Aiming for Center Of Mass

[WrongHanded]

Let us imagine that an assailant is charging us with a contact weapon, at a rate of 5 meters per second (I hear that's a pretty accurate velocity), and that the charge began at a distance of around 33 feet (10 meters to stay with the metric system). That gives us 2 seconds before contact. So the threat must be stopped by then.

Now the established doctrine is that a handgun bullet can only wound by crushing the tissue directly in front of it. If we assume this is true and that no other phenomena are at play, all the bullets with do is cause tubular wounds approximately the diameter of the expanded bullet. In layman's terms, the bullets will just poke holes.

We also know or should know that poking holes like these in the heart or major blood vessels will not allow for enough leakage of blood in these 2 seconds to lower blood pressure to the point of incapacitation with any kind of reliability.

We further know that the only body parts in the thoracic cavity, which if damaged can cause immediate incapacitation, are the spine and spinal cord. We are aware that this is a rather narrow target in the horizontal plane, and that because it is at the back of the body, is less likely to be reached by a bullet with the bullet retaining the majority of its energy. In other words, the bullet may get there, but it may also be very low on both velocity and energy by this point, reducing its potency and create a question on whether it can reliably do enough damage even if a hit were made.

Yet the established doctrine is to shoot for the COM. Despite there being very little within it that if hit could cause an immediate physical stop. So why is this the recommended target? And what is expected to happen with multiple shots to this area that can cause an immediate physical stop with any reliability?

 

[Jeff White]

Your premise is flawed. Everyone knows that shooting COM at a charging attacker at that range has almost no possibility of stopping the attacker before he reaches you. That is why you move off of the line of contact. We teach shooting COM because that's where you are most likely to make hits under pressure. Shooting COM of what you can see of the target gives you the biggest area to aim at.

What is expected with multiple hits is to cause the blood pressure to rapidly drop rendering the assailant unconscious. There are only two methods to reliably stop a human being with gun shots. One is a central nervous system hit. "flipping the switch" so to speak. The designer of the human body protected the central nervous system pretty well. The odds of making a CNS hit on a charging attacker are slim, when you add that you are also moving into the mix, nearly impossible. COM on the torso gives you hits on many blood rich internal organs. The more holes you put in them the faster they lose blood. An instant incapacitation with anything but a CNS hit is nearly impossible. Sometimes other psychological factors figure into it. The key thing to know is that you cannot expect your attacker to be immediately incapacitated and you have to train to deal with the threat until it's ended.

We will not discuss, bullet construction, velocity or anything else in this thread. For the purposes of this forum, any modern cartridge .38 Special of larger is adequate for defensive use. Anyone taking this down the same path that got the last thread closed is going to get some time away from THR to reflect on the rules.

 

[JohnKSa]

So why is this the recommended target?

Because that's the best chance of making a hit and you don't win gunfights by missing.

Some things to keep in mind.

People miss in gunfights. A lot of the time, they miss a lot--usually they miss more shots than they hit.

It's hard to incapacitate someone with a handgun. Two facts to remember.

• 80% of people shot with a pistol survive.
• A wound from a typical service pistol bullet (regardless of caliber) will destroy only about 0.1% of an adult male's body.

These two facts, taken together with the reality that pistols tend to be pretty effective self-defense tools in the real world--drives us to the conclusion that a lot of the time when they are effective, it's not because they kill, or even disable an attacker--it's because the attacker lost interest in attacking due to the prospect of being killed.

So we could just carry starter pistols because it's all about deterrent value, right? No. We want something that can disable an attacker. Not every person gives up at the sight of a gun, or at the first injury, and in those cases, it's nice to be able to have a chance of actually breaking down an attacker. Even if the pistol doesn't do the entire job and it comes down to fighting with your hands, fighting with someone who has a bunch of holes in them is better than fighting with someone who's not injured.

This is a really important thing to understand because it underscores how heavily the outcome depends on the human portion of the self-defense system. If you want to succeed in the kind of self-defense scenario where the attacker is determined, it's going to be on you. Your firearm or caliber choice won't make the difference, (unless you do something really ill-advised like picking a gun/ammo combo that can't reliably penetrate enough to hit vitals or a gun/ammo combo that handicaps your ability to shoot accurately/rapidly, or a gun that is unreliable, etc.) it's going to come down to how well you can perform. And, to some extent, on luck.

That's an uncomfortable reality for a lot of people who would prefer to believe you can buy stopping power in a box of 20, or in your choice of blued or stainless steel.

