Ignorance behind "Shot placement is key" fallacy.

[strambo]

I train to aim for the heart and use clothed 3D targets, but I'm sure I'm the minority. The heart is only slightly offset to the left, it does straddle the midline of the body. So, for a perfect frontal torso, aiming centered horizontally and vertically center sternum (just above the nipple line) will hit the heart. Many human type targets with a high chest vital area have the heart in about the center of the aiming point.

My favorite non-3D targets are photo realistic ones with a faint outline of the organs that you can't see more than a few feet away so you are just shooting a photo-realistic armed, clothed person. They make them posed at different angles, so this is a cheap and easy way to practice hitting vital organs (heart and midbrain) at various angles.

I'm talking about rapid shooting a couple bullets a second also, not taking careful deliberate aim at a bullseye. Flash front sight and fast trigger press straight back, follow through/reset/repeat.

 

[45_auto]

It should not be dismissed how much volume of damage done contributes to such stops.

Do you have any links to research on volume of damage versus the time that it takes someone to stop their aggression, or do you just believe that bigger bullets are better no matter where they hit?

 

[JDGray]

I guess it depends where the 10 ring is on the target....

 

[CraigC]

Small holes in the right place sometimes work and big holes in the right place sometimes fail. Small holes in the wrong place sometimes work and big holes in the wrong place sometimes fail. Sometimes multiple smaller holes work better than a single big hole. Sometimes the opposite is true. IMHO, generally speaking, bigger holes are 'usually' a better gamble than smaller holes. Unless you can accurately predict the future, the only other generalization that can be made is that generalizations are generally a bad idea.

What grates on my nerves is the "shot placement is everything" in discussions about cartridge choice. It should be rather stupidly obvious that proper shot placement is a given.

All proof that only simpletons believe that terminal ballistics can be quantified, solved or predicted with a mathematical formula.

 

[Sergei Mosin]

There is a quote from Jackie Fisher, Admiral of the Fleet and father of the battle cruiser, among his sins, which, although on the subject of naval gunnery, is apropos here:

"Hitting with heavy guns is a subject to which I have given some attention... Hit first, hit hard, and keep on hitting is what we have to do if we want to win. Strategy and tactics count for nothing if we cannot hit ; the only object of a man-of-war is to hit."

"Hit first, hit hard, and keep on hitting." At Jutland HMS LION was hit fourteen times and returned home in a damaged state; her near-sister HMS QUEEN MARY was hit four times and exploded. Shot placement? Sure. But the German gunners weren't aiming for turrets or magazines; they were aiming for the ship, and precisely where the rounds hit was down to chance.

In the same way, none of us are good enough to hit a specific spot on an opponent the first time, every time. The best we can hope for is to make hits on an opponent's center mass; chance, probability, or whatever you want to call it will dictate precisely where and what structures are struck.

Does shot placement matter? Absolutely. Can we control it? Only to a very limited extent. The best we can do is "Hit first, hit hard, and keep on hitting." Get the first hit - make good, solid hits - and continue making those hits until your opponent is out of the fight. The rest of it is just angels dancing on the heads of a pin.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Frank Ettin writes:

Some insight into wound physiology and "stopping power":

Dr. V. J. M. DiMaio (DiMaio, V. J. M., M. D., Gunshot Wounds, Elsevier Science Publishing Company, 1987, pg. 42, as quoted in In Defense of Self and Others..., Patrick, Urey W. and Hall, John C., Carolina Academic Press, 2010, pg. 83, emphasis added)

The book, In Defense of Self and Others..., presents a complete reprint of Patrick's "Handgun Wound Factors and Effectiveness" paper that he wrote when he was with the FBI.

Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness is available here - http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf

 

[fiftybmg]

This discussion has been re-hashed many times. I repeat what made the most sense to me.

"Stopping" an attacker comes down to one of two things :

1. central nervous system incapacitation
2. loss of blood pressure

The idea is to cause one of those two as quickly as possible.

There are infinite scenarios between a few small holes and many big holes, but unless at least one of the two above points are satisfied before harm is done to you, "stopping" cannot be said to have occurred.

