Placement and Effectiveness

Status
Not open for further replies.
Loosed what are you arguing? That your theorem that pressure decrease is the same wherever the aorta is hit? Or any vessel in the system? Or just that you can't prove either way?

Consider the brain functions on glucose and oxygen, delivered by the circulatory system. Now you have blood running from aortic valve-ascending aorta(plus some blood to the heart)-bracheiocephalic trunk(which gives off the carotids)-and then the rest of the aorta.

In an earlier post you typed that a shot to the descending aorta would work just as well as ascending aorta. This is incorrect though I will readily agree that the time is insignificant, there are no studies to prove this one way or another)

In the real world you still have to function even without a study so you make a knowledgable deduction, you base this on how you know the body reacts. I will spell this out in a final effort to make myself clear.
Someone is shot in the ascending aorta- blood pressure drops as each heartbeat causes more blood to leave the system, vessels constrict in an effort to save the brain(the body always works to save the brain) this wound is rapidly fatal as the brain uses up oxygen.
Now say someone gets shot lower still in thorax but lower the same thing happens except with each heartbeat some blood( and thus oxygen) is delivered- this is not long maybe 3 beats I don't really know. What I do know is the brain will get more oxygen then if the system is hit higher. How significant it is we don't know( no studies) however in the absence of studies you can still make an informed descion on where a wound is mOst likely effective.

Why is this not clear?
 
Shadow 7D said:
shoot center of mass.
Click to expand...

Loosedhorse said:
Well, at least we agree! :D
Click to expand...

Well, we all agree on shooting "center of mass" however nobody means you should actually shoot at the center of mass. :p

To be clear, your actual center of mass is outside of your body if you bend over. (ask your gymnist or pole vaulting friend about it if that's confusing).

For a person standing straight their center of mass is typically around their belly button. I don't think any of us are advocating aiming there, although a lot of WWII shooting manuals and targets actually do indicate that as the aim point. Maybe because when firing a full power battle rifle with iron sight at a running target 100 meters away that really is the best place to aim. It would tend to be the most stationary point on the body if somebody is bobbing and weaving, and I'm given to understand that on rifles at least most people tend to deviate more up and down than side to side.


Then there is the center of geometry. Which I think would still tend to be near the belly button.

But a lot of people mean center of geomtery of the torso. Which is going to be near the bottom of the sternum, and a lot of people advocate for aiming there.

Others, as in this thread, don't mean anything related to the center of anything. They mean "center of mass" shooting to mean "don't go for the headshot right off".

In any case I think arguing about a three in vertical distance on the aimpoint for a person standing upright straight on to you is splitting hairs.

The important distinction is wether you're shooting at the center of what you can see, or if you're locating and then firing at specific organs.

For the "brick wall guy" target on page one I'd also probably be shooting at the hand, maybe zeroing on their pinky tip, which isn't likely to produce a lethal or even incapacitating wound, nor would it disable the gun neccessarily. I'm only aiming there because it's about the center of what he's presenting, and I don't trust skipping bullets off bricks.

Would anybody be going for the headshot, around the hand at the torso, or for the brick skip?
 
In an earlier post you typed that a shot to the descending aorta would work just as well as ascending aorta.
Click to expand...
Yes.
This is incorrect though I will readily agree that the time is insignificant, there are no studies to prove this one way or another)
Click to expand...
Since you agree that there are no studies to prove you right, I do not understand on what basis you base your claim about this time difference (which you specify is insignificant), or on what basis do you call my opinion incorrect.
bracheiocephalic trunk(which gives off the carotids)-
Click to expand...
That is an anatomic variant in humans, often called the bovine aortic arch variant. Typically the brachiocephaic trunk gives off only the right carotid (and right subclavian).
Someone is shot in the ascending aorta- blood pressure drops as each heartbeat causes more blood to leave the system
Click to expand...
Agreed; and the same thing happens if you injure the descending aorta. If you hit either with a significant puncture, you will drop the aortic pressure, and therefore the carotid prssure; the body will try to compensate (mostly with increased cardiac output) until the loss of blood no longer allows that. The only way your theory works is if the aorta (in a descending aortic injury) in essence pinches itself off just above the trauma, to isolate a cardiac-carotid circuit. Please tell me if you think it does that, and if so, why you think that; or if you have an alternate method of preferentially preserving a cardiac-carotid circuit, let me know what your theory is and why you believe that.

