I guess without knowing if my attacker is wearing a vest, and I'm only armed with a 5 shot 38spl snubby I'm shootin for the belly/pelvis. Being gut shot will ruin your day and there is no skeletal structure there to slow or deflect the bullet.
Why we are trained to shoot center mass
- Thread starter Gun Runnerz
- Start date
- Status
RustyShackelford
member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2006
- Messages
- 4,018
Targets....
Over time, as more CCW license holders and gun owners started training-marksmanship, as well as improved security-LE skill training; paper targets have been modified.
The standard crook with a .38spl revolver or black outline of a human figure have been converted to bowling pin shapes on top of targets. This shows the shooter the "tactical T" area & part of the body where more organs/nerves are.
Id also suggest reading or reviewing the material of Jim Cirello(check spelling). He was a NYPD officer and later on a senior instructor for the US Customs Service(now ICE/US Dept of Homeland Security).
Cirello ran a elite anti-robbery detail and had several lethal force events. He & his squad even had a shoot-out 15 minutes after they set up a covert surveillance of a retail location,
.
A NYPD police surgeon advised Cirello & his unit to aim for the lower torso. This rational was the torso was large, it would stop or keep the wounded subject from moving, it wouldn't hit or be in contact with body armor, it could cause massive blood loss/trauma/shock.
I agree with aiming center mass at a training target but aiming at the lower torso or using the newer high tech paper targets that show the internal organs can be useful too. Some of the shoot-out scenes in John Wick(2014) are good examples.
Over time, as more CCW license holders and gun owners started training-marksmanship, as well as improved security-LE skill training; paper targets have been modified.
The standard crook with a .38spl revolver or black outline of a human figure have been converted to bowling pin shapes on top of targets. This shows the shooter the "tactical T" area & part of the body where more organs/nerves are.
Id also suggest reading or reviewing the material of Jim Cirello(check spelling). He was a NYPD officer and later on a senior instructor for the US Customs Service(now ICE/US Dept of Homeland Security).
Cirello ran a elite anti-robbery detail and had several lethal force events. He & his squad even had a shoot-out 15 minutes after they set up a covert surveillance of a retail location,
.A NYPD police surgeon advised Cirello & his unit to aim for the lower torso. This rational was the torso was large, it would stop or keep the wounded subject from moving, it wouldn't hit or be in contact with body armor, it could cause massive blood loss/trauma/shock.
I agree with aiming center mass at a training target but aiming at the lower torso or using the newer high tech paper targets that show the internal organs can be useful too. Some of the shoot-out scenes in John Wick(2014) are good examples.
I was always taught to shoot COM of what you can see. Now virtually all of my training was as a soldier or law enforcement officer and that may not apply to all situations a private citizen might encounter.
If you are in a fight, you might get a shot at the torso. You might only have a foot, a shoulder, etc' as a target and I was taught to shoot COM of whatever part of the body your opponent exposed. Shoot COM at what you can see and you have less of a chance of missing.
If you are in a fight, you might get a shot at the torso. You might only have a foot, a shoulder, etc' as a target and I was taught to shoot COM of whatever part of the body your opponent exposed. Shoot COM at what you can see and you have less of a chance of missing.
TimSr
Member
The easiest target to hit that will stop the attacker from continuing is the obvious target of self defense.
The goal in hunting is a quick, clean, humane kill, with little tracking.
The goal in self defense is to deter the attack. People talk about vital organs, and start mentioning liver and kidneys? While a vital organ is likely to result in death, it does not necessarily mean quick incapacitation. A bullet in an attacker's gun hand elbow would be far more effective than a bullet in his kidney. Obviously too small to target, but to the point, "incapacity", "unable to continue" and "more lethal" do not necessarily go hand in hand. Relying on hunting, where the target is trying to escape, is not a good guide for detering someone trying to harm you. Someone mentioned how incapaciting a bullet in the hip can be, and its true. The problem with a lot of these scenarios is they always assume the attacker is ready to fight to the death, which is rare. Whole point is, shoot where you are most likely to score a hit, and that will give you the best chance of detering the attack. Overthinking to the point of trying to pick out which organ you are going to pierce, is cause for too much hesitation, when the sight of his own blood is usually enough to make an attacker flee, and if he runs a half a mile, with a hard to follow blood trail, it doesn't really matter.