 

[TestPilot]

One mechanism is psychological. This was alluded to by both Ellifritz and FBI agent and firearms instructor Urey Patrick. Sometimes the mere fact of being shot will cause someone to stop. When this is the stopping mechanism, the cartridge used really doesn't matter. One stops because his mind tells him to because he's been shot, not because of the amount of damage the wound has done to his body.

To claim all ammo has equal capacity to cause a psychological surrender appears bogus to me.

 

[TestPilot]

By fiftybmg:
This discussion has been re-hashed many times. I repeat what made the most sense to me.

"Stopping" an attacker comes down to one of two things :

1. central nervous system incapacitation
2. loss of blood pressure

The idea is to cause one of those two as quickly as possible.

There are infinite scenarios between a few small holes and many big holes, but unless at least one of the two above points are satisfied before harm is done to you, "stopping" cannot be said to have occurred.

This is obviously false because not only did instant stops that does not involve CNS hit nor blood loss induced unconsciousness occurred countless times, it takes up majority of the case of stops.

 

[skoro]

Yeah, well...

Count me as another who says shot placement is the single most important factor. Then comes penetration. If you get expansion, that's nice. And generally, larger caliber is preferable to smaller. But then, in a critical incident, you use what you have.

 

[Nom de Forum]

There is a quote from Jackie Fisher, Admiral of the Fleet and father of the battle cruiser, among his sins, which, although on the subject of naval gunnery, is apropos here:

"Hitting with heavy guns is a subject to which I have given some attention... Hit first, hit hard, and keep on hitting is what we have to do if we want to win. Strategy and tactics count for nothing if we cannot hit ; the only object of a man-of-war is to hit."

"Hit first, hit hard, and keep on hitting." At Jutland HMS LION was hit fourteen times and returned home in a damaged state; her near-sister HMS QUEEN MARY was hit four times and exploded. Shot placement? Sure. But the German gunners weren't aiming for turrets or magazines; they were aiming for the ship, and precisely where the rounds hit was down to chance.

In the same way, none of us are good enough to hit a specific spot on an opponent the first time, every time. The best we can hope for is to make hits on an opponent's center mass; chance, probability, or whatever you want to call it will dictate precisely where and what structures are struck.

Does shot placement matter? Absolutely. Can we control it? Only to a very limited extent. The best we can do is "Hit first, hit hard, and keep on hitting." Get the first hit - make good, solid hits - and continue making those hits until your opponent is out of the fight. The rest of it is just angels dancing on the heads of a pin.

If I recall the events of the Battle of Jutland correctly, I don’t think Admiral Fisher’s philosophy is necessarily something that should be adopted as a succinct summation of what to do in a gun fight, regardless of whether the guns are 15” Naval Guns or .45” and smaller handguns.

A few things to consider:

You don’t want to discount the need for protection from incoming rounds from an equally armed opponent. Fisher failed to understand his faster but lesser armored Battlecruisers would eventually be engaging Battleships either by being caught within range or their Captains deliberately engaging enemy Battleships. For a pistol gunfight you don’t want to assume you are going to be doing all the hitting and none of the getting hit.

You don’t want to practice gunfighting techniques that in a real gunfight make you extremely vulnerable to catastrophe. The long tradition of the Royal Navy striving to be the fastest at firing and rate of fire was continued under Fisher with the result that efforts to do so cause catastrophe. At Jutland many of the R.N. ships were destroyed because, in an effort to improve firing speed, ammunition was stored open and near the guns and safety systems such as closing hatches bypassed. Incoming German shells detonated the Royal Navy’s ammunition causing catastrophic explosions. For a pistol gunfight this means you keep moving and take cover if you can instead of standing still in the open blasting away and reloading like an target shooter.

You don’t want to have ammunition that fails to penetrate sufficiently like the Royal Navy’s naval guns often did when striking the enemy. Sufficient projectile penetration is the most important performance standard, not expansion or in the Royal Navy’s situation fragile explosive shells detonating on the exterior of the enemy ship. For a pistol gunfight this means you don’t show-up using expanding bullets that have insufficient penetration, better a over-penetrating FMJ than an shallow penetrating, fragmenting MagSafe/Glasser.