 

[tazbigdog]

The issue is do you stand still and let the assailant come at you? No. Distance, cover, speed and accuracy is your friend. I’d be shooting at him to stop the threat if my rounds takes out his knee, ankle, femoral, arm, or head, then so be it. Shooting center mass will not always stop the threat.

 

[jdsingleshot]

I believe you are absolutely correct. I'll continue to do my best to not be in that situation. But if I am, I'll aim for the head. I can get off two shots in two seconds and from a gunslinger's hold I have a better than 50-50 chance of hitting the first shot and an almost certainty of hitting a second shot at half the distance.

But again, I'm not going there.

 

[shafter]

We shoot at the largest target of opportunity once justified in shooting.

Don't make the mistake of assuming distance and speed. Is there an obstacle you can put in the way? How about a door you can escape through? Is the assailant young and fast or are they massively overweight or disabled?

 

[WrongHanded]

Your premise is flawed.

It's not my premise. I'm just relaying it. And then asking why someone would choose to waste the very short and precious amount of time they have aiming at an area of the body that even if hit multiple times is unlikely to cause a physiological stop within the given window of time.

Moving out of the way certainly seems preferable. But that was not mentioned in the scenario as I heard it. Nor would someone of poor physical condition be likely to maintain the distance from their attacker by attempting to do so whilst also making accurate hits on the target. Which means for some, that despite their best efforts, they'd be caught up with very quickly and probably have fewer solid hits on target as a result.

What is expected with multiple hits is to cause the blood pressure to rapidly drop rendering the assailant unconscious. There are only two methods to reliably stop a human being with gun shots. One is a central nervous system hit. "flipping the switch" so to speak. The designer of the human body protected the central nervous system pretty well. The odds of making a CNS hit on a charging attacker are slim, when you add that you are also moving into the mix, nearly impossible. COM on the torso gives you hits on many blood rich internal organs. The more holes you put in them the faster they lose blood. An instant incapacitation with anything but a CNS hit is nearly impossible. Sometimes other psychological factors figure into it. The key thing to know is that you cannot expect your attacker to be immediately incapacitated and you have to train to deal with the threat until it's ended.

And blood loss is beneficial, so more blood loss is more beneficial? Interestingly I heard this wasn't a factor in such a scenario because of the limited amount of time until the attacker arrives at contact range. But it's good to know that actually more blood loss is still relevant even if the attacker is moving towards you at a speed 5 meters per second.

 

[Atavar]

I was taught that the initial two to center mass will cause the target to pause and assess the wounds, even if it’s just a glance, which gives you an opportunity for a more deliberate stopping shot.
Bear in mind it is probably going to be less than a 1 second opportunity.
YMMV

 

[shafter]

This is one of those topics that's really easy to overthink in training. Sure a shot to the brain or even kneecap will stop a charging person faster than a chest shot but the reality is that's a lot to ask of your brain and skills under pressure.

 

[Kleanbore]

Moving out of the way certainly seems preferable. But that was not mentioned in the scenario as I heard it.

The question was where to aim.

Of course we move off-line while drawing, and try to increase distance, We also seek concealment, and cover, if possible. We may shove a grocery cart at the attacker to slow him But that wasn't your question.

I know of no competent trainers who advise shooting a moving attacker anywhere but center mass.

And blood loss is beneficial, so more blood loss is more beneficial? Interestingly I heard this wasn't a factor in such a scenario because of the limited amount of time until the attacker arrives at contact range. But it's good to know that actually more blood loss is still relevant even if the attacker is moving towards you at a speed 5 meters per second.

Jeff referred to blood pressure, not blood loss. That has to do with vascular injury. Your trying to quibble is not helping your credibility.

And then asking why someone would choose to waste the very short and precious amount of time they have aiming at an area of the body that even if hit multiple times is unlikely to cause a physiological stop within the given window of time.

It takes less time to aim at center mass than at anywhere else on the body.

Where would you shoot a charging attacker?

A physical stop may be necessary, but as Rob Pincus has said, if you shoot into the dirt by mistake and the attacker disengages, you have exceeded. If he realizes that he has been hit and that it hurts, he may withdraw; that, too, is a win. But the physical stop my be necessary.

I would not stand one place and try to stop a moving attacker with one aimed shot. It works in screen fiction, but it is a low-return gambit in reality.

In years past, trainees were taught to shoot twice, pause, assess, and fire again if necessary. That is no longer taught.

Have you availed yourself of any really good defensive training? Not gun handling or shooting, but defensive training?

I recommend I. C.E. PDN, but I'm sure our members can make some good recommendations.