Please note that increased resistance in the vascular system beyond the break in the descending aorta doesn't matter; at most, it will encourage faster bleeding from the wound. So the only place where vasoconstriction would matter is in the aorta itself, below the carotids, but above the wound; and it would have to be profound vasoconstriction. Do we have evidence that that in fact happens in the area described under the conditions described?
What I do know is the brain will get more oxygen then if the system is hit higher.
Click to expand...
Again, I am not sure why you think that, and why you suggest that it is "known".
Here is one study concerning outcomes of penetrating injury to the thoracic and abdominal aorta:
Click to expand...
My thanks. I will point out its limitations (of which you are already aware) regarding our discussion of preferred point of aim:
  1. It addresses mortality, not cessation of hostilities ("stopping" an attacker).
  2. It only address the mortality of those who made it alive to the ER, so that they could be admitted; those declared dead at the scene or DOA to the ER were not included.
  3. It does not distinguish upper thoracic aortic injuries from lower thoracic aotic injuries.
  4. It does not tell us if (for example) the reason for the lower mortality rate with abdominal aortic injuries might be due to more knife trauma than bullet trauma to the abdomen (knife trauma was associated with lower mortaility).
And of course it doesn't address carotid pressure at all. I think it is a valuable study and worth looking at, but because of the above it adds little to deciding between the two POAs we've discussed.
 
Last edited:
I thought I explained how if you put a hole 1 inch from the pump and another hole 5 inches from the pump how a fluid will stop flowing from the 5 inch hole before the 1 inch.
Make a closed system and check it out(note this would not even be in vitro, since it eliminates so many varibles ) but I think it will help you understand.
 
Use the stress to your advantage. When the time is slow, where the noise is far off in the background, where your vision is efficiently concentrated, and you are unsure if you can actually feel your own body.

Once you've caught the ball and are headed down field, once you've juked two guys into the turf and have one left to beat, have a stiff arm ready. Now is not the time to suddenly hear the roar of the crowd or feel the ground under your feet. Now is the time to take it across the goal line, Brother!
Click to expand...

Have you actually experienced this effect in a gunfight? In the vast majority of accounts i've read, LE included, precision shooting wasn't exactly the norm. Not only will the shooter be in an extremely stressful state he may be moving just as his target may be. To think one can hit specific sections of the heart reliably in such a situation just doesn't seem practical to me. Which takes me back to why i say aim for the upper chest. There are lots of things to hit there which will rapidly reduce the amount of blood reaching the brain.
 
JustinJ said:
Have you actually experienced this effect in a gunfight? In the vast majority of accounts i've read, LE included, precision shooting wasn't exactly the norm. ...
Click to expand...

No experience in a gun fight, no combat experience, no LEO experience, etc.

I do, however, have some experience shooting fast moving Whitetails from various angles with both handgun and long gun and this 'stress effect' - the adrenaline rush - has happened to varying degrees with every animal I've ever killed.

Yah, I know, Whitetails aren't shooting back but I know that it is possible to make effective - not necessarily precision but effective - hits on moving targets under stress. Yup, I've missed deer too but those missed shots were well outside of what I would consider self defense range.
 
again, it is an hydraulic circuit with a sudden, catastrophic loss of resistance; pressure drops everywhere, not only in the potion after the break.
Click to expand...
observation No.2. This is the nail on the head.

Even a lay person can get their head around this. It is a simple matter of physics and hydraulics. Open any closed system containing liquid under pressure and indeed the pressure drop will affect the whole instantaneously.

Elasticity in the blood vessels and muscle tension of the body "under load" as in rapid movement etc would only increase this effect as opposed to a "hard line" system such as a hydraulic braking system.
 
Interesting discussion here. I expect the situation to be very dynamic and "text book" shots may be difficult.

For years, I've practiced aiming a bit higher than the center of the chest. When I look in the mirror, I'd be shooting into my hands using a Weaver stance.


however nobody means you should actually shoot at the center of mass
Click to expand...

The use of COM is totally wrong, but we have come to understand what people mean. To imagine where it really is, think of where you would place your hand if you wanted to lift and balance your kid or wife on one hand. It's actually at the pelvis.
 
Al Thompson said:
I'd shoot brick dude right in the hand. Then I'd try to show him why crowding cover is a bad idea.
Click to expand...

Good idea but he probably wouldn't listen anyway so just take the headshot. Speaking of listening....