Firing fast hits is fine, firing decisively accurate hits is final. The Germans were more accurate with deeper penetrating projectiles than the Royal Navy. The Germans won the gunfight at the Battle of Jutland even if they ultimately lost the War. One hit to the heart or CNS from a .380 is better than 8 hits scattered about the body from a .45 that miss the heart and CNS, especially when there are still 6 more .380 rounds left to shoot.

 

[TarDevil]

One mechanism is psychological. This was alluded to by both Ellifritz and FBI agent and firearms instructor Urey Patrick. Sometimes the mere fact of being shot will cause someone to stop. When this is the stopping mechanism, the cartridge used really doesn't matter. One stops because his mind tells him to because he's been shot, not because of the amount of damage the wound has done to his body.

Tim McCarthy dropped like a rock after taking a .22 LR in the abdomen while protecting Ronald Reagan.

Not a criticism... he willingly took that round for Reagan. Just an emphatic display of the psychological effect of being shot.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Yeah, well...

Count me as another who says shot placement is the single most important factor. Then comes penetration....

You can't have shot placement without penetration. Sufficient penetration is an inherent component of good shot placement. If your MagSafe/Glasser/SuperBullet blows-up on the musculature and ribs before striking the heart it is not going to be a very effective hit. If your poorly designed hollowpoint fails to penetrate commonly occurring cover in gunfights, shot placement is irrelevant.

 

[strambo]

You can't have shot placement without penetration. Sufficient penetration is an inherent component of good shot placement. If your MagSafe/Glasser/SuperBullet blows-up on the musculature and ribs before striking the heart it is not going to be a very effective hit. If your poorly designed hollowpoint fails to penetrate commonly occurring cover in gunfights, shot placement is irrelevant.

Yes-great point! This is 3D not 2D. 2D shot placement is irrelevant. If a person is turned 1/4, a perfect 2D high center chest hit will miss the heart set deep inside the body. Similarly, just because your perfectly centered shot on the 2D photo target w/anatomy shows a hole in the spine...that doesn't mean an actual pistol bullet of whatever caliber would have travelled through 8-12" of meat and bone and actually hit and damaged the spine all the way in the back. Maybe it would have, maybe it would have deflected off course (or not been on a 3D intersection course at all), maybe it would have stopped shy.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Another discussion on this forum addressed this same topic, indirectly. Here's a link. http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=9845687#post9845687

Within that discussion there is a link (at post #59) to an interview with Bob Stauch, a Chicago PD tactical squad leader (their equivalent of SWAT), who has been in a many shootouts. pblanc a member here, posted the link and made the following comment:

The interview is rather long but worth listening to. Toward the beginning Stasch recounts his first gunfight in which his partner was attacked by a drug dealer with a knife. His partner fired 6 shots of .45 Long Colt at point blank range into the attackers front chest without effect. In the ensuing struggle the partner of Stasch got to his backup gun, a J frame Smith snub, and fired 5 shots of Federal 158 gr 38 Sp + P hollow points into the attackers back between the shoulder blades, with no effect. Stasch then arrived and opened fire with his S&W Model 29 .44 Magnum loaded with 240 gr semi-jacket lead flat-nosed at the attacker, scoring 2 upper thorax hits at a range of 12-15 feet without effect.

Suspecting the attacker was wearing body armor (he wasn't) Stasch shifted fire to his pelvic area but hit low, scoring one hit in the thigh and finally ending the fight when his last shot shattered the attacker's kneecap and took him down. After receiving 15 close range gunshot wounds, with 13 thoracic hits delivered at point blank or close range, the attacker survived for 10 days.

Based on that experience, Stasch and his partner started training to take head shots. In his 14 gunfights Stasch experienced a one-shot stop event only one time, that at a range of 4-5 inches.