 

[wayneinFL]

Let us imagine that an assailant is charging us with a contact weapon, at a rate of 5 meters per second (I hear that's a pretty accurate velocity), and that the charge began at a distance of around 33 feet (10 meters to stay with the metric system). That gives us 2 seconds before contact. So the threat must be stopped by then.

Now the established doctrine is that a handgun bullet can only wound by crushing the tissue directly in front of it. If we assume this is true and that no other phenomena are at play, all the bullets with do is cause tubular wounds approximately the diameter of the expanded bullet. In layman's terms, the bullets will just poke holes.

We also know or should know that poking holes like these in the heart or major blood vessels will not allow for enough leakage of blood in these 2 seconds to lower blood pressure to the point of incapacitation with any kind of reliability.

We further know that the only body parts in the thoracic cavity, which if damaged can cause immediate incapacitation, are the spine and spinal cord. We are aware that this is a rather narrow target in the horizontal plane, and that because it is at the back of the body, is less likely to be reached by a bullet with the bullet retaining the majority of its energy. In other words, the bullet may get there, but it may also be very low on both velocity and energy by this point, reducing its potency and create a question on whether it can reliably do enough damage even if a hit were made.

Yet the established doctrine is to shoot for the COM. Despite there being very little within it that if hit could cause an immediate physical stop. So why is this the recommended target? And what is expected to happen with multiple shots to this area that can cause an immediate physical stop with any reliability?

"Yet the established doctrine is to shoot for the COM. Despite there being very little within it that if hit could cause an immediate physical stop. So why is this the recommended target?"

You got a better idea?

"And what is expected to happen with multiple shots to this area that can cause an immediate physical stop with any reliability?"

The immediate stop is usually going to be the guy says oh crap that hurts, and stops. There are no guarantees the attacker stops until he runs out of oxygen, you hit the central nervous system, or there's some mechanical damage like a broken bone.

 

[JohnKSa]

And then asking why someone would choose to waste the very short and precious amount of time they have aiming at an area of the body that even if hit multiple times is unlikely to cause a physiological stop within the given window of time.

You've heavily limited the scenario so that only instantaneous physiological stops count. There's no reason to believe that conclusions based on an artificially limited scenarios are likely to provide useful insight into real world scenarios. More to the point, it's almost always possible to artificially limit a scenario in such a way as to, depending on the choice of limitations imposed, make virtually any conclusion seem reasonable.

The nature of the real world is that decisions almost always involve tradeoffs. In this case, the tradeoff is between increasing the chances of a hit at the cost of decreasing the chances that a hit will be instantly physiologically incapacitating. So what does this tradeoff buy us?

• Any hit has a very good chance of a psychological stop.
  
• Any hit center of mass has a reasonable chance of a rapid physiological stop since there is CNS center of mass.
• Any hit center of mass has a good chance of an eventual physiological stop due to blood loss, but most physiological stops due to blood loss from a handgun wound aren't likely to be especially fast. Still, if the encounter continues to progress, this could become a major factor in the outcome.

The alternative is to aim at something that's much harder to hit and therefore significantly increase the chances of missing. A miss provides much less of a chance at a psychological stop and zero chance of a physiological stop.

 

[Jeff White]

I was taught that the initial two to center mass will cause the target to pause and assess the wounds, even if it’s just a glance, which gives you an opportunity for a more deliberate stopping shot.
Bear in mind it is probably going to be less than a 1 second opportunity.
YMMV

There is a good possibility the attacker won’t even realize they were shot. There is plenty of documentation from war and other gunfights where people didn’t realize they were shot until the fight was over. Adrenalin can have that effect. In the infamous 1986 FBI shootout in Miami, Platt took a hit to the heart with a 9mm Winchester Silvertip from Agent Dove’s pistol in the opening seconds of the fight. He stayed on his feet long enough to kill 3 agents.

When I started in LE we were taught to shoot two and assess and if necessary re-engage. That’s not taught anymore. Current doctrine is to shoot until the threat is ended. There are exceptions when engaging multiple assailants where you would shoot a hammer into each and then go back to the first assailant and re-engage.

 

[WrongHanded]

You've heavily limited the scenario so that only instantaneous physiological stops count.

As it was presented to me. That blood loss did not matter, and the threat was approaching at a fast rate of speed. Also where a psychological stop could not be counted on (because it never can be).

 

[WrongHanded]

Jeff referred to blood pressure, not blood loss. That has to do with vascular injury. Your trying to quibble is not helping your credibility.

Incorrect. I'll show you in bold again.