I had to look that up - crowding cover. Thanks, Mr. Thompson. I will immediately incorporate this notion into my SA. This will come in handy if I ever find myself prairie doging around a crowded parking lot against a gang banger initiation ceremony. :uhoh:
 
The largest target is what you should shoot at. In that picture if you were moving and he was standing still, you would want to at least hit him so as not to be gunned down trying to make a hard shot, you may only get 1 try. I would take the gun and hopefully penetrate the chest in that area. Then if I hit him he would fall one way, drop or run the other. At that point re evaluate and fire at the largest target you can get a shot at. Contiue untill threat is finished. Trying to make what at the range is a simple shot, is not the same thing. You have to act like a computer constantlly resetting as you go. Only the person there would know what he would do. You could do so many things that it would be sensless to state all the possibilities, you would be planning for something that you didn't know, as he is also thinking about what he is wanting you to do. Also you should shoot at what you reaslistically think you can hit. There is no use trying to hit the head if you don't normally shoot the ten ring from 50 feet, 90% of the time, as your odds will fall while both of you move. Just hitting him will give you enough time to follow up with a well aimed second shot or expose more of the body.Running in a direction where he has to cross his hand over his body will make his shot more difficult normally, as he has to rotate and reset or be off balance. Like I mentioned you would have to be there yourself.
 
Modern BLEA-style targets have always had the center ring moved up, gaming targets, too. Nothing new. And, paper is static anyway. Regardless, the goal is to stop the threat so IMO mortality stats are not applicable.
 
The thread has reached the point of "threading a camel through the eye of a needle" with regard to anatomy.

I am continually amazed at the presumption (and I use that word deliberately) that anyone matter-of-factly expects to deliver precisely discriminatory bullet placement in a gun fight.

People blithely toss out the old adage of "Two to the Chest and One to the Head" as a default solution to stopping problems...as if they expect to be able to deliver a perfect Mozambique Drill on demand...under any circumstance...and all while trying desperately to avoid dying.

Lucky shots aside...

Me? I merely hope to get some rounds on target against the biggest piece I can place in front of my muzzle. Then continue to deliver fire until my problem goes away...or I can seek better cover. I consider that to be a pretty fair day's work...and a worthy accomplishment under fire.

I agree with the original premise that many range targets are configured (aiming point-wise) much too low. Some were first designed years ago and the vendors have never bothered to update designs.

Up close, my former outfit trains to hit a triangle defined by the nipple line (the base of the triangle) and the throat notch (base of throat / top of the triangle). Rifle or Pistol. That area has delivered the best results for us in CQB combat. YMMV.

My personal observations concerning abdominal hits (below the diaphragm) is that they can not be counted upon to put someone down. They may. But they often do not.

I know three men in my last unit, all of whom were hit in the abdomen by AK fire (groin, bowel, or spleen) in Iraq. All stayed in the fight. All are walking around today still doing their jobs.

One of them killed his initial opponent (the one who shot him) at a few meters range and went on to clear a house by himself...killing several more opponents inside. He then established a helicopter evacuation for other wounded and treated them. He could still breathe, had a heart to circulate blood, and had enough BP to function for quite awhile despite intense pain...from a solid rifle shot.

From what I've seen, people who get hit by rifle bullets high chest tend to die more often and succumb more quickly than those shot low torso.

People who are hit by rifle shots to the head/throat tend not to survive at all, unless it's a mandible injury, glancing hit, or dumb luck wound that does not transect the brain, spine, or major vessels supplying the head. Even if not mortally wounded (it happens), they are still invariably knocked out of the fight.

A commonly encountered pattern of wounds in close gunfights is one of bullets striking hands, weapon, forearms...because that is where many shooter's eyes tend to focus (watch the hands); they get tunnel vision for the weapon in an opponent's hand/s. It happens even with extremely well trained veterans of previous face to face shootouts.

Arguing about hitting specific blood vessels or internal organs is akin to talking about shooting someone through the left eye while they are moving and possibly shooting back at you. Good luck with making such a shot.

I've yet to meet anyone who could deliver that kind of combat accuracy on demand... other than a sniper taking a deliberately aimed shot or someone already in a close grapple. Not SFOD-D, not NSW Team 6, not the UK SAS, not the freaking Israelis, not anyone. Now, those folks can make a quick and reliable transition to a head shot...or a limb...because they practice to an inhuman level of proficiency. But they don't go into a structure thinking they'll make an aortic shot, or an eye shot, or shoot the gun out of somebody's hand. They deliver the most effective fire they can, as fast as they can, and fire repeatedly.

Do the best you can, take the shot that is offered, and rinse/repeat as opportunity allows. If all you can see is the head...take the head shot. If all you can see is an ankle (under a car)...take that. If the opponent is wearing armor, go for the lower throat. If all you have is a butt cheek...then that's what you go for. It's rapid sight/muzzle adjustment onto a target area...not surgery.

From the diaphragm upward, the body's organs are primarily concerned with the hydraulics that deliver pressurized and oxygenated blood to the body... and the electrical impulses to effect that delivery (brain, spinal cord, solar plexus ganglia).

Those are the targets to disrupt and they are mostly high on the torso.

Lower hits on digestive and filtration organs do not offer a reliably immediate threat to life and function. Or even mobility.

IMHO, training targets should be adjusted accordingly.
 
Last edited:
gym said:
The largest target is what you should shoot at. In that picture if you were moving and he was standing still, you would want to at least hit him so as not to be gunned down trying to make a hard shot, you may only get 1 try. I would take the gun and hopefully penetrate the chest in that area. Then if I hit him he would fall one way, drop or run the other. At that point re evaluate and fire at the largest target you can get a shot at. Contiue untill threat is finished. Trying to make what at the range is a simple shot, is not the same thing. You have to act like a computer constantlly resetting as you go. Only the person there would know what he would do. You could do so many things that it would be sensless to state all the possibilities, you would be planning for something that you didn't know, as he is also thinking about what he is wanting you to do. Also you should shoot at what you reaslistically think you can hit. There is no use trying to hit the head if you don't normally shoot the ten ring from 50 feet, 90% of the time, as your odds will fall while both of you move. Just hitting him will give you enough time to follow up with a well aimed second shot or expose more of the body.Running in a direction where he has to cross his hand over his body will make his shot more difficult normally, as he has to rotate and reset or be off balance. Like I mentioned you would have to be there yourself.
Click to expand...

Wow! That's a lot to think about in 3 to 5 seconds!

Be persistent, effective and stay on task!
 
The issue of shot placement is a tricky one, and I can debate this from almost any angle, as follows:

1) COM shot: This aiming point is advantageous in a gunfight because you'll find that your fine motor skills are decreased as your adrenaline increases. By aiming at COM, the person gives themselves the largest possible target, and the greatest chance of landing a hit. Plus, as a person's opponent moves during the battle, their COM will remain more steady than other parts of the body. But, while having the first shot on target may decide who wins or loses, the hit may not be the most "vital" hit imaginable, and may not necessarily take the opponent out of the fight if they're drugged up or just very determined.

2) High COM shot (as described): This aiming point retains some of the advantages I listed above, but to some degree may sacrifice hit ratio in favor of a better quality hit.

3) Central Nervous System shot: In a computer you can disconnect a printer, turn off a monitor, and smash the CD-Rom drive to pieces, and it'll still compute. However, if you destroy the CPU, it's not doing anything. The same holds true for humans. If a shot absolutely needs to incapacitate an attacker immediately, the CNS shot is the only shot that will guarantee results. This is the very reason that police sharpshooters aim for the so-called "apricot". But, this "guaranteed" stop comes with one HUGE caveat... it is the hardest shot to make, and requires aiming at the smallest target (oh, and that target moves around more than the other targets mentioned). Nevertheless, it is the one shot that pulls the plug immediately, and can end all hostile aggression without delay.



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.
Click to expand...

Not sure where this material was sourced from, but I think we need to keep in mind that ultimate death is largely irrelevant in a gunfight. Quickly stopping the attack is key. While it is true that a more mortal wound generally results in a quicker stop, it doesn't necessarily mean that a study on shot placement as it correlates to mortality is necessarily valid for this particular discussion.

In other words, a shot that destroys the liver and lungs is going to kill someone just as a dead as the shot that destroys the brain stem would. But, the guy who's shot in the liver and lungs may very well still have time to kill you before he departs!


ONE FINAL THOUGHT ON SHOT PLACEMENT:

I've investigated two shooting deaths in the past two months in which the victim sustained a single heart-destroying shot. In both of these cases the subject ran some distance before succumbing to his wounds (approx 50 yards and 100 yards, respectively). In either of these cases the subject was doomed from the moment that bullet struck him. He could have been laying on a trauma table at the best hospital in the country when he was shot, and he was still going to die very quickly.

BUT, in both of those cases the subject clearly demonstrated that he retained probably 15-30 seconds of useful consciousness at full aerobic output. That may not sound like much time, but that's an eternity in a gunfight. I don't run into cases like these everyday, but these certainly weren't the first ones that left me a bit surprised. Nevertheless, hunters witness such situations on a regular basis. I can't tell you how many times I've heard of a deer or elk taking off at full speed after sustaining a double-lung and heart shot with a full powered rifle caliber.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

Targets don't usually cover the difference between center of mass and center of chest? Strangely, a lot of folks including several on this board don't either or they refine center of mass to mean something other than center of mass.

For example, 1911tuner thought that...
Think of "Center of Mass" as the mass above the belt.
Click to expand...

Sam1911 considered distinguishing between center of mass and center of chest as being nitipicking and stated COM=COC=Torso.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=547813&page=3&highlight=center+of+mass+chest

Another definition by freedom and guns...
It means the trunk of the body. the center of mass is not a specific place on the trunk, but a general term.
Click to expand...

ceetee says COM is COC
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=218252&highlight=center+of+mass+chest

Apparently, Otisimo considers the thoracic cavity as COM.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=121719&highlight=center+of+mass+chest

This guy shows COM as being COC. Funny how he is critical of those he considers as self professed experts providing wrong information and then he incorrectly defines COM.

Many folks like Gabe Suarez define COM as being the center of the visible target.
http://www.oocities.org/teamonegear/gabriel_suarez.htm

COM is center of torso...
http://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2011/04/myth-of-handgun-stopping-power-part-3.html

dragon5126 said that COM means center of circulatory and respiratory systems.
http://www.preparedsociety.com/forum/f39/weapons-tools-9154/index4.html

http://www.preparedsociety.com/forum/f39/weapons-tools-9154/index4.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aN7f7M0CUCg
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.)
Click to expand...

While absolutely a good idea, most folks in the general population have a poor understanding of anatomy and even for those that do have some understanding, most of those have virtually not 3D understanding of anatomy.
 
Jargon...

I had a post up in this thread discussing the pros of shooting at the actual center of mass (and mentioning that there were also cons), but I notice belatedly that that's been removed for some reason.

I have had a few instructors refer to their preferred aiming point as "center mass" instead of center of mass, perhaps in recognition of the fact that their aiming point was not the true center of mass. My understanding of "center mass" was lower 1/3 chest, just above the solar plexus (lower half of the heart), and my understanding for its being taught is that it is a place where a bullet will be effective, and where there is a lot of leeway to still get a hit on target if aim is compromised by movement.

I think that meaning of center of mass or center mass in the context of armed self-defense is well established and well understood as standard self-defense jargon, so the point that it is not the actual center of mass, while worth noting, is somewhat beside the point.

So: some folks have advocated avery precise aiming point (like the aortic valve), and have been criticized because such a precise aiming aiming point won't be hit under combat conditions. While that is likely true (and attempts to be overly precise during a gunfight would probably make one's response too slow), there is nothing wrong with declaring such a spot your "aiming point" if rapid shooting "around there" is the goal.

Some folks are advocating a high chest aiming point. They consider (apparently) this vaguer, larger area a better aiming point than a precise point (like aortic valve), but also better than a yet vaguer aim point (like center mass).

I guess one's preference for how precise the aim point (or aim area) should be will depend on the compromise you want to strike between quick target acquisition and fire, high probablity of some hit on target, and high probability of that hit being quickly effective.

FWIW, I appreciate coloradokevin's circumspective post, as well as Chindo18Z's relating his personal experience. I am pleased but not surprised to learn that it takes more than a shot to the abdomen to stop (I assume) trained US servicemen.
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.
Click to expand...
I too have noted that persons new to FOF training will tend to land shots too low, often striking thighs as well as lower abdomen. However, my observation is that this is not a fault of training to shoot center mass or of targets that encourage that, but rather of shooters under the new stress beginning to fire before sights are on target, and sometimes never getting the sights on target. The problem seems to go away with additional FOF training.
 
Last edited:
I find this thread to be mostly speculation. When a bullet enters the body, it doesn't take a straight path until it runs out of momentum as if the body were a block of ballistic gel. In thirty years of seeing lots of shootings, the truth is you really have no idea what effect a round will have.

I've seen an attempted suicide with a .38 to the temple where the round did a couple of laps around the inside of the skull, causing little damage. I saw a guy come in who had been shot at about 15 feet when he pulled a knife on a deputy. The deputy put a .45 into his chest. The guy backed up, dropped the knife and said 'you shot me!' And ran! After a short chase he was taken down and hauled into E.R for his GSW. Turns out the bullet hit a rib, flattened out a bit and followed the rib around to his back where the round was lodged just under the skin. On the other hand, I've seen a one shot kill to the face with a .380.

The bottom line for me is to put as many rounds into as many systems as I can using the largest caliber practical for me. You shoot until the bad guy goes down or you have slidelock.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
"Shot placement"
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
Fred Fuller
F
G
  • Locked
Why we are trained to shoot center mass
2 3
Replies
54
Views
2K
Kleanbore
K
L
  • Locked
Shot Placement (Most Vital Spots Ranked)
2 3 4
Replies
94
Views
6K
2zulu1
2zulu1
K
  • Locked
Shot placement
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
carebear
C
G
  • Locked
Shot Placement!!! Blah, Blah, Blah
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
Missouri Mule
M
Back
Top