The goal in hunting is a quick, clean, humane kill, with little tracking.
The goal in self defense is to deter the attack. People talk about vital organs, and start mentioning liver and kidneys? While a vital organ is likely to result in death, it does not necessarily mean quick incapacitation. A bullet in an attacker's gun hand elbow would be far more effective than a bullet in his kidney. Obviously too small to target, but to the point, "incapacity", "unable to continue" and "more lethal" do not necessarily go hand in hand. Relying on hunting, where the target is trying to escape, is not a good guide for detering someone trying to harm you. Someone mentioned how incapaciting a bullet in the hip can be, and its true. The problem with a lot of these scenarios is they always assume the attacker is ready to fight to the death, which is rare. Whole point is, shoot where you are most likely to score a hit, and that will give you the best chance of detering the attack. Overthinking to the point of trying to pick out which organ you are going to pierce, is cause for too much hesitation, when the sight of his own blood is usually enough to make an attacker flee, and if he runs a half a mile, with a hard to follow blood trail, it doesn't really matter.
Last edited:
leadcounsel
member
Seems some folks think their bullets will go exactly where they want, as they sit and sip a soda while on the computer...
Fact is that piles of research shows that most bullets miss their target, and hits rarely occur where intended.
Given this very broad and general information, the upper torso is the obvious target. The skill is a small, fast moving round target - and as Deaf Smith pointed out - bullets are known to deflect and not penetrate. From any angle, the head is only flat/ideal for a target over perhaps a few inches diameter before it rounds and makes a poor target. Great if you score a penetrating hit, but scoring that hit is quite difficult.
A point that is so obvious it's almost not worth stating, but the torso/COM offers you a 12" x 24" flat and soft target with a lot of organs, bones, and such that can quickly end a threat. Broken bones (ribs, hips, collar bone, shoulder joints, etc.) in and around that area are nearly debilitating for most people too, and certainly hinder attacks. And of course you shoot what you have available - even if it's just a foot or elbow sticking out from cover.
As for "pausing to assess" - no thank you. Shoot until the threat stops.
Try this drill at the range on a human target at 20 feet. As the shooter, do 30 pushups and situps, run in place to work up a sweat, then pick up your gun and
safely wobble back and forth, side to side, and move up and down and around while you "aim" at the target, to simulate your stress and the attacker's movement. See where your hits land.
Fact is that piles of research shows that most bullets miss their target, and hits rarely occur where intended.
Given this very broad and general information, the upper torso is the obvious target. The skill is a small, fast moving round target - and as Deaf Smith pointed out - bullets are known to deflect and not penetrate. From any angle, the head is only flat/ideal for a target over perhaps a few inches diameter before it rounds and makes a poor target. Great if you score a penetrating hit, but scoring that hit is quite difficult.
A point that is so obvious it's almost not worth stating, but the torso/COM offers you a 12" x 24" flat and soft target with a lot of organs, bones, and such that can quickly end a threat. Broken bones (ribs, hips, collar bone, shoulder joints, etc.) in and around that area are nearly debilitating for most people too, and certainly hinder attacks. And of course you shoot what you have available - even if it's just a foot or elbow sticking out from cover.
As for "pausing to assess" - no thank you. Shoot until the threat stops.
Try this drill at the range on a human target at 20 feet. As the shooter, do 30 pushups and situps, run in place to work up a sweat, then pick up your gun and
safely wobble back and forth, side to side, and move up and down and around while you "aim" at the target, to simulate your stress and the attacker's movement. See where your hits land.
Posted by leadcounsel:
I have never been in a real shooting situation. But recently watching a video ofRob Pincus missing more times than not in an armed robbery scenario in a laser training simulator was a real eye-opener for me.
