Placement and Effectiveness

[Fred Fuller]

Take a look at the article at http://loadoutroom.com/115/shot-placement-effectiveness/, titled Shot Placement and Effectiveness.

Pay particular attention to this section:

Most targets available that are popular with training and your average shooter for practicing with his gun don’t really cover the difference between center of mass and the center of the chest. In fact, most of them place the center of mass too low, and most shooters under stress will land their shots too low to hit the vital organs in the chest, leaving the bulk of the damage in the liver, stomach, intestines, and kidneys.

Then take a look at the target pictured at http://www.letargets.com/estylez_item.aspx?item=RIPOSTE-3.

This target is the result of trainer Jim Higginbotham's work with the Kentucky National Guard in preparation for deployment. It seems to me to be worth considering...

 

[sidheshooter]

That's right; high mediastinum. Something like 75% of people shot below (approximately) the nipple line survive; hit above that, and the stats more or less reverse, if not swing even further away from likelihood of survival. Good info.

 

[Loosedhorse]

What evidence do we have...

That a gutshot attacker is put out of the fight more slowly than a high-chestshot attacker?

Shots to the liver and spleen bleed profusely (internally); shots to the kidneys are legendary for their pain; center abdominal shots have a great chance of hitting spine, aorta, or vena cava.

Also recall that if an attacker his tilting toward you in a crouch, he is foreshortened vertically, and a COM shot can traverse from mid thorax in front to abdomen in the rear.

The title of the thread is "Placement and Effectiveness" and claims that shots to a "low" COM are a problem in terms of placement...without yet showing that they are a problem in terms of effectiveness.

It is also worth noting that most "anatomic drawings" are taken from cadaver dissections with the body supine and lungs deflated. That results in the heart (for example) being depicted higher in the chest than it is for a live person, standing. Note how far down the heart extends:

 

[Fred Fuller]

I'd say the only "evidence" available at present was the evidence of experience. Higginbotham came to his conclusions about a revised target "A zone," and the target that reflects it (which is the 'third edition' of said revised target) after reports from the field of actual shootings from soldiers whose training he supervised over a period of several years. I saw Higginbotham's presentation at Tom Givens' Polite Society 2012 conference in Memphis.

Today's mail brought the June 2012 issue of SWAT Magazine, which by chance contains an article from Pat Rogers titled "Hit Me With Your Best Shot: Proper Bullet Placement." I quote one short paragraph:

Getting shots into the bad guy is a good thing. Getting them in the right place - high chest, neck or head - is a lot better.

The evidence presented by Higginbotham was sufficient to cause me to revise my thinking on the matter. A similar endorsement from one Patrick A. Rogers only reinforces its validity as far as I'm concerned. That may not be the case for anyone else, of course. Anyone who prefers to think of this as just one more fad in defensive shooting can of course feel free to believe whatever they wish.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

It's important to be able to mentally visualize the location of vital structures in the body from any angular aspect so you can choose an effective aim point. (When I'm at the shopping mall with my wife (usually sitting on a bench waiting while she's inside a store shopping) I "people watch" and mentally visualize my aim point on people who are facing various directions or who are partially exposed to my view.)

Also see - http://www.tacticalanatomy.com/

 

[Wapato]

Most targets available that are popular with training and your average shooter for practicing with his gun don’t really cover the difference between center of mass and the center of the chest. In fact, most of them place the center of mass too low, and most shooters under stress will land their shots too low to hit the vital organs in the chest, leaving the bulk of the damage in the liver, stomach, intestines, and kidneys.

I think the author is twisting things around a bit.

Center of mass shooting is center of mass shooting. The reason for it is that people trying to kill you rarely stand still with their arms at their sides under good lighting, and your body tends to do annoying things under stress such as mess with your fine motor control and ability to physically focus where the front sight is. Even trained shooters are notorious for missing a lot in actual confrontations.

Therefore you want to maximize the chance you'll actually get any sort of hit. I would imagine that training this way also results in slightly faster shots as it doesn't ask the shooter to focus for a split second on the target to determine the aimpoint as opposed to just getting a sight picture and firing at the unfocused target's center of mass.


So if the target has partial cover from some bricks covering up half their torso, than the center of mass school of thought says you should be aiming at the center of what you see, which might be the side of the lung, instead of trying to hit the half of the heart that isn't covered by brick.

Center of mass targets, including a lot of military targets I've seen, have the aimpoint a little below the diaphram on a target standing tall.

If you've got a target that is crouching or leaning forward the aim point drops down.


Zone shooting to target the heart and nearby vitals seems to be a compromise between center of mass shooting and headshots (which offer much more reliable stopping at the cost of making you much more likely to miss).

