Shot placement
- Thread starter taters123
- Start date
- Status
Many people consider shooting center of mass because of the abundance of vital bits of one's physiology, or the fact it's the broadest past of many persons' bodies.
That may be true, but often overlooked is what I think is the most important reason to aim COM. When you draw, generally living targets move, as to avoid being shot. We may draw and fire quickly, but an assailant can still see what is happening enough to flinch or otherwise move.
One's center of mass is the largest, most static part of his or her body. That is, when he or she moves, it is generally the most difficult part of the person to move a significant distance quickly. A short fired at COM is a shot at the part of the person that has the best change of still being near the cross hairs (though we're all probably point shooting under stress, I still use this expression) after our reaction time is considered.
And as we know, shots are generally most effective when they land on target.
That may be true, but often overlooked is what I think is the most important reason to aim COM. When you draw, generally living targets move, as to avoid being shot. We may draw and fire quickly, but an assailant can still see what is happening enough to flinch or otherwise move.
One's center of mass is the largest, most static part of his or her body. That is, when he or she moves, it is generally the most difficult part of the person to move a significant distance quickly. A short fired at COM is a shot at the part of the person that has the best change of still being near the cross hairs (though we're all probably point shooting under stress, I still use this expression) after our reaction time is considered.
And as we know, shots are generally most effective when they land on target.
Last edited:
I would vote for center mass because it is a larger target. Also as stated before, it seems double tapping a bg in the pelvis would not look good to a cop, judge, or jury. As an EMT, however, when someone has a shattered pelvis it is a HUGE deal and are often times more threatening than a perforated lung. The pelvis often times shatters when broken and with that many splinters/sharp ends near the femoral artery, it's never good.
My thought is a gut shot is supposed to be more painful than com. I have not had the opportunity to try it though. I hope to never have to. Another thought of mine is any hole in a bad guy is better than no hole at all so use a gun you can shoot accurately.....chris3
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Right. Besides, given the extreme marksmanship skills noted in the shootings by professional soldiers and professional law enforcement, I don't think you have much to worry about in consistently hitting the pelvis and if you do, that anyone will necessarily believe that you were trying to do that as opposed to having trigger jerk issues under stress. Either you were in a position where lethal force was justified or you were not (see end of page 1). If you were, there is no law that dictates where you must shoot to stop the bad guy.
So, it is not at all unlikely that a person struck in the lower abdomen will be able to continue to pose a serious threat for a time interval far longer than you might desire.
Interesting statement.
I suggest you read the entire thread while also noting the context of the statement you just quoted.
Edit: Here is what I said in my first post within this thread:
Warp said:
Note that the post you quoted was in direct response to somebody claiming that you might get into trouble for an otherwise legitimate defensive shooting simply because you hit their pelvis.
Last edited:
I first read this method in massad ayoobs combat hand gunnery. His argument was that a shot to the chest would easily pass through lungs with little expansion, allowing the attacker to keep aggressing. He said that a couple shots would shatter the pelvis, incapacitating the attacker. I was kind of under the impression, by reading it, that the method was aimed more at rampaging drug addicts
Bobson
Member
I agree with this logic. Even if a center-mass shot doesn't completely stop an attacker, it will give ample time for a follow-up shot, should one be necessary. Even if an attacker has a ballistic vest on, a shot to the chest from just about any modern handgun caliber will have enough force to knock the wind out of a person, and often, knock them to the ground. Use that opportunity to take another shot if that's what's necessary for your survival.
Myth.
Reactions to being hit in the vest vary, but the effects mentioned in the quoted post are not typical.
I also do not know were "ample time" comes from; the attacker's next shot may be one that kills us.
The fight will be what it will be; it will not go like the move scripts we have in our heads.
The fact is if bullets are going both ways at relatively close range one does not have the time or ability to think to himself, "hmmm, these chest shots aren't working, maybe i should aim for the pelvis". Not to mention in the speed at which such an event is likley to occur it is highly unlikely one will even be able to determine if rounds are hitting the adversaries chest in the first place. One could of course train to to fire X rounds center mass followed by Y shots in the pelvis but i dont buy its the best course of action. I say keep them all of center of mass as one also has the chance of hitting an arm or shoulder and disabling the bad guy from being able to continue his attack if vitals are missed.
Deaf Smith
Member
Taters,
I can see a pelvic shot if, after the first two or three rounds, there is no reaction from your opponent. It may be because they are on drugs, adrenalin, hate, or a bullet resistant vest. THEN I can see switching to either a head shot or pelvic.
The pelvic region does not have the heart or lung, not any organ that will cause an immediate stop (like a brain shot.)
Thus, at least for the first rounds, I'd go primarily for a COM/heart shot. It's bigger, has more organs, and more likely to get a stopping action.
And Justin,
In Tyler Texas, Mark Wilson at the Tyler Courthouse, had a shootout with a AK welding nutjob. He shot COM. The nutjob did have a vest on. Mark THOUGHT he had dropped the BG, but the guy got back up and ran behind Wilson and killed him with the AK.
If you TRAIN to shoot COM for a few rounds and then switch to head/pelvic then you will get over focusing so much on the COM shots.
Deaf
Deaf Smith, I think that story goes more to say that one needs to verify the threat from a bad guy is truly neutralized. There may be extremely rare occasions where one has the opportunity to evaluate effects of shots fired but in the vast majority of shootings i've read about or seen both parties are essentially emptying their guns as fast as possible as best they can in their adversaries direction. Unless one trains so specifically to follow up strings of COM shots with pelvic shots so that it occurs without thinking i don't believe it is a viable option in the majority of encounters between individuals armed with firearms.
On a side note, i just got back form a vacation near tyler. While there i ate a restaurant right next to the court house. I wasn't aware of that event. When did it occur?