Here's a link to the interview. It's quite good: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/02/17/interview-bob-stasch-chicago-pd-veteran-14-gunfights/

It's a very interesting interview. Even CENTER MASS shots didn't stop THAT guy. Stasch now spends his time at the range, shooting at 6" targets (paper plates) and tries ONLY for head shots when facing a bad guy. He tried the "bleed out" approach and found it wanting. Six 45 Long Colt, center mass hits, 5 +P .38 special hits, and several .44 magnum hits within 10-15 feet, including two in the bad guy's thorax. I'll repeat the final point above:

After receiving 15 close range gunshot wounds, with 13 thoracic hits delivered at point blank or close range, the attacker survived for 10 days.​

Had the bad guy in the shootout cited above been carrying a handgun or two, instead of a kitchen knife, we would never heard these details. The guy wasn't on drugs. He just didn't want to quit! That's why Stasch now goes for head shots.

 

[Sergei Mosin]

Nom de Forum, having read your post a couple of times, I can't really see where we disagree, or where Fisher, Scott, et al were wrong about "Hit first, hit hard, and keep on hitting." ("Speed is armor," now...) The execution left something to be desired, but as a general philosophy of fighting - any kind of fighting - I think it's sound. What I take from naval warfare is that we don't get to choose where our hits land - we can talk about heart and CNS shots all we want, but in a real fight chance dictates what we hit. We might get the one-shot stop of legend - or we might dump a whole magazine into the bad guy's torso and not hit anything vital. Chance plays a much larger role than we'd like to think.

 

[Spats McGee]

I don't aim COM because I think a hit there is a be-all-end-all-fight-stopper. I aim COM because I think doing so increases my chances of hitting SOMETHING that will make the bad guy change his course of action, even if I miss the precise point where I'm aiming. If, during the course of a gunfight, I aim for the head and miss by 2 inches, I may miss the head entirely. If I aim for the COM and miss by 2 inches, the odds are much higher that I'll still hit my attacker. Obviously, a big hole in the right place is preferable in a gunfight to a small hole, or no hole at all. As I've never been in a gunfight, I do not discount the possibility that the stress, strain, and adrenaline may have a significant impact on my ability to put a hole in the fight-stopping right place, the central nervous system. I don't have the time or the budget to shoot thousands of rounds a year training for head shots. Hence, I focus on trying to make sure that I can place holes in a reasonably good spot, the COM, which presents a bigger target.

KyJim, a TFL member who may well be a member here, has Jim's Rules of Carry:

1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.

I agree with KyJim.

 

[strambo]

Right Walt, that is a good case study. No heart or spine hits which are the only things in the chest area that will physically stop somebody in any short time period. Spine is too small (and way in the back) to even consider trying to hit on purpose under stress. That leaves the heart the size of an adult fist or an orange. Very hard to deliberately hit under stress and it still leaves them with 7-30s to fight.

I do like that this thread puts the phrase "shot placement" in the limelight. It is usually taken for granted, but what does a person mean when they say "shot placement?" COM, Center of Chest, Head, IPSC A zone, some combination, something else, some organ (heart/brain?)

Personally, shot placement in regards to gunfighting means heart or mid-brain. Those are the two structures I am aiming for (if they are exposed, otherwise COM of whatever is exposed).

 

[fiftybmg]

This is obviously false because not only did instant stops that does not involve CNS hit nor blood loss induced unconsciousness occurred countless times, it takes up majority of the case of stops.

Yes, if you count the attacker losing the will to attack on account of being shot.

That is a psychological factor, irrespective of shot count or caliber, so is not relevant here.

 

[DT Guy]

Is a more damaging bullet/caliber combination going to stop quicker than a lesser bullet/caliber combination? All else being equal, it should.

Of course, 'all else' will never be equal. But where you 'put' the bullet's damage, in the end, will change everything for the better or worse.


Larry

 

[strambo]

Nom de Forum, having read your post a couple of times, I can't really see where we disagree, or where Fisher, Scott, et al were wrong about "Hit first, hit hard, and keep on hitting." ("Speed is armor," now...) The execution left something to be desired, but as a general philosophy of fighting - any kind of fighting - I think it's sound. What I take from naval warfare is that we don't get to choose where our hits land - we can talk about heart and CNS shots all we want, but in a real fight chance dictates what we hit. We might get the one-shot stop of legend - or we might dump a whole magazine into the bad guy's torso and not hit anything vital. Chance plays a much larger role than we'd like to think.