 

[Fred Fuller]

Absolutely, Shawn. Louis Awerbuck was the first instructor in my experience to construct 3-D targets out of two flat cardboard targets, to teach students to get deep penetrating hits on targets placed at a variety of angles.

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_h3oQDUWO4U if you're unfamiliar with Louis' do-it-yourself target manipulation, to train students to shoot 3-D targets...

 

[MtnCreek]

It’s my understanding the ‘center of mass’ was thought to be the best target because impact in relation to point of aim was a little less of an issue, correct? How would you weigh this vs a quicker ‘stop’ and associated increased risk of a complete miss? Would you suggest this point of aim for everyone or just those better trained to react/shoot under stress? Do you think the higher aim would have any negatives as far as covering the threats hands with your sights?

Thanks!

 

[Fred Fuller]

In my first class with him, Louis Awerbuck said something to the effect that "The state of the art is a moving target." In other words, things change, and that includes the accepted wisdom. It's my perception that the accepted wisdom is in the process of shifting from "center mass" to "center chest."

I would suggest that anyone who carries a gun regularly should train to the the best of their ability with the best instructors they can manage to find, to the most current standards of training available. I think everyone who carries a gun or owns one with the idea of self defense should get themselves trained sufficiently to react appropriately and shoot effectively under stress. So far I have heard of no negative effects from shifting the POA from center mass to center chest, but the concept is still relatively new.

 

[Shadow 7D]

I would second what Fred is saying loosed

Yeah, all those shots CAN kill, and may be painful
Gutshot is considered one of the worse ways to die, not cause it's a quick killer, but rather because it was a PAINFUL, LONG, and SURE killer.

Where if you up you aim by 6-8 inches you are now hitting organs that result in death in seconds to minutes, shooting a lung also has immediate effects, takes the air right out of them, massive bleeding etc.

worth while read, the other day I was practicing with my P32 at about 7 yards, I was kinda pissed as I was hitting low, which points out that I haven't been working with my sights like I should, and with those sights it's a MUST. But, while I wasn't hitting the pie plate 'face'. I was placing a decent string from the bottom of the plate to about 6 inches lower. It's not an apricot shot, but in a pinch it'd do.

What I believe Fred is talking about is simply pointing out that where many are trained to shoot 'center' isn't necessarily 'center of chest' and hence the heart and lung.

As placement is vital with smaller rounds, knowing and training where you place those rounds if vital. Habit and all.

 

[conw]

Tom Givens goes a step further and advocates for aortic valve shots or upper spine as the ONLY fast reliable stoppers.

As he states...the heart being a muscular organ it is prone to take handgun hits and keep working. Muscle is striated.

Tom networks with surgeons in Memphis and has spent significant time reviewing survivors of shootings on both ends of the muzzle and I think he knows what he is talking about...and he doesn't really have any reason to reason regarding this in a motivated fashion.

Multiple instructors who speak to high level SOF people also confirm that these anecdotes constitute a pattern of reporting that area is the favored target due to experience.

If you look at the overlay the valve and upper spine region are actually smaller than the ocular box. That sucks but it doesn't change the way we should shoot to stop. I think anything else is wishful thinking on the part of those who carry "pea shooters." (Which is a joking appellation for any handgun just in case anyone is feeling sensitive as they read this.)

 

[Odd Job]

One issue with specific targets like "aortic valves" and even the heart itself is that such items vary in size and position because of:

1) Body habitus
2) Age
3) Pathology
4) Orientation of the person relative to the bullet trajectory

Comparing radiographs of individuals adds several variables on top of all that:

1) Beam dynamics (magnification, angulation)
2) Technique (patient position)
3) Phase of respiration
4) Image recording amd post processing

 

[conw]

One issue with specific targets like "aortic valves" and even the heart itself is that such items vary in size and position because of:

1) Body habitus
2) Age
3) Pathology
4) Orientation of the person relative to the bullet trajectory

Comparing radiographs of individuals adds several variables on top of all that:

1) Beam dynamics (magnification, angulation)
2) Technique (patient position)
3) Phase of respiration
4) Image recording amd post processing

Sure. But I don't see that supporting an upper belly shot. The Suck of it is that is amounts to a low probability target. Multiple accurate shots in the general vicinity are the best we can do unless you have a better heuristic, or differ with the weight of the anecdotes.

 

[Wapato]

Do you think the higher aim would have any negatives as far as covering the threats hands with your sights?

Thanks!

That last bit you mentioned is something that I think doesn't get enough attention. Look at yourself in the mirror in a weaver stance. When I do it, my support arm completely covers up my heart.

I'm not sure if aiming low is the answer though. Rifles and shotguns might be. But realistically a handgun is what a lot of us are able to keep at hand.