On a side note, i just got back form a vacation near tyler. While there i ate a restaurant right next to the court house. I wasn't aware of that event. When did it occur?
I train myself to work upward from COM, rather than dowward, as the default method. One or two shots at COM, then "zipper" upward. This has the additional advantage of working with the weapon's recoil.
One additional advantage of working one's successive shots upward, rather than downward, is that the flash and blast of those shots, being fired at close range, are
getting more into the opponent's face. All else being equal, it is a very human behavior to shy away from things being launched into one's face.
Retired police officer firearms instructor Daryl Bolke has opined in print that one reason the .357 Magnum, when fired from short barrels, developed such a reputation for stopping bad guys is because nobody wants that thing going off in their face again. As I so often do carry magnum snubbies, this is all the more reason to direct fire at an opponent's face. When my son and I train
together, I note that the obnoxiousness of the blast from our .40 SIG P229
pistols is not much less than magnum blast. (I am mandated to use .40 at
work, and chose the P229, of the authorized choices, as my duty pistol.) It is always easier to perceive the flash and blast of another's weapon, than one's own; I am not implying that we shoot toward each other!
As for being able to notice hits on one's opponent, this varies. Some report not seeing the hits, and some do. My one defensive shot, which is hopefully going to be my lifetime total, was very noticeable when it impacted my adversary, both the huge entrance hole, and his reaction, plus the blood. Oh, mercy, the blood. Within a fraction of a second, I saw there was no need to fire the GP100 again. (This was before my PD went all-.40 for duty
pistols.)
One additional advantage of working one's successive shots upward, rather than downward, is that the flash and blast of those shots, being fired at close range, are
getting more into the opponent's face. All else being equal, it is a very human behavior to shy away from things being launched into one's face.
Retired police officer firearms instructor Daryl Bolke has opined in print that one reason the .357 Magnum, when fired from short barrels, developed such a reputation for stopping bad guys is because nobody wants that thing going off in their face again. As I so often do carry magnum snubbies, this is all the more reason to direct fire at an opponent's face. When my son and I train
together, I note that the obnoxiousness of the blast from our .40 SIG P229
pistols is not much less than magnum blast. (I am mandated to use .40 at
work, and chose the P229, of the authorized choices, as my duty pistol.) It is always easier to perceive the flash and blast of another's weapon, than one's own; I am not implying that we shoot toward each other!
As for being able to notice hits on one's opponent, this varies. Some report not seeing the hits, and some do. My one defensive shot, which is hopefully going to be my lifetime total, was very noticeable when it impacted my adversary, both the huge entrance hole, and his reaction, plus the blood. Oh, mercy, the blood. Within a fraction of a second, I saw there was no need to fire the GP100 again. (This was before my PD went all-.40 for duty
pistols.)
Deaf Smith
Member
It all depends on training. Few do really train. Most shoot some at targets but the idea of actually training hard for encounters is rare, even among LEOs.
The court house shooting was at the back entrance. I bet you ate at Ricks, or The Feed Lot. I think there is a Mexican restaurant near the back right below where Mark Wilson had his apartment.
He even had a Swedish K subgun there (registered and the ATF took it that very day after he was killed. It was unloaded and picked up.) He saw the shooting right outside his window. I understand he once remarked that one day there was going to be a shooting down there cause of all the court cases were many parties hated each other.
He was behind a pickup truck and the killer was on the other side of the truck. They popped up firing at each other. Wilson hit him 5 times (I think) but all chest hits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler_courthouse_shooting
February 24, 2005.
Mas Ayoob wrote a real good article on it in the American Handgunner.
Last edited:
You may not get to pick and choose a location.
It's pretty likely some areas won't present themselves.
Bobson
Member
A specific incident comes to mind in which an LEO was taking fire from a guy with a .380 ACP pistol. One of the bullets hit the cop's flashlight (still mounted on his belt), and the impact put the cop flat. He thought he had been shot in the stomach.
The bullet didn't even penetrate the metal side of the flashlight, I've seen a picture of it.
EDIT: In fact, let me try and find it. It was an article in American Cop magazine.
mljdeckard
Member
Sometimes people fall down. I've had a fly run into my eye and I fell down. Did the fly hit me with enough force to knock me down?
A .380 ACP pistol is not capable of knocking a man down. If you believe differently you are a fool.
Let's start with basic middle/high school physics class: The whole equal/opposite forces thing. Explain to me how it has the force to knock somebody over without knocking the shooter flat.
Next up, look up the Mythbusters episode. They shoot pig carcass.
mljdeckard
Member
No pistol round transfers enough energy to physically knock a man over by itself.
It can contribute. Particularly if say, a person was already off balance and got hit. (Not unlike you standing off balance and getting a casual shove that catches you by surprise and falling over.) If it hits a solid bone this would also contribute. But pistol rounds don't have 'knockdown power'.
It can contribute. Particularly if say, a person was already off balance and got hit. (Not unlike you standing off balance and getting a casual shove that catches you by surprise and falling over.) If it hits a solid bone this would also contribute. But pistol rounds don't have 'knockdown power'.
Deaf Smith
Member
Ok guys then one question....
Why does every LEO, military, and civilian school say shoot COM and not pelvic?
Even the great gunfighters like Askins, Jordan, Bryce, Gonzales, Frank Hammer, etc... none of them mentioned shooting for the pelvic as the first option. NONE.
I consider that a big hint.
Deaf
Why does every LEO, military, and civilian school say shoot COM and not pelvic?
Even the great gunfighters like Askins, Jordan, Bryce, Gonzales, Frank Hammer, etc... none of them mentioned shooting for the pelvic as the first option. NONE.
I consider that a big hint.
Deaf
- Status
Similar threads