What is not obvious is that there are many points and entry angles within that target that will result in misses of anything vital and that will therefore not do the job quickly. That's why we are trained to shoot several times very quickly until the threat has been "degraded".
There are still people who suggest it, but it should be patently obvious that that pause may be one's last, if it turns out that the perp can still shoot, or that he is still closing at short range with a blade. Why do it?
And many think that their target shooting will give a reasonable indication of their "shot placement" in a use of force encounter.
Many people like to belittle police officers and to criticize their training, for that reason.
I have never been in a real shooting situation. But recently watching a video ofRob Pincus missing more times than not in an armed robbery scenario in a laser training simulator was a real eye-opener for me.
Yes indeed.
Very true, and that is the answer to the question at hand.
What is not obvious is that there are many points and entry angles within that target that will result in misses of anything vital and that will therefore not do the job quickly. That's why we are trained to shoot several times very quickly until the threat has been "degraded".
AMEN!
There are still people who suggest it, but it should be patently obvious that that pause may be one's last, if it turns out that the perp can still shoot, or that he is still closing at short range with a blade. Why do it?
There is a lot of "lowest common denominator" reasoning in this thread. The reason for the high miss rate in real shootings is due to both the poor training (if any) and unsuitable (for a gunfight) training possessed by the ones doing the shooting.
Adopting a less effective aiming point based on assumptions bred from poorly trained people getting poor results just doesn't make sense to me. Why not train properly and aim at a more effective location getting both more and better hits? As an aside, I have yet to encounter any professional trainer teaching COM for close in fighting, nor have I seen any realistic target with a COM aim point. Even USPSA/IPSC/IDPA cardboard is center chest.
OTOH, if you start a thread about the importance of professional training all the excuses in the world come out about why it isn't necessary. From it cost too much, to I don't need to train like a commando, to it's just common sense why pay for it yada-yada.
Then, we have a video like the OP with a small target having nothing to do with a human set out at a long distance being shot at stationary on a nice sunny day. Well, that isn't "training" or preparation to survive a gun fight and I would expect those marksmanship skills to translate poorly to real-world hits based on what we now know about how the body performs under stress and realistic training methods.
How to prepare for a gunfight from a firearm skills perspective (not considering the critical mindset preparation, also as, if not more important)
With professional instruction/supervision
Step 1: Have to learn basic marksmanship and hand/eye coordination. Grip, stance, trigger control, sight alignment. This is basic square range marksmanship, getting fairly rapid and accurate (6-8" circle) at 3-10yds ish.
Step 2: Train firearms manipulation such as draw stroke, emergency reloads, malfunction clearance. Train more advanced marksmanship skills: shooting while moving (all directions), moving targets, one handed (ea. hand), retention and basic point shooting, faster shots, multiple targets, cover, shoot house etc.
Step 3: Training for an actual gunfight. This is the most difficult part and requires a combination of training methods. Here we take the base marksmanship and gun-handling skills and practice performance in as near to the real environment as possible.
Methods are a mix of realistic higher stress live fire (like multiple clothed 3D targets in a shoot house). Force on force. Video simulation.
Competition shooting will also help stress-innoculate gun/handling and marksmanship skills.
Now, here is the problem going back to my opener of this post. The vast majority of gun owners and likely THR members (and many LE/military) don't really get much past step 1 with a little bit of step 2 thrown in and with little if any professional instruction.
Practicing marksmanship on a square range has almost no coorellation to gunfight ability as evidenced by police officers qualifying "expert" and going on to miss 80-90% of the time. They aren't missing because they can't hit a target, they are missing because they don't have nearly enough training geared to helping them operate in a fighting environment. In other words, under stress, they are unable to utilize their raw marksmanship skills.
The other side of the coin are Tier 1 military units who perform extremely well under stress and take head-shots almost exclusively against terrorists. Yet, at the individual marksmanship level, most mid-level USPSA competitors would probably beat them.
It certainly doesn't have to be a Tier 1 unit though, what are the hit rates of SWAT teams?
