M1911a1 vs P08

That particular incident probably had nothing to do with the 1911A1's inherent accuracy, but more to do with adrenalin and excitement. If he managed to kill his opponent while all his opponent managed was to wound him in the shoulder, I'd say both shooters failed to utilize their respective weapons to their fullest potential, accuracy-wise.

 

I'm sure it was indeed that was part of the point he made in telling the story. One of the reasons I mentioned it was that another poster was talking about preferring accuracy over knockdown power. That's great if the shooter is up to placing his shots. But in combat you don't get that many hits so making each one count would seem important to me. Now having more capacity might be as or more important. There's also the fact that while I'm not a bad shot I'm not a great one either. Most any gun is not going to be the limiting factor accuracy wise when I'm shooting, smooth bore muskets and "Liberator" pistols aside.

 

I had never heard of the "double tap" being a part of the WW2 pistol training with the .45 ACP either. I suspect the original poster was referring to the newer 9mm doctrine (military and police) with the larger capacity magazines, not the old 1911A1.

 

both combatants fared far better than most US policemen in a similar encounter (both managed a hit.)

 

a double-tap aims only at one region, and it's been in vogue ever since the resurgence of the 9mm. in the day of the .38, i remember FBI agents shooting either singly or rapid fire (three shots at least.) cartridges with caliber of at least 0.4, weighing 200 grains up, don't need tricked bullets or a second shot to achieve knock-down.

it's probably the easiest shooting technique to learn but the hardest to master. the instructor just laid about paper plates at chest level in the range from distances 5 feet, 15, 50. he told me to drill each one in the middle twice. if i drill both shots too neatly, i'm too slow. if the shots are spaced far apart or miss, i'm too fast. i was using a colt .38 detective.

i haven't seen anyone as good as what marcinko says about his SEAL 6 guys can do (double tap a 3x5 inch index card at 15 meters using a revolver even!)

 

Not the technique I've read about and heard discussed by police officers. The "double tap" method included a shot to the "center of mass" (torso) AND a shot aimed at the head. The reason I've heard given to justify shooting at two different areas of a target is that the torso may be covered by body armor, If that is the case, two shots to the same area are WORTHLESS.

 

To take this post a bit off-topic here - it depends what you mean by "more widely accepted" - there are over 50 million AK's floating around world wide and it is still in production in many countries, unchanged. There have not nearly that many M16's ever made and most countries who used to use them have switched to some other weapon in 5.56 caliber. (South korea now makes its own Daewoo assault rifle, for example.) The only armies still using the m-16/M4 as first-line issue are the US and Canada (they call theirs the C7). Israel started out with a polyglot of WW2 weapons in their very early wars in in late 1940's, but eventually standarized on the FN-FAL. They then switched to M-16's for a while but it was foind to be too prone to jamming and got their own excellent AK redesign, the galil in 5.56 cal. Nowadays first line issue to combat troops is the galil and issues its M-16's mainly only to support troops, (and they just fielded a new bullpup style rifle that will supersede both these rifles). France uses the unique FAMAS "bugle" rifle, the British use their SA80, the Austrians their Steyr rifle, and so on.
Russia seems to concur with the "smaller bullet = better" theory since they switched to the AK-74 over 20 years ago - this rifle is simply a minor redesign of the AK using a smaller 5.45 mm round. But its still an AK, just in a different caliber.

 

Malaysia switched back to M16s a couple of years ago and Taiwan still uses a gas piston M4-style rifle of indigenous design. The Iraqi Special Forces were also armed with M4 rifles. Many SAS units in Common Wealth armies are still sticking to their C-7/M4s.

The Israeli Army loved their M4s. It was the first choice of its combat units until the advent of the Tavor, and it was the Galil that was relegated to second line units. It was too heavy and not as accurate. Do a photo search of the Israeli Army during the Second Intifada, Camp Jenin or the siege of Arafat's Office and you would find M4s prominently featured with fighting troops. The replacement for the M4 is the Tavor rifle, a futuristic bullpup that is said to be very good.

The history of the double tap is convoluted and predated the adoption of 9mm parabelum by NATO. It was a technique developed by Fairbairn, later of SOE fame, for Shanghai International Police's riot squad in the 1930s. This technique was used by the Royal Commandos during WW2, also trained by Fairbairn, who were armed with 1911 automatic pistols. This was probably true of the various American special operations units, but somehow the technique fall into disuse after the end of the war. US Army Special Forces' Col. Charles Beckwith, a green beret who did a stint with the SAS in Malaysia, learned the double tap and diseminated the trick to the elite anti-terrorist unit he was asked to create, the Delta Force. In Mogadishu, the Rangers who worked closely with Delta also learned to double tap, and as rangers grow old they transfer to other units and finally the double tap becomes the drill to engage targets under 25 meters in close combat.

Arround the late 90s or early 2000s, double tap was modified again into the controlled pair--two sight pictures, two trigger pulls--now used as the proper, standard drill.

 

If anyone is interested in current, state of the art techniques for close combat shooting, Paul Howe a Delta operative who was in the thick of the Battle of Mogadishu, now runs a private training center for soldiers, cops and civilians. His web page explains that he was trained to double tap at center of mass, and if it still moves he performs a failure drill which is another double tap and then a headshot. Now he advices the shooter to shoot recalcitrat targets five times in the chest and a headshot for failure drill.

 

It is my understanding that the Luger has always been a finiky weapon. It is very sensitive to dirt and all the other things that you get with field use. I have talked to several vets who all say that the luger was worth nothing more than a nice trophy. It could not be relied on in combat because it was prone to jamming and misfires. You see that the Germans were aware of this problem because they even introduced a holster that was exclusively used for the P08. It fits it like a glove so it keeps dirt out and a clean luger in. It is no doubt a beautiful weapon but when it comes down to it I would not want to have my life depending on it.

The .45 is a great weapon. It fires beautifully and has a high caliber round. I have also talked to vets about the .45 and they all say that it was a great weapon but they would not want to depend on it. It was a little more reliable than the Luger but like any other weapon it needed a lot of care and cleaning. One of the vets I talked to was a pilot and said that he traded a shop keeper in England his .45 for a privatly purchased British made revolver. He said that it was more reliable because it didnt have as many parts that could "foul" up.

 

granted that the 1911 is a better combat number and can have its action tightened to make it a better target pistol, the luger still wins in terms of sheer pointing and shooting fun. in another thread i wrote that, everytime i hold a p-08, weird thoughts come to mind; like i want to line up all my enemies in one line, stroll leisurely behind them, and place a slug into da bays ob deyr skals. sorry for that.