What is expected with multiple hits is to cause the blood pressure to rapidly drop rendering the assailant unconscious. There are only two methods to reliably stop a human being with gun shots. One is a central nervous system hit. "flipping the switch" so to speak. The designer of the human body protected the central nervous system pretty well. The odds of making a CNS hit on a charging attacker are slim, when you add that you are also moving into the mix, nearly impossible. COM on the torso gives you hits on many blood rich internal organs. The more holes you put in them the faster they lose blood. An instant incapacitation with anything but a CNS hit is nearly impossible. Sometimes other psychological factors figure into it. The key thing to know is that you cannot expect your attacker to be immediately incapacitated and you have to train to deal with the threat until it's ended.

It takes less time to aim at center mass than at anywhere else on the body.

Where would you shoot a charging attacker?

Which is certainly beneficial, if the hits are meaningful. But as I understood the scenario, blood loss (and therefore a drop of blood pressure) was not important because the attacker was moving to engage at too high a rate of speed to allow enough time for it to be meaningful.

Where would I shoot a charging attacker? Well that's a good question, because if blood loss doesn't matter due to the time constraint, then I just don't know. Do you?

 

[Jeff White]

Where would I shoot a charging attacker? Well that's a good question, because if blood loss doesn't matter due to the time constraint, then I just don't know. Do you?

COM every time. I’m moving at the same time I’m engaging. You can train for this. I made a charging target using an old lawn mower deck for a base with a Tactical Ted target mounted on it. It was pulled by an old climbing rope routed through a pulley staked to the ground so the trainer pulling the target was out of the line of fire. The scenario was the officer had just exited his squad car at the end of shift when an EDP with a knife attacked him. I gave the officer a laptop case to carry simulating taking his MDC into the station (we never left them in the car). He had to drop the laptop and engage the target while moving offline.

 

[Kleanbore]

As it was presented to me.

NO! Physiological stops were mentioned in the context of the discussion RE: anatomical injury, but no one would hold that they are the only means for self preservation.

That blood loss did not matter, and the threat was approaching at a fast rate of speed

It should be patently obvious, even to the lay person, that variations in the rate of blood loss would not have a material effect on a stop in a time interval of a second or a second plus.

Incorrect. I'll show you in bold again

Blood loss will be debilitating, but not instantaneously.

As John said,

Any hit center of mass has a good chance of an eventual physiological stop due to blood loss, but most physiological stops due to blood loss from a handgun wound aren't likely to be especially fast.

[Emphasis added]​

There is a lot to be learned in this thread. Trying to quibble with every point will hinder the process.

Over a dozen years ago, when I carried a .45, I labored under the misconceptions that large bullets were more effective, that "energy transfer" played a part in "knockdown power", and that a one shot stop was a reasonable expectation. And I had no idea how rapidly one might have to shoot if attacked.

The bullet-related thoughts notwithstanding, that one shot idea could have been my undoing.

A little help from the members here, some good training, and an open mind cured me.

 

[WrongHanded]

NO! Physiological stops were mentioned in the context of the discussion RE: anatomical injury, but no one would hold that they are the only means for self preservation.
It should be patently obvious, even to the lay person, that variations in the rate of blood loss would not have a material effect on a stop in a time interval of a second or a second plus.

Blood loss will be debilitating, but not instantaneously.

As John said,

[Emphasis added]​

There is a lot to be learned in this thread. Trying to quibble with every point will hinder the process.

Over a dozen years ago, when I carried a .45, I labored under the misconceptions that large bullets were more effective, that "energy transfer" played a part in "knockdown power", and that a one shot stop was a reasonable expectation. And I had no idea how rapidly one might have to shoot if attacked.

The bullet-related thoughts notwithstanding, that one shot idea could have been my undoing.

A little help from the members here, some good training, and an open mind cured me.

So wait, does blood loss actually matter or not?

Because if it doesn't matter, then what are you hoping to achieve by hitting the COM that will cause an immediate stop to the threat?

If it does matter, and you are trying to hit COM repeatedly, then more blood loss is better right?

 

[Electrod47]

I think we all need to bone up on how to avoid our own blood loss first. If somebodies coming that hard and closing fast, you be better be able to dial up some potent hand to hand before trying to quick draw for a "between the eye's" bully shot.

 

[Kleanbore]

So wait, does blood loss actually matter or not?

Because if it doesn't matter, then what are you hoping to achieve by hitting the COM that will cause an immediate stop to the threat?

If it does matter, and you are trying to hit COM repeatedly, then more blood loss is better right?