It isn't the amount of training or raw marksmanship skill...it is the type of training. A type of training available to any civilian willing to prioritize it.
A 2 day defensive handgun class, a 2 day advanced handgun class and a 2-3 day force on force class with the student effectively practicing what they learn will put them light-years ahead of the lowest common denominator statistics. That is only 48-ish hours of training, neither cost, nor time prohibitive spread out over a couple years.
Adopting a less effective aiming point based on assumptions bred from poorly trained people getting poor results just doesn't make sense to me. Why not train properly and aim at a more effective location getting both more and better hits? As an aside, I have yet to encounter any professional trainer teaching COM for close in fighting, nor have I seen any realistic target with a COM aim point. Even USPSA/IPSC/IDPA cardboard is center chest.
OTOH, if you start a thread about the importance of professional training all the excuses in the world come out about why it isn't necessary. From it cost too much, to I don't need to train like a commando, to it's just common sense why pay for it yada-yada.
Then, we have a video like the OP with a small target having nothing to do with a human set out at a long distance being shot at stationary on a nice sunny day. Well, that isn't "training" or preparation to survive a gun fight and I would expect those marksmanship skills to translate poorly to real-world hits based on what we now know about how the body performs under stress and realistic training methods.
How to prepare for a gunfight from a firearm skills perspective (not considering the critical mindset preparation, also as, if not more important)
With professional instruction/supervision
Step 1: Have to learn basic marksmanship and hand/eye coordination. Grip, stance, trigger control, sight alignment. This is basic square range marksmanship, getting fairly rapid and accurate (6-8" circle) at 3-10yds ish.
Step 2: Train firearms manipulation such as draw stroke, emergency reloads, malfunction clearance. Train more advanced marksmanship skills: shooting while moving (all directions), moving targets, one handed (ea. hand), retention and basic point shooting, faster shots, multiple targets, cover, shoot house etc.
Step 3: Training for an actual gunfight. This is the most difficult part and requires a combination of training methods. Here we take the base marksmanship and gun-handling skills and practice performance in as near to the real environment as possible.
Methods are a mix of realistic higher stress live fire (like multiple clothed 3D targets in a shoot house). Force on force. Video simulation.
Competition shooting will also help stress-innoculate gun/handling and marksmanship skills.
Now, here is the problem going back to my opener of this post. The vast majority of gun owners and likely THR members (and many LE/military) don't really get much past step 1 with a little bit of step 2 thrown in and with little if any professional instruction.
Practicing marksmanship on a square range has almost no coorellation to gunfight ability as evidenced by police officers qualifying "expert" and going on to miss 80-90% of the time. They aren't missing because they can't hit a target, they are missing because they don't have nearly enough training geared to helping them operate in a fighting environment. In other words, under stress, they are unable to utilize their raw marksmanship skills.
The other side of the coin are Tier 1 military units who perform extremely well under stress and take head-shots almost exclusively against terrorists. Yet, at the individual marksmanship level, most mid-level USPSA competitors would probably beat them.
It certainly doesn't have to be a Tier 1 unit though, what are the hit rates of SWAT teams?
It isn't the amount of training or raw marksmanship skill...it is the type of training. A type of training available to any civilian willing to prioritize it.
A 2 day defensive handgun class, a 2 day advanced handgun class and a 2-3 day force on force class with the student effectively practicing what they learn will put them light-years ahead of the lowest common denominator statistics. That is only 48-ish hours of training, neither cost, nor time prohibitive spread out over a couple years.
Vern Humphrey
Member
As I said earlier, my experience is you can expect a 90% degradation in performance in combat. And any hit is better than no hit.
People who bet on the come tend to lose when gambling, and the same is true in combat.
People who bet on the come tend to lose when gambling, and the same is true in combat.
It hasn't been that long ago that most humanoid shaped targets did show a COM aiming point. It's only been in the 10 years that aiming points on the targets were moved to the center of the chest instead of the center of the torso. You can still buy B-27 targets with the old COM aiming point. Many LE agencies are still using them as they have stocks of them, don't shoot often enough to use them up very fast and don't have the extra money to throw the old ones out and upgrade.
