant with another bullet that strikes within a diameter or two of the last wound one inflicted on the assailant) is outside the bounds of reality.

    Perhaps he got the idea while shooting a 'Dot Torture'' drill?

    Shooting until the threat is neutralized is a much better way to convey the idea that I suspect that the instructor might've been going for.
    ''Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.'' ―Albert Einstein

    Full disclosure per the Pistol-Forum CoC: I am the author of Quantitative Ammunition Selection.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by HCountyGuy View Post
    I have a coworker who recently had a session with a firearms instructor. One of the items in the lesson was “double-taps” and the way it was conveyed was firing a shot, then following up with the next shot during the recoil cycle causing the next round to go just a bit higher than the first but close enough to combine the two wound cavities for more damage.

    It sounds like malarkey to me and I wasn’t able to research anything discussing such a concept. So, I figured I’d ask about the concept here and if there’s any sort of validity to the concept.
    Not a wound ballistics expert.... but it's obvious that is complete BS. By definition the recoil cycle will need to occur for you to feed a 2nd bullet into the chamber, so unless you're talking near contact distances the barrel is going to be displaced enough that the POI won't stack. What I do see a lot of times people who shoot double-taps just means their second shot is completely unsighted fire, so in theory if you have great recoil control you're going to be relatively on target though again same wound cavity seems iffy if you're talking about handguns. If you're talking about rifles with low recoil, in which case I can see that being the case at closer distances where my understanding is you're normally taught multiple rounds anyways, but then the there is still the vexing question of what the benefit of taking unsighted shots over sighted fire could possibly be for a highly competent shooter.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by the Schwartz View Post
    ''Stacking wound cavities''—if that is the way the instructor phrased it—sounds like so much B.S. to me. Under the stress of a life-threatening event, the idea that anyone would possess the ability to make such precise shot is outside the bounds of reality. Perhaps he got the idea while shooting a 'Dot Torture'' drill?

    Shooting until the threat is neutralized is a much better way to convey the idea that I suspect that the instructor might've been going for.
    How it was conveyed to me, understanding hearing it second-hand but I asked my coworker to clarify, it seems intentional his wording. I think it was more a concept of combining wound cavities due to close shot proximity. It’s supposedly an intended by-product of the “double-tap” the instructor was teaching. Which that idea itself sounded goofy and impossible to me, as far as breaking a second shot during the recoil cycle of the first shot. Though maybe something was lost in the conveyance there.
    “Conspiracy theories are just spoiler alerts these days.”

  5. #5
    Member GearFondler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Location
    Southeast Louisiana
    A skilled Stacker hits the first bullet with the second bullet to maximize penetration, expansion, and fragmentation.

    Yes, that was sarcasm.

  6. #6
    Site Supporter _JD_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Central Iowa
    So can yall just not shoot or what?

    Double tap?
    Controlled pairs?
    Hammer...


    While the stacked damage aspect is off, the practice or capability is a thing.


    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by HCountyGuy View Post
    How it was conveyed to me, understanding hearing it second-hand but I asked my coworker to clarify, it seems intentional his wording. I think it was more a concept of combining wound cavities due to close shot proximity. It’s supposedly an intended by-product of the “double-tap” the instructor was teaching. Which that idea itself sounded goofy and impossible to me, as far as breaking a second shot during the recoil cycle of the first shot. Though maybe something was lost in the conveyance there.
    Understood.

    The idea of being able to reliably and intentionally combine/overlap successive wound cavities on an assailant during a gun fight is ridiculous on its face.

    That an instructor would say something like this to a client simply reinforces—at least to me—the need to properly vet any instructor before laying down any hard-earned cash.
    Last edited by the Schwartz; 11-18-2020 at 02:30 PM.
    ''Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.'' ―Albert Einstein

    Full disclosure per the Pistol-Forum CoC: I am the author of Quantitative Ammunition Selection.

  8. #8
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Southern NV
    Just remember there is a fine line between "stacking" and "keyholing" and we all know "keyholing" will result in a pass-through...

    (Sorry, I know snark/making fun of other members is frowned upon in the tech forums, but I couldn't resist)

  9. #9
    I shoot USPSA and IDPA where double taps, whether hammers or controlled pairs, are pretty much standard.
    Even a good shot with high A count is distributing his hits pretty much at random. Target one might have two holes so close you can cover them with one paster, target two might have two holes on opposite sides of the A zone. Score is the same. I think it would be on a live enemy, too.

    Maybe that instructor is a class above Grand Master.
    Code Name: JET STREAM

  10. #10
    I think he was just inartfully expressing that the second round through the exact same hole doesn't impart as much trauma as a round adjacent to the first round. Which be true theorectically as the wound cavity is already there.

    Problem with that line of thought is that the pistol is probably at a minutely different angle, the human target has probably moved a fraction, so even if the bullet enters in the same hole 'area' it is likely to create a different wound track.

    That being said, as was often said to me at courses when I was admiring a nice hole ate in the middle of the target - if your grouping that tight perhaps you are shooting too slow.

    My likely inartfull thought to those admonitions was if I'm shooting those groups in at the cadence of the other shooters, and their groups are bigger, who is more likely to be missing at the speed of life.

    I want them as tight as possible, understanding that to achieve any gain, you are going to have to press yourself and groups will open up, and shrink, and open as you press further, and so on.

    JMO

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •