Placement and Effectiveness

[Double Naught Spy]

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.

See, another person who wants to call a location that is other than center of mass, center of mass. Well understood? I think you are confused. A big part of the problem is that it is not well understood, hence the multiple incorrect revisionist usurps of the name, and that is why there is confusion.

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.

I always find this interesting. How do folks aim at that which they cannot even see? At best, you can aim at some external location where you hope is the proper location for the bullet's trajectory to pass through and then hit the desired internal structure should it have sufficient penetration to reach it. People like to note that shot placement is king. What they are talking about are those external locations. However, shot placement is nothing without proper trajectory and penetration.

As loneviking noted, once the bullet enters the body, it can do some unexpected things and doesn't necessarily fly true. So even if you hit the desired external location that you are using as a landmark guide to hit some structure behind it, that doesn't mean you will hit that structure. With a bit of searching, we can find several examples of people shot in the head where the bullet missed the brain or brain stem, shot center of the chest and didn't have the heart or lungs hit, shot in the hip without hitting or breaking the pelvis.

So until which time we develop x-ray optics for firearms that will allow us to peer inside the body and see the internal organs we want to impact, you cannot actually aim at a particular internal structure that you cannot see. You can only aim at some external landmarks...which as it turns out, are often cover by clothing.

 

[Jefpainthorse]

Trying hard to keep up... How about lots of holes above the belt line?

 

[Fred Fuller]

As with any situation where the outcome is essentially uncontrollable, you do the best you can with what you have offered to you as far as the target is concerned. No, you might not hit exactly where you intended to hit when shooting under pressure. Does that mean you shouldn't aim to hit where you intend to hit just because you might miss? Deciding exactly what you want to shoot at is IMHO something you should take care of early along, before events call on you to actually shoot at whatever it is you intend to hit. "Something, anything" as a target is likely to get about the same results as shooting at an entire covey of quail at the same time on a covey rise.

Makes no difference to me if someone decides that the left pinky toe is the spot where they want to hit. If you don't pick a spot and shoot at it, chances are you won't hit whatever. It definitely is tricky, shooting at a three dimensional target when most of your training and practice comes in two dimensions, but it is a mental adjustment that is critical IMHO. Shooting at a single defined spot on the surface of a three dimensional target is only going to give the desired result a small percentage of the time. As the target shifts, so does the point of aim. The idea is to make the track of the bullet intersect vital structures within the target, using the shape and angle of the target to determine approximately where those structures are located, on the fly. Not an easy task, no, but in order to get stops as soon as is practicable, it seems to be the best way to accomplish the task.

 

[Loosedhorse]

See, another person who wants to call a location that is other than center of mass, center of mass.

I don't "want" to, but I do because it is an established and understood phrase in this realm--jargon. I suspect some brief reflection on your part might reveal many common labels or phrases that are technically inaccurate, but well understood and standard.

I can understand if you "want" to overturn that convention. Good luck.

I always find this interesting. How do folks aim at that which they cannot even see?

I studied anatomical drawings of Cape buffalo from many different angles for months before my hunt; and used these great 1/4 size photographic targets at the range that had the location of the vital organs drawn on the opposite side. It got to the point that I could aim at what I could not see: I could look at the animal at whatever angle, locate the top of the heart, and aim there.

The results were one buff shot exactly through my aim point (top of the heart) on a quartering-to shot at 40 meters; and one shot an inch low (right through the heart) on a broadside shot at 100m. I doubt I am unique. It can be done.

 

[JRH6856]

I always find this interesting. How do folks aim at that which they cannot even see?

It isn't shooting what you can't see, it is shooting at a location where you have a reasonable certainty your target is...or will be. Ever try wing shooting? You have to lead the bird so you can't aimat the target. You have to aim at a moving spot in front of the target where there is nothing but air.

 

[Al Thompson]

How do folks aim at that which they cannot even see?

You can only aim at some external landmarks...which as it turns out, are often covered by clothing.

You've answered your own question.

