"Shoot them in the Crotch"?

Status
Not open for further replies.

WrongHanded

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2017
Messages
4,771
I saw a short video (you can find it via a search of the title phrase on Google or YouTube), advocating doing just that in a close quarters defensive situation. But I'm not interested in talking about that video so much as the effect doing so could have on an attacker.

In numerous videos by Paul Harrell, where he shoots a "meat target", he references the ribs being shattered by the impact of various bullets. So clearly some bullets are capable of shattering some bones (though he uses ribs bought at the store). The Pelvic bone presents a rather large surface area from the front, and when including the lower spine and the tops of the Femurs, presents an even larger area. Now consider that the Pelvis is a critical part (some may consider it the chassis) of the skeletal system, and that it and the muscles surrounding it are also critical to foot travel (as in an attacker advancing upon an intended victim).

583cec3f458f397f39e7a53c_Pelvis anatomy copy.png


Does it seem to anyone else that the Pelvis is potentially quite a good target option in a self defense situation, where the goal of defensive firearms use is to stop the attack? I realise the situation changes depending on the circumstances (if the assailant also has a gun). But it occurs to me that whilst a Center-Of-Mass shot (or indeed several) may not stop an attacker from advancing if the Centeral Nervous System is not struck, a hit to the Pelvis could potentially cause enough mechanical damage as to disable the attacker.

Objectively, what do you think?
 
One of the long time ago recommendations was to take a pelvic shot. Then some folks decided it wasn't effective. Then it was, then it wasn't. So now someone said it is, again. If, you can completely shatter the hip joint it will work as advertised. Strike only the pelvic bone and maybe not so much.

Personally, if I'm going to shoot someone, cuz I'm not Hoppy, I'm going to shoot them in the most effective place I can see, even if that is the left pinky finger of a right handed person. Intentionally taking a non lethal shot might leave the enemy an opportunity to kill you.
 
If you have time, it’s a decent target. So is the mouth/nose area, very generally speaking and depending upon what angle.

The problem is most people don’t have time during a gunfight for anything other than rapid center of mass shots - head and pelvic shots don’t count if you don’t hit and they’re harder to hit.

I was trained to shoot center mass with a controlled pair, assess, and THEN do something fancy: string of five, failure drill, pelvic shots or to the mid-lower face.

COM is the best place to start, and I’d be inclined to just keep doing that until the threat is no longer. Unless it’s close enough to make face shots extremely likely to land.
 
If the intent is to break bones, then this mirrors dangerous game defense technique, and makes good sense. Holes in muscles don't necessarily end a fight, but a broken pelvis or hip joint usually does.

I've read that in the age of .505 Gibbs etc (huge slow rifle bullets) shooting a Cape in the forehead would get you killed by a buffalo with a headache. The winning move was to break a knee or hip.

Seems like the smaller target area woul be more hindrance than any advantage you might get.
 
Last edited:
The "crotch shot" is an idea that's been tossed around for over 30 years.

It was conceived to supplement the standard body armor drill technique of 2 to the chest and1 to the head.

When soft body armor became in common useage by LEOs in the 80s, criminals discovered it too. The body armor drill was intended to deal with this. The problem with head shots is it's a smaller target and is usually moving. The pelvis is much bigger. The crotch shot was also touted by some as less lethal than the head shot.

While it's a viable target I wouldn't pick it as my first option. Just because someone is down doesn't mean they're out of the fight. Something to keep in mind though.
 
It’s a split-second assessment, not a full evaluation. Just that you know if your rounds hit COM and of it worked or not.

Shooting an attacker COM with all your ammo until he stops won’t work if he’s wearing a vest, hence the need to assess and then deliver something else that will work.
 
Shooting an attacker COM with all your ammo until he stops won’t work if he’s wearing a vest. . .

The blunt force trauma of a magazine full of 9MM or larger will give you plenty of time to reload. . .

I'm no expert but in the dash- and vest-cam video I've seen, cops hit in the vest are not generally doing anything useful for at least a minute. It appears to be every bit as disruptive as getting tazed.
 
Crotch/pelvis is a valid place to put rounds IMO.

If the pelvis is the first thing the muzzle crosses in the defensive encounter, I advocate pressing a shot there (or two) on the way up to center mass.

I think it was Clint Smith who said "it may not end the fight, but you are off to a darned good start."

context:
for those interested the time code of 1:50 is the point when the crotch comment gets interesting, and funny. :D
 
My experience with people who have been shot is different than some here and what they’ve seen.

I’d still maintain that, vest or not (likely not in civilian life), it’s good practice to train to some sort of repeatable standard. For most people I know, it’s making the draw and firing a controlled pair. The other target(s) also get two each, then back for more if needed. That’s exactly where things like the pelvis shot come into play. If center mass isn’t stopping someone, that’s why there’s other places to target and it doesn’t always seem like the best idea to keep shooting someone where it isn’t working.

If you train to draw and empty your gun center mass, good on you, that’s just not how I was trained.

Perhaps this is a difference between cops and soldiers and the training they receive on how to address targets.
 
Nothing new here. Common doctrine in law enforcement firearms training (even more so after the North Hollywood shootout).

We have always trained for "pelvic girdle" shots as part of failure to stop drills. Generally easier shot at a moving target than the head and proven effective.
 
I was initially trained for two to the chest, pause, one to the head.

I would not criticize anyone who adheres to that.

But in my own belief system, the shoot until he's down is a better fit for me.

Both systems will work well as long as the shooter keeps his wits about him.
 
I would be more prone to do this if I was carrying a large hardcast SWC such as I carry in my .45 Colt when knocking about the woods. It is pretty much guaranteed to shatter the pelvis. However, even with that I am probably better served by solid COM hits.
 
Perhaps this is a difference between cops and soldiers and the training they receive on how to address targets.

Just speculating, but perhaps the differences make sense in context. Plate armor vs light & fast rifle bullets (soldiers) and soft armor vs heavy & slow pistol bullets (domestic police) might explain this.

Additionally, soldiers may be less concerned about their dash-cam video showing a follow-up shot on a downed client ending up on youtube.
 
Crotch/pelvis is a valid place to put rounds IMO.

If the pelvis is the first thing the muzzle crosses in the defensive encounter, I advocate pressing a shot there (or two) on the way up to center mass.

I think it was Clint Smith who said "it may not end the fight, but you are off to a darned good start."

I agree the pelvis is not a bad target. Vertical Tracking is a close range technique where you start shooting as soon as the gun is pointed at the target. I have personal knowledge of a LEO who used this is alive today because that's what he did.

The LEO was shot in the mouth with a 380 at a range of about 10 feet. The bullet was deflected by his teeth or upper jaw, exited under his chin and lodged in his flesh on the chest. Also a good example of just because I'm shot doesn't mean I'm dead. The LEO pulled his gun and started shooting as soon as the gun was pointed at the BG. IIRC, he fired 4 rds. One hit the BG in the leg, one in the hip, and one in the torso (can't remember where). One miss. The bad guy went down and expired. The LEO fully recovered.

Don't know which round put the guy down but it was the last round that hit him that was fatal. I'm sure the first two hits got his attention though.
 
This is still the most common drill in the pistol qual portion of training up here
and obviously, head shots are probably the most instinctive reaction to a failure to stop. Pelvic girdle shots are simply another failure to stop option.

I think it is everywhere for law enforcement. I became a convert after retiring, when I started teaching "non-LEO" classes exclusively. A shame to say, but the average non-LEO who is "capable" of a head shot under stress usually doesn't take classes.

It's frustrating to try to teach people who you know darned well are not going to practice after completing the class. And they will not handle stress well. You do what you can and hope for the best.
 
I was going to try and "translate" Clint's words, but honestly, watch the video and listen to the words and gather the intention. I get where's he's going with it.
 
Does it seem to anyone else that the Pelvis is potentially quite a good target option in a self defense situation, where the goal of defensive firearms use is to stop the attack? I realise the situation changes depending on the circumstances (if the assailant also has a gun). But it occurs to me that whilst a Center-Of-Mass shot (or indeed several) may not stop an attacker from advancing if the Centeral Nervous System is not struck, a hit to the Pelvis could potentially cause enough mechanical damage as to disable the attacker.

Objectively, what do you think?

The pelvis looks like a great target, doesn't it? What are you hoping to accomplish by shooting there? You want to disable the attacker by causing a breakdown in locomotion, right? Are you fighting with a pistol or a rifle? Chances are, you are fighting with a pistol and it is not a great choice to accomplish this goal. I have had the classes as well where the instructor says to shoot them in that area to "break the pelvis." More often than not, I have come to realize that most of these instructors are not actually sure of what they are saying. The don't understand the biomechanics involved in how that would even happen.

Pistol shots to this area often do not do what you intend for them to do. Now a pistol shot anywhere may "stop" the attacker. That is common knowledge, but so is the fact that such stops are most commonly psychological instead of physiological. Beyond that, the pelvis isn't a great target. The largest portions of the pelvis are the iliac blade. Like the shoulder blade, it can be shot through without actually breaking it and even if you break off a chunk of it, the pelvic girdle still isn't compromised. You have created a lot of pain for the person, but they can sill walk.

Ischium and Pubis? Stress-wise, these are mutually supportive to the pelvic girdle. You can break either one on either side and still not compromise the girdle. It will be really painful, but the girdle will not "collapse." Ideally, you would need to shoot the pubic symphysis (which appears to be labeled as the coccyx {tail bone} in the OP image) to break the girdle with a singular shot, assuming you have some understanding where this small target is under the clothing of an individual.

Maybe your round goes all the way through and strikes the sacrum. If the round strikes between the articular surfaces with the iliac blades, you might get it to fail and the girdle to no longer be intact. If you hit below the stress areas, again, lots of pain, but locomotion certainly may remain intact.

Pistol breakdown of locomotion is most apt to occur with a bullet that strike to the socket area where the femoral head articulates with the ilium, ischium, and pubis. A pistol bullet there will most likely compromise the joint and preclude locomotion. Similarly, hitting the femoral neck may do the job, but these are all pretty small targets hidden by clothing.

My point is to not count on using a pistol caliber to make a pelvic shot where you need to hit non-redundant stress bearing areas well hidden from view by clothing is going to be extremely difficult. Lots of people get pistol shot in this region without suffering actual skeletal locomotive breakdown. And when you look at the pelvis, it should be obvious as to why. You can actually shoot through the area and not even hit the pelvis.

As a secondary target, this is certainly okay to attempt when you don't have better choices, but a shot to the pelvis that might stop the bad guy from physically advancing cannot be expected to stop the bad guy from still trying to shoot you.

Centerfire rifle rounds offer a lot more damage causing capability, both skeletally and with soft tissue.

Here is an article that sums up, maybe better, a lot of what I said.
http://monderno.com/training/pelvic-shooting-best-worst-option/
 
Last edited:
I saw a short video (you can find it via a search of the title phrase on Google or YouTube), advocating doing just that in a close quarters defensive situation. But I'm not interested in talking about that video so much as the effect doing so could have on an attacker.

In numerous videos by Paul Harrell, where he shoots a "meat target", he references the ribs being shattered by the impact of various bullets. So clearly some bullets are capable of shattering some bones (though he uses ribs bought at the store). The Pelvic bone presents a rather large surface area from the front, and when including the lower spine and the tops of the Femurs, presents an even larger area. Now consider that the Pelvis is a critical part (some may consider it the chassis) of the skeletal system, and that it and the muscles surrounding it are also critical to foot travel (as in an attacker advancing upon an intended victim).

View attachment 803968

Does it seem to anyone else that the Pelvis is potentially quite a good target option in a self defense situation, where the goal of defensive firearms use is to stop the attack? I realise the situation changes depending on the circumstances (if the assailant also has a gun). But it occurs to me that whilst a Center-Of-Mass shot (or indeed several) may not stop an attacker from advancing if the Centeral Nervous System is not struck, a hit to the Pelvis could potentially cause enough mechanical damage as to disable the attacker.

Objectively, what do you think?

Shooting the pelvic girdle is not new. Body armor drills, hostage taker drills advocate that shot placement. If the attacker is on the ground unable to advance, you have more options: gain cover, flee the area etc. Under the deadly force requirements, Weapon, Intent, Delivery system, an attacker that is now grounded means you are free to move, giving you the advantage, and increasing your survivability.
,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top