Targets with a center of the chest aiming point are good, an improvement, but a better training tool is a target where the scoring rings aren't visible to the shooter at the distance he trains at or targets without scoring rings. Few people walk around with scoring rings on their outer clothing.
Straight facing targets are extremely unrealistic as unless you are shooting a western movie gunfight on video or motion picture, you are unlikely to encounter a face to face gunfight.
Virtually no law enforcement agency records anything but pass/fail on a qualification record anymore. That started back in the late 80s. This is for liability reasons, brought about by the phenomena you just suggested. Qualification scores are not an indication of performance in a fight and no one wants to try to get a jury to understand that the guy who shot 100% on the qualification course missed in the gunfight and killed or wounded a bystander or why such a good shot needed to kill the criminal instead of shooting to incapacitate him.
You can't expect to produce a shooter that is much better then your average hobbyist if you spread this kind of training out over two years. Shooting skills are extremely perishable until a shooter has enough correct repetitions to perform instinctively. One will not get enough repetitions in your training scenario.
SWAT Teams and Tier One military units are better for the simple reason that they train more then their counterparts on patrol duty or in conventional military units. Al you have to do is look at the difference in the amount of training they get and the rounds they expend in training.
As an example, my middle son is 1SG in B-1-28 IN at Ft Riley (well, until tomorrow when they fold the colors at the end of the month because the Battalion is being deactivated in the current budget cuts), last Summer he filled the Bn Operations Sergeant Position (they weren't going to assign a SGM to a BN that was deactivating that close to the end) and they had the marksmanship team from the 3d Ranger Bn come up from Benning to teach their basic 5 day close quarters marksmanship course. They didn't shoot the M9 portion because to put one battalion through the pistol portion of the 5 day class would have used more 9mm ammo then the Division was authorized for the year.
In your example, with 7 days of training spread out over two years, the shooter (unless he is a natural performer and yes there some) will never maintain the skills necessary to progress to the next level. Self evaluated practice will help, but without regularly assessing the skills and performing under that watchful eye of a good instructor, bad habits will develop.
A training program has to start at a basic level and not move forward until the student can perform at that level. There are no super-secret training techniques or methods. There are simply people who are very, very good at performing the basics. You get their by training much more frequently then 7 days over a two year period.
So how much training is appropriate to prepare a private citizen for the very unlikely, no let's say extremely unlikely gunfight? Seven days formal training over 2 years is better then nothing, but it's hardly enough to produce the kind of results you are thinking you will get.
RustyShackelford
member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2006
- Messages
- 4,018
Recent posts ....
Not all forum members belittle or ridicule sworn LE officers/police training.
I recall a few + and high praise remarks for the Austin TX cop who drilled a violent subject from a reported 104 yards away.
The APD officer used a S&W MP40(load or brand unknown).
As for CoM target training, I'd say in 2015 shooters, armed professionals and CCW license holders have more high tech targets, weapons, accessories and data-material than any other point in history.
I saw a Instagram pic of a new prototype gun target with a cool 3D/human shape design. The gel/elastic clear material had realistic human organs(lungs, heart, gall bladder, brain, spine, ribcage, etc.
It's not cheap but would be a real eye opener for firearm training sources.
Not all forum members belittle or ridicule sworn LE officers/police training.
I recall a few + and high praise remarks for the Austin TX cop who drilled a violent subject from a reported 104 yards away.
The APD officer used a S&W MP40(load or brand unknown).
As for CoM target training, I'd say in 2015 shooters, armed professionals and CCW license holders have more high tech targets, weapons, accessories and data-material than any other point in history.
I saw a Instagram pic of a new prototype gun target with a cool 3D/human shape design. The gel/elastic clear material had realistic human organs(lungs, heart, gall bladder, brain, spine, ribcage, etc.
It's not cheap but would be a real eye opener for firearm training sources.