Visualize your target as a whole, not as a 2D sheet of paper. I may aim at the right front shirt pocket, but my goal is to drive that bullet through the torso and out the left scapula. Pick the external landmark in order to skewer the important kibbles and bits as the bullet goes to your unseen destination on the opposite side of the body.

As loneviking noted, once the bullet enters the body, it can do some unexpected things and doesn't necessarily fly true.

Exactly right, but that's out of your control. BG may be wearing body armor or be on some pain inhibiting drug too, but, IMHO, that's why we defend ourselves with blasters that hold multiple BBs.

 

[coloradokevin]

once the bullet enters the body, it can do some unexpected things and doesn't necessarily fly true. So even if you hit the desired external location that you are using as a landmark guide to hit some structure behind it, that doesn't mean you will hit that structure. With a bit of searching, we can find several examples of people shot in the head where the bullet missed the brain or brain stem, shot center of the chest and didn't have the heart or lungs hit, shot in the hip without hitting or breaking the pelvis.

While I'll certainly agree that there are documented cases in which a bullet hasn't flown on a predictable path after entering a person's body (I've seen some, and heard of firsthand accounts of others), I'd also argue that the bullet follows a fairly predictable path in most instances. It may not ALWAYS work out that way, but it does so with at least enough frequency that you ought to be making a concerted effort to aim at a point that will most predictably result in the desired outcome.

In other words, if your goal is to cause a fight-ending hit to the CNS of a person who is trying to kill you, you aren't going to aim at the left lower neck in hopes of seeing your bullet take an upward right-curving flight path within the subject while en route to his head. Rather, you're going to aim for a shot would give you the most probable chance of reaching the critical areas of the brain that allow the subject to continue in a fight.

Deciding on these probable areas for the sake of aiming is most easily accomplished by understanding the basic anatomical structure of your opponent. Again, to add a hunting analogy to this conversation, please keep in mind that hunters routinely study the anatomy of their prey in hopes of delivering the most effective and lethal shot to that animal. Generally speaking, such knowledge of the animal's anatomy does prove useful to a skilled hunter.

So until which time we develop x-ray optics for firearms that will allow us to peer inside the body and see the internal organs we want to impact, you cannot actually aim at a particular internal structure that you cannot see. You can only aim at some external landmarks...which as it turns out, are often cover by clothing.

Naturally you are aiming at an external landmark when you are shooting at a living subject. But, these external landmarks can tell you where to find the internal targets you seek when trying to stop an attack. I can't see the engine to my car when I look at it in my driveway, but a knowledge of my vehicle gives me a real good chance of hitting it just by aiming at the outside landmarks on that vehicle. I can't see my tongue in my mouth with my lips together, but I still know where to find it.

Or, on a more serious and related analogy, a police sniper may not be able to see the medulla oblongata of the hostage taker he has been tasked with anchoring, and the shot that this marksman is about to deliver may be an absolute must-hit shot. But, the sharpshooter can still have a very reasonable expectation of success through a combination of skilled shot placement and anatomical knowledge of how a person's exterior features relate to their internal structures.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Naturally you are aiming at an external landmark when you are shooting at a living subject.

Sometimes. Sometimes you are mostly working with a silhouette.

I suspect, in a very real way, a practiced sniper "sees" the medulla rather than the external landmarks. As the target turns his head, the landmarks change, but the goal of the shot (medulla) does not, and I doubt that he is consciously thinking, "Okay, head turn is now 50 degrees right, 10 degrees down, so that should make my external landmark..." rather than just "knowing" or "seeing" where the medulla is, and aiming there.

 

[LAK]

RE: Aortic shots etc. I do not think anyone in that vein of the discusion here was suggesting that one target a single blood vessel. The point of "COM", ie. the central upper chest is that cluster which includes the heart, the largest arteries in and of it, and the spine.

Placing bullets in that area increase the chance of a rapid stop due to destruction of the heart/blood vessel(s) and a quick blood pressure drop, and or a hit to the spine which might produce the instant pull the plug effect. In addition to the bullets themselves there are the ribs and sternum which if shattered by one or more bullets might produce secondary missiles into the heart and blood vessels. Some data on that subject would be interesting.

 

[Kleanbore]

I think this one has been exhausted.