Tom Givens goes a step further and advocates for aortic valve shots or upper spine as the ONLY fast reliable stoppers.

Is he training for rifles? Often a hit to the upper spine would require going through either jaw or sternum, then some tissue, and then you'd reach the spine. My understanding is that most expanding handgun bullets won't crack the lower spine in a gutshot, I'd be suspicious of high spine as well. I'd expect the lower jaw and upper sternum to cause a lot of deflection as well.

 

[Al Thompson]

Center of mass targets, including a lot of military targets I've seen, have the aimpoint a little below the diaphragm on a target standing tall.

From a military aspect (Pat addresses this in the article), as 99% of their fights are with long guns, the relatively greater power of those cartridges, the greater range of the engagements and potentially more bad guys shooting at you probably makes any hit a valuable hit. In fact, the Army uses a big (too big IMHO) pop up plastic silhouette where any hit counts.

As for my personal training, I "really" like paper plates and 3x5 cards. Cheap, pretty decent representation of critical target areas and did I mention cheap?

 

[JustinJ]

The upper chest seems intuitively to be the better option. For one, shots to the pecs or deltoids that fail to cause immediate incapication have a chance of disabling use an arm that is holding a weapon. Hitting the harm could of course have the same effect but the chest and shoulder muscles seem a bigger target and the upper arm is still on the same plane. Second, causing massive bleeding in an organ like the liver, spleen, etc would not be as quick to incapicate as disabling function of the heart. If massive bleeding is caused blood will reach the brain until pressure falls low enough to cause a loss of consciousness. Disabling the heart by damaging it or severing the arteries to the head would be much more rapid. I couldn't say how fast hitting a lung would disable an attacker compared to lower organs.

 

[Wapato]

The upper chest seems intuitively to be the better option. For one, shots to the pecs or deltoids that fail to cause immediate incapication have a chance of disabling use an arm that is holding a weapon. Hitting the harm could of course have the same effect but the chest and shoulder muscles seem a bigger target and the upper arm is still on the same plane. Second, causing massive bleeding in an organ like the liver, spleen, etc would not be as quick to incapicate as disabling function of the heart. If massive bleeding is caused blood will reach the brain until pressure falls low enough to cause a loss of consciousness. Disabling the heart by damaging it or severing the arteries to the head would be much more rapid. I couldn't say how fast hitting a lung would disable an attacker compared to lower organs.

Well, a bullet into their brain stem would be even better for stopping. It's a question of making the hit.

Personally, I like shooting at our good friend ICE-QT, at least now and then.

I find he keeps me honest in terms of what one can expect from handgun rounds. You can hit him with what would be a perfect A zone set with an IPSC target and realize that all you'd have reliably done is cause some pain.

He helps keep thoughts of charging down the stairs when I hear a bump out of my head.


More relavent to this discussion though is this target.

Where would you aim on that?

EDIT: Props to USAtargets for making "brick wall guy" there.

 

[Al Thompson]

I'd shoot brick dude right in the hand. Then I'd try to show him why crowding cover is a bad idea.

 

[Loosedhorse]

I'd say the only "evidence" available at present was the evidence of experience

What "experience" is available? The author, if he has seen attackers in general hit lower than he would prefer in SD, police, or military encounters, does not mention that. If he has subjectively noted (or objectively tabulated) that enemy hit at "low" COM remained in the fight longer than those hit with his preferred COM, he hasn't mentioned that.

To me, the author's preferred COM shot places him in the narrow top of the heart region, with lung on either side. The lower COM (still, depending on the stature of the target, 6+ inches above the umbilicus) shot places him at the bottom of the heart, with lung, spleen and liver on either side.

Personally, I'm not sure I've heard the expression "Don't worry, I'm only shot in the lower COM, I'll be fine." But others may have had that experience. And many more people just have theories.

Tom Givens goes a step further and advocates for aortic valve shots...

And his basis for believing these are better than left ventricular shots, or even descending aorta shots would be...

Frankly, sounds like a supersition.

More relavent to this discussion though is this target.

It's also a GREAT reminder to all of us about how NOT to use cover. :banghead:

That's right; high mediastinum. Something like 75% of people shot below (approximately) the nipple line survive; hit above that, and the stats more or less reverse, if not swing even further away from likelihood of survival. Good info.

Source?

Any info on how many folks hit in the lower 1/3 of the mediastinum continue to attack?

 

[JustinJ]

Well, a bullet into their brain stem would be even better for stopping. It's a question of making the hit.

Obviously but the upper chest is a much larger area with potentially less movement than a specific section of the head. I don't think anybody would argue that the ideal place is not the brain stem but for all practical purposes it is generally not considered the best area to aim for.

