FBI; Shot placement is everything in a gunfight

[Warp]

I think it's a crap shoot. If you are both moving , you will be lucky to hit the other guy or guys without being shot yourself. You take what you can get, and hope they get panicked enough to leave.
Unless you are a real gunfighter who can hit a melon sized object while running for cover.

I'm a bit confused at what point you are trying to convey here.

What is a crap shoot?

 

[Fred Fuller]

What is a crap shoot?

A roll of the dice ... a moving shooter who is shooting at a moving target while being shot at in return is as close to a crap shoot as I can imagine.

 

[Warp]

What is a crap shoot?

A roll of the dice ... a moving shooter who is shooting at a moving target while being shot at in return is as close to a crap shoot as I can imagine.

I mean that I don't get what he is saying.

Is he saying that shot placement is not something to worry about, consider, or train for, because it's all going to just be luck no matter what anyway?

 

[JustinJ]

So you described how you could get lucky and happen upon a shot placement that works better than what you aimed at.

Yes.

I have always liked the saying that the definition of insanity is repeating the same thing and expecting a different result.

Because the first center mass hits didn't work the "sane" option is to try shoot something which you are far more likely to miss? It is absolutely possible to hit the chest without causing enough damage to rapidly incapacitate. The more time's its hit, the more likely such damage will be inflicted.

That saying, btw, implies conscious choice which again, is highly improbable during the split seconds of a gun fight.

 

[Warp]

Yes.



Because the first center mass hits didn't work the "sane" option is to try shoot something which you are far more likely to miss? It is absolutely possible to hit the chest without causing enough damage to rapidly incapacitate. The more time's its hit, the more likely such damage will be inflicted.

That saying, btw, implies conscious choice which again, is highly improbable during the split seconds of a gun fight.

So you aren't consciously choosing to aim COM?

 

[JustinJ]

So you aren't consciously choosing to aim COM?

Of course. The difference is that said conscious decision is made in advance of any potential gun fight. Such is entirely different from making choices mid gun fight.

If one aims at the sternum, being off by up to 12 inches or more can still be highly effective. If one misses high, the attacker's neck or head may get hit. If one misses to the right or left, depending on which is the attacker's strong side, use of the weapon hand can be impeded. If one misses low, the potential exists to hit major arteries, to hit the liver or or inflict an extremely painful gut shot. The point is that center mass is not the primary target just because of the tissues that exist in the area. Its also the largest target so even if a physically disabling wound is not inflicted a very good chance exists that the psychological impact of being hit at all will cause the attacker to flee. Obviously one should not rely on such to occur but aiming center mass is the wise choice for far more than just shot placement.

 

[Warp]

Of course. The difference is that said conscious decision is made in advance of any potential gun fight. Such is entirely different from making choices mid gun fight.

If one aims at the sternum, being off by up to 12 inches or more can still be highly effective. If one misses high, the attacker's neck or head may get hit. If one misses to the right or left, depending on which is the attacker's strong side, use of the weapon hand can be impeded. If one misses low, the potential exists to hit major arteries, to hit the liver or or inflict an extremely painful gut shot. The point is that center mass is not the primary target just because of the tissues that exist in the area. Its also the largest target so even if a physically disabling wound is not inflicted a very good chance exists that the psychological impact of being hit at all will cause the attacker to flee. Obviously one should not rely on such to occur but aiming center mass is the wise choice for far more than just shot placement.

Missing when aiming for the pelvis has at least as much leeway for still hitting them.

 

[JustinJ]

Missing when aiming for the pelvis has at least as much leeway for still hitting them.

If you're attacked by a little person, maybe. If you miss to the sides you hit nothing. If you hit low you might disable a leg. If you hit 12" high you might hit the bottom of a lung. And if you hit the mark nothing in the pelvis will cause extremely rapid physiological incapacitation. Of course, there is one thing in the area that will likely cause an extreme psychological reaction.

 

[Warp]

If you're attacked by a little person, maybe. If you miss to the sides you hit nothing. If you hit low you might disable a leg. If you hit 12" high you might hit the bottom of a lung. And if you hit the mark nothing in the pelvis will cause extremely rapid physiological incapacitation. Of course, there is one thing in the area that will likely cause an extreme psychological reaction.

There is just as much leeway for 'misses' hitting the threat when shooting for the pelvis as COM.

If you don't want to ever consider an alternative target, COM or nothing, that's fine. That's your choice. But it's not a smaller target. Hell, the pelvic region is actually closer to a person's center off mass than their mid/upper torso is. What most people call COM isn't, it's just center of torso.

 

[Hugo]

Hard to tell really why the bullets were "out of spec in performance". Bad batch of powder reduced the speed of the bullets? Weird gusty headwind slowed them down? Thick clothing like a neck scarf by the perpetrator? Just a Fluke?

Even modern bullets are not 100% reliable. Another thing TV and movies get very wrong. That seems to be why people carry more than one magazine and revolvers are less popular.

 

[strambo]

The problem with the pelvis is that putting a hole in the living bone of the pelvic girdle...will just put a hole in it. It can still fully support their weight. The dry and brittle bone of a cadaver would probably crack.

They may fall, but if they did, it most likely wouldn't be due to structural reasons, but psychological..."Owie!"

I wish I had a link to my source, but the info came from an article written by an MD on the topic of pelvic shots.

This is 3 dimensional; shot placement only matters if the bullet can also penetrate enough to hit something vital. So, shot placement is key, but it is shot placement inside the body (or wound channel placement) not surface placement that matters.

 

[Spats McGee]

Well, I finally got around to reading the report. I can't help but be struck by the fact that the assailant had a couple of tattoos:
1) That which doesn't kill you makes you stronger. -- (Well, the shootout didn't make him stronger.)
2) Live by the gun, die by the gun. -- (Yeah, I guess he was right.)

 

[george burns]

In a real gunfight if you aren't moving you are obviously dead or about to be. Shooting while running, not just moving, but running as fast as possible , for cover, you will be lucky to hit the guy 1 out of 4 times you try. Don't forget he is probably doing the same thing, or they. Just try to get the front sight on the target and fire mid body. You are not just going forward, but up and down also, so it'd hard to shoot with 2 opposite forces going forward , side to side and up and down all at the same time.
Plus you want your bullet to go where he's going to be, not where he is. This just takes a carload of practice, unless you are just naturally gifted with eye hand coordination.
Once you stop running you can place your shots better, but you never see a sniper running and gunning, it is a different ball game when your target is evading you.

 

[peacebutready]

I remember this case from a long time ago. I think something was missed: The shots that only penetrated 1" first went through the glass or metal of the car. I'm curious of how the .40 with truncated cone ammo or a .357 with SWC ammo would have done.

Off Topic: This case is especially troubling. The criminal ambushed the police for the purpose of shooting at them. There weren't any other reasons. He wasn't trying to escape or get away from a crime. The criminal was 18 y.o. A person of that age is still in late adolescence according to anthropologists, sociologists, and psychologists.

Does anyone know the background of the criminal?

 

[Mikhail Weiss]

The first time I read this story it was presented as a case of rounds failing to do their job because they had first penetrated various parts of a car.

Looking at the .pdf, I see no clear indication that the villain was in a car (which photos were supplied in the earlier-referenced piece). Though another case involving another shooter, in a car, is referenced, I see no clear mention, this time, that the dead villain had initiated his attack from inside a car. Anyone else remember that information?

[edit] I just noticed peacebutready's information. Thanks.