Jeff, my comment on training mentions "they effectively practice what they learned" in between. I never meant someone could just attend a few courses and that's it. Any hobby shooter can find time to dry-fire and live-fire practice their skills to any level they want. Competition shooters do it all the time just for fun.
Professional training gives the practitioner the ability to practice correctly and effectively. Before that they aren't "training" they are just "plinking."
As far as 7 days being too little, I'd bet 90% of THR members don't even have 2 days of professional training. I was trying to be conservative and realistic in my example, more is certainly better.
My training sessions are very efficient and effective, the most un-realistic targets I use are photo-realistic armed targets with organs faintly marked so they (or any aim point) cannot be seen. I warm up on those and move to multiple clothed 3D targets. They don't cost much either...
Nothing I am saying is meant to belittle anyone, LE and the military are severely limited by budget and resources. With the knowledge and resources available today we can get way better results than ever before, especially with the advances in force on force training methods.
I don't have time to dig up recent studies, but I would be shocked if a person/unit with current, realistic FoF training experienced a 90% degradation of skills in combat.
The closer you replicate the "test" environment in training, the closer training performance will be to actual performance.
Professional training gives the practitioner the ability to practice correctly and effectively. Before that they aren't "training" they are just "plinking."
As far as 7 days being too little, I'd bet 90% of THR members don't even have 2 days of professional training. I was trying to be conservative and realistic in my example, more is certainly better.
My training sessions are very efficient and effective, the most un-realistic targets I use are photo-realistic armed targets with organs faintly marked so they (or any aim point) cannot be seen. I warm up on those and move to multiple clothed 3D targets. They don't cost much either...
Nothing I am saying is meant to belittle anyone, LE and the military are severely limited by budget and resources. With the knowledge and resources available today we can get way better results than ever before, especially with the advances in force on force training methods.
I don't have time to dig up recent studies, but I would be shocked if a person/unit with current, realistic FoF training experienced a 90% degradation of skills in combat.
The closer you replicate the "test" environment in training, the closer training performance will be to actual performance.
Posted by strambo:
First, there is this from Vern Humphrey: "...my experience is you can expect a 90% degradation in performance in combat".
Second, there is my observation about the video of Rob Pincus in the Gander Mountain Academy simulator, and that was simulated combat. People who do not subscribe to the PDN premium videos really should.
For what it's worth, I agree with everything that Jeff White said in his post above.
That may be a reason that applies to some people, and it most probably is, but I would not take it any father than that.
First, there is this from Vern Humphrey: "...my experience is you can expect a 90% degradation in performance in combat".
Second, there is my observation about the video of Rob Pincus in the Gander Mountain Academy simulator, and that was simulated combat. People who do not subscribe to the PDN premium videos really should.
I am not at all persuaded that trying to balance speed and precision in hitting the upper chest area of an violent attacker at close range constitutes in any way the adoption of a "less effective aiming point". It's not the right approach for hostage rescue, but people who do that do not train to "shoot at center mass".
For what it's worth, I agree with everything that Jeff White said in his post above.
Rusty,
I don't disagree with your idea of training. I disagree with the idea that most people will expend the time and resources in the sustainment training necessary to keep your skills up.
Force on force training is great, but it takes a real pro to properly plan and conduct it and dedicated role players who understand that they are "training aids" whose purpose is to assist the student in meeting a specific training objective.
A lot of the private force on force training I have observed has not been well run and too often generates into a "free play" war game with the idea that that is the best training. In my experience a free play force on force exercise is the top tier level and shouldn't be where people start in FoF.
But we're getting off topic with the talk of overall training methodologies. Back to shooting COM.
I don't disagree with your idea of training. I disagree with the idea that most people will expend the time and resources in the sustainment training necessary to keep your skills up.
Force on force training is great, but it takes a real pro to properly plan and conduct it and dedicated role players who understand that they are "training aids" whose purpose is to assist the student in meeting a specific training objective.
A lot of the private force on force training I have observed has not been well run and too often generates into a "free play" war game with the idea that that is the best training. In my experience a free play force on force exercise is the top tier level and shouldn't be where people start in FoF.