Since the upper chest is relatively the same size as lower it seems the obvious choice as rounds impacting the heart or above can immediately stop blood flow to the brain.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Since the upper chest is relatively the same size as lower it seems the obvious choice as rounds impacting the heart or above can immediately stop blood flow to the brain.

If you reference the chest x-ray, I think you'll see that the amount of the heart available to hit in the upper half of the chest is LESS than the amount in the lower half.

Also, what reason do you have for believing that rounds hitting the aorta below the heart won't "immediately stop" the bloodflow to the brain just as well as those hitting above the heart?

 

[JRH6856]

So far I have heard of no negative effects from shifting the POA from center mass to center chest, but the concept is still relatively new.

I don't know that the concept is all that new. It seems what goes around, comes around. 30 years ago, Texas requred commissioned security officers be trained and qualified on the B21X target. When Texas began issuing CHL, the target used for qualifiying was the "Amazon Man". In 2006, the target changed to the B27. I may use the term "center mass", but in my mind, my target has always been more like the 5 zone of the Amazon Man.

 

[conw]

Loosed, I'm not here to persuade you. As stated, anecdotal evidence from authorities I trust is the reason for my preference, as well as that of others. It might be helpful to ask: since upper abdomen (instead of upper chest) was the preferred aim point for many years, what would have precipitated the shift?

As a thought experiment I don't see any particular reason why people in military, LE, and instructor roles (who make a point of communicating with the other two types as well as trauma surgeons who see hundreds of yearly shootings), would advocate for this target - I don't see any particular reason that they would falsely claim that anecdotes seem to favor it, nor do I see any particular cognitive bias effect that would lead anyone to believe it. Since there is a trend of reporting that this is a superior aim point, coming from multiple types of authorities, and there is no obvious reason they have to believe this, I choose to take it on good faith.

If you can postulate a reason someone would be emotionally invested in promoting this, or some type of illusion or cognitive pitfall that would cause the multiple anecdotes to be consistently incorrect and foster this particular (mis)interpretation, have at it.

Saying "anecdotes are unreliable" is one thing, and I agree. But I think in this case the weight of the anecdotes is such that anyone who wishes to dismiss it would be well served to offer an alternative hypothesis for the reporting trend.

Here is some relevant insight from Claude Werner on the topic for anyone interested:

I teach them to always look for a spot on a potential threat to shoot at and point out several variants of aim points on several students in each class. That's one of the operative fundamentals of "have a plan to kill everyone you meet." HAPTKEYM is one of those platitudes that sound good but generally have no substance, i.e., checklists, behind them.

My opinion is that the concern about perfect anatomical shot placement is less important than teaching shooters how to make decent upper body hits. The single biggest problem in LE shooting is failure to hit the target at all, not failure to hit the optimal areas of the body.

If you read Pat Rogers' article in the current issue of SWAT magazine, it's obvious that the education about anatomical shot placement requires an underlying comfort with geometry. I doubt that is as useful in real life as saying "aim and shoot at the 'Sons of Anarchy' logo on his shirt and keep aiming and shooting at it until he goes down."

 

[qwert65]

At loosedhorse- blood goes to the brain before descending aorta so technically a descending aorta shot would take longer for brain bp to decrease( though the difference would prob be in seconds)
At conwict- heart is heart it is the pump I don't see how a aortic valve shot would be Better then anything on the left side of the heart(or right for that matter) medically speaking the time difference would be nil.

I am a veterinarian and have dissected lots of hearts, I've also seen animals with
Gunshot wounds, further I had the oppurtunity to scrub in on some (dog) heart surgeries and frankly without being in an or I don't see how anyone hit anywhere in the heart would continue to be a threat longer then someone hit elsewhere in the heart.

 

[sidheshooter]

That's right; high mediastinum. Something like 75% of people shot below (approximately) the nipple line survive; hit above that, and the stats more or less reverse, if not swing even further away from likelihood of survival. Good info.

Source?

Any info on how many folks hit in the lower 1/3 of the mediastinum continue to attack?

My notes from an advanced level handgun course taught by this guy:

Specific stats from my class notes: 8 out of 10 people shot by a handgun survive; if shot COM above the nipple line only 3 out of 10 survive (based on ER stats from SOP9).

As an aside, the minimum time to sure cessation of hostilities after a deadly wound (ie: 44 mag to the heart) is 4 seconds, with more like 10 seconds average. That is a long time for someone to keep trying to kill you. Finding cover is always a good idea.

I'm no expert, mind. I've never shot anyone. But I have trained under guys like Ed who have.

YMMV. I'm not out for an argument, but you asked, so there's where I got that one.