I think you are selling yourself short by calling it all chance. At the epitome of combat accuracy are our tier 1 operators who make headshots at will in firefights. They aren't 100%, but 2/3 ain't too shabby!

This shows it is possible and not pure luck. How much of that performance potential anyone of us can expect is a function of how close we come to training to that level. Now, before you discount the ability of a mere mortal to attain that skill level out of hand, those guys spend tremendous amounts of time training things that have nothing to do with a civilian (or LE) gunfight. Strip that out and we are left with a level of handgun skill under stress that can be attained by a dedicated civilian who attends some professional courses and practices/competes on their own. When these guys compete, they routinely get beaten by civilians every time, even ones who aren't full-time pros.

For a human torso at handgun ranges, I would suggest anyone getting rid of the "COM" notion and change it to center of chest. The triangle made by the nipple line on the bottom with the point at the throat.

Torso COM is the solar plexus area, not much there, too low. Great aiming point for a soldier on the battlefield, not so good for a civilian in a back alley.

 

[Nom de Forum]

This thread brings to mind that the old "Mozambique Drill" (two in the chest and one in the head) is a good technique to practice.

 

[JRWhit]

Are there maybe a few hairs being split here. Seams a lot more like an effort to start a fight. Name a defense round that does not give sufficient penatration and then their May be an argument to be had here.

 

[rd_zzyzx]

I think this is thread is more about the old saying, "Correlation does not imply causation".

To say that shot placement does not matter then means that shooting someone from the front through the nose is no different than shooting off someone's finger.

To say that penetration doesn't matter then means that shooting someone with a .44 Mag in the sternum is no different than shooting someone in the same location with a BB gun.

If it is said that something doesn't matter, then it doesn't matter, and does not correlate to any contribution in stopping someone by shooting them.

So, people shouldn't say that one or the other doesn't matter. If you do, then you have left the realm of reason and gone into fantasy.

So, people are looking for near instant kills, that is, the person is dead before the person can hurt you or someone else, or run away, etc.

What does it take to cause near instant death?

Maybe you are looking for near instant incapacitation? What does that take?

You will never get near instant death unless you hit something that causes near instant death, or in other words, you will never get near instant death unless you place a shot on something that causes near instant death. This includes the idea of wound channel and the size of the wound. If you miss the heart by 0.5" and you shot with something that creates a wound channel of 1.0" and penetrates to the heart then you essential still hit the heart. If you miss the heart by 0.5" and the wound is only 0.25" in diameter, then you miss. So, penetration matters as well as the size of the wound. Is it that hard to see this? So, placement is extremely important, a miss is a miss, and a hit is a hit.

What about near instant incapacitation? Well, there are probably several wounds that can do this. Shoot someone in the face from the side and blow both eyeballs out. Blind people don't pursue very well. Shatter both ankles. Shatter a knee or hip. Shatter both elbows, it is hard to fight with your arms swinging limp. Incapacitating shots require even more precise shot placement because joints are smaller than someone's head or chest. So again, placement is important. Period. Now, how much force does it take to shatter a knee joint? Will a .22 LR do it? Will a .32 ACP do it? How about shatter a hip, a deeper target? Will a .22 LR do it? Will a 9mm do it? So, suddenly penetration is important.

You can not remove placement and you can not remove penetration, and you can not remove the size of the wound from the discussion. They all have to be there.

 

[45_auto]

"Stopping" an attacker comes down to one of two things :

1. central nervous system incapacitation
2. loss of blood pressure

The idea is to cause one of those two as quickly as possible.

This is obviously false because not only did instant stops that does not involve CNS hit nor blood loss induced unconsciousness occurred countless times, it takes up majority of the case of stops.

Even though a psychological stop makes up the majority of cases, you have no control over it. It's the attacker's option whether to stop or not (example: in the infamous FBI Miami Shootout, Michael Platt had to be shot 12 times before he stopped).

The only options for stopping someone that are under your control are the two effects as described by 50BMG that you believe are false. Being able to effectively execute them as quickly as possible is the key. If the attacker chooses to stop BEFORE #1 or #2 occur then all well and good. However, leaving the option to stop (psychological) up to a determined attacker is a very bad choice.