I hate to put it quite this way, but your apparent failure to even begin to comprehend the discussion makes you appear to be annoyingly argumentative.

 

[WrongHanded]

I hate to put it quite this way, but your apparent failure to even begin to comprehend the discussion makes you appear to be annoyingly argumentative.

Maybe you could just answer those three questions instead of avoiding them. Here they are again.

So wait, does blood loss actually matter or not?

Because if it doesn't matter, then what are you hoping to achieve by hitting the COM that will cause an immediate stop to the threat?

If it does matter, and you are trying to hit COM repeatedly, then more blood loss is better right?

I only ask because I want your answers.

 

[Kleanbore]

Maybe you could just answer those three questions instead of avoiding them. Here they are again.I only ask because I want your answers.

Was not John's explanation perfectly clear? It certainly was to me.

I'm reminded of that old saw about leading a horse to water.

In this case, I'm afraid that I really doubt your willingness to learn.

If my doubt is misplaced, I do not think that we can help you here.

If it is not, I suggest that you find another venue.

 

[WrongHanded]

Was not John's explanation perfectly clear? It certainly was to me.

I'm reminded of that old saw about leading a horse to water.

In this case, I'm afraid that I really doubt your willingness to learn.

If my doubt is misplaced, I do not think that we can help you here.

If it is not, I suggest that you find another venue.

The reason I'm asking is that the guy who told me blood loss was irrelevant when an attacker was charging at 5 meters per second, seemed like he thought there was not enough time for blood loss to matter. But he was also adamant (we had this conversation at least twice, but it got cut short each time) that he was still going to shoot for COM. And so I asked him what he hoped to hit in the thoracic cavity that was going to cause a faster stop than blood loss.

And wouldn't you know, he just wouldn't give me an answer. Like he didn't really know what those hits were supposed to do, but it's what he'd been told to do, so it must be the right thing. And then the thread got closed. The previous time we got to that same point in the debate, he himself closed the thread (which seemed to be an abuse of his power as a moderator to me, but that's just my opinion). Almost like he'd rather not admit that he didn't know. And all of it seemed to be because he was trying to make an argument against larger wounds. He really didn't want to concede that significantly larger wounds would cause faster blood loss, and therefore a faster drop in blood pressure, and therefore a short time to incapacitation.

So he created a strawman to try and help make his point. Then when I called him on it, he closed the thread. The next time, his buddy closed the thread.

So I'd really like to hear your answers now please.

 

[brewer12345]

Someone charging me with a knife within 10 yards and I will be trying to run away. If I can't, I am aiming for the junk/belt buckle and letting the muzzle rise as I keep firing. From range practice with rapid fire I tend to have successive shots rise if I am cranking them out. If an assailant takes it in the junk or I break their pelvis with a shot, it is likely I get several more opportunities to make sure they are out of the fight.

 

[JohnKSa]

So wait, does blood loss actually matter or not?

Obviously it certainly can matter. It's possible that it will make a rapid difference, if one gets a lucky hit, but more likely it will take some time before it results in incapacitation. Which can still be an important factor in how the scenario plays out.

Because if it doesn't matter, then what are you hoping to achieve by hitting the COM that will cause an immediate stop to the threat?

COM hits can cause immediate stops by psychological means.
COM hits can cause immediate stops by hitting the CNS (spinal cord).
COM hits can cause very rapid stops via blood loss in some circumstances.
COM hits are very likely to cause a stop, over time, via blood loss.

All of these have a probabilistic component. One doesn't know if an attacker will be predisposed to a psychological stop. Hitting the CNS on a COM shot isn't a sure thing, by any means. Getting extremely rapid blood loss on a COM shot is sort of unlikely, but possible. And it's also possible that one could thread a bullet through the COM and not hit anything vital. So luck/chance/fate is going to have a say.

If it does matter, and you are trying to hit COM repeatedly, then more blood loss is better right?

You keep trying to oversimplify this. More blood loss is better, but as is quite obvious, rapid blood loss from a handgun bullet is not a likely means of rapid/immediate incapacitation. In fact, it's the least likely way of rapidly incapacitating an attacker using a handgun.

Given that reality, placing a premium on trying to maximize blood loss is questionable unless it can be done without any negative effect on the likelihood of success from one of the other more likely/more rapid means of incapacitation.

And so I asked him what he hoped to hit in the thoracic cavity that was going to cause a faster stop than blood loss.

It's been explained how it is possible to achieve faster stops from a COM hit than from blood loss and yet you keep pretending that no one is answering your question.