But we're getting off topic with the talk of overall training methodologies. Back to shooting COM.
On the 90% reduction in combat comment, when, exactly what type, and how much training did his unit receive before combat? It is rhetorical because there is no point in personal examples over the internet and I would never want to put someone on the spot like that, I neither want, nor expect an answer.
My point is that modern realistic training and force on force training is light years ahead of anything anyone received in Vietnam up until late 90's in the main-stream military units. Post 9-11 and especially after Iraq, training realism has went through the roof in the military at least at the national training centers.
There is a very solid body of work and trainers in LE as well, a great book on this subject (The Book IMHO) is "Training At The Speed of Life" by Kenneth R. Murray.
I haven't seen Pincus' simulator video. While I wasn't shooting to square range standards, I did not have anywhere near a 90% reduction in the simulators at all. I had almost no pure misses and good solid rapid hits through many different scenarios including dudes with AKs.
To the third point, in my first post of the thread, I said the OP was conflating COM with center of chest and many here still are including you. Center of mass is not center of chest!
I agree 100% with balancing speed and precision in hitting the upper chest area just like you said verbatim above. The "less-effective" aiming point would be center of mass. If people don't understand the terminology then we can't have a discussion.
I teach upper torso if you have it, COM of what you can see if you you don't.
I don't bother with fads like pelvic shots. You are unlikely to shatter the pelvis and drop your opponent to the ground even with rifle fire.
I don't bother with fads like pelvic shots. You are unlikely to shatter the pelvis and drop your opponent to the ground even with rifle fire.
We used to distinguish between the two by saying "COM" and "high COM." I'm not sure why "high COM" seems to have fallen out of disuse of late.
That observation made on the terminology, I think high COM is a realistic goal, with plan B being COM of whatever parts are visible/unarmored.
TimSr
Member
Believe it or not, as a person who hunts deer with a pistol in rugged terrain, just that can give you a more realistic expectation of what its like to shoot while wheezing, or trying to aim with arenalin shakes. Most defensive shots will not involve you standing in our favorite shooting position, and calmly squeezing single action shots at a lighted target.
Hi,
Not trying to be humorous ....bear with me.... The main problem that we are all trying to deal with, is the fact that handguns used for self defense are all very under powered for the job. Hence the need for multiple shots and placement , etc.....
One of the main determinants of whether a person will stop fighting , is how much "fight" he has ( either drug induced or anger or ?) Now don't laugh, but I wonder how much of a "fight stopper" , a shot to the groin/penis would be ? Granted , it's not an easy target, not particularly vascular....but I wonder just how de-moralizing it would be to take a hit there ?
I've never been in a gunfight , thank God.....but I imagine that it would be very difficult to continue the fight.....( Even a miss , stands a chance of hitting the pelvis or iliac or femoral arteries)
Any law enforcement folks who have seen this type of wound ?? Opinions ?? mike
PS: please no jokes....I'm trying to be serious....
Not trying to be humorous ....bear with me.... The main problem that we are all trying to deal with, is the fact that handguns used for self defense are all very under powered for the job. Hence the need for multiple shots and placement , etc.....
One of the main determinants of whether a person will stop fighting , is how much "fight" he has ( either drug induced or anger or ?) Now don't laugh, but I wonder how much of a "fight stopper" , a shot to the groin/penis would be ? Granted , it's not an easy target, not particularly vascular....but I wonder just how de-moralizing it would be to take a hit there ?
I've never been in a gunfight , thank God.....but I imagine that it would be very difficult to continue the fight.....( Even a miss , stands a chance of hitting the pelvis or iliac or femoral arteries)
Any law enforcement folks who have seen this type of wound ?? Opinions ?? mike
PS: please no jokes....I'm trying to be serious....
Last edited:
Mike, answering your question would be a matter pure speculation.
And it would be of no value whatsoever to the discussion of strategy, tactics, or training.
In a real use of force incident, a defender firing at an advancing violent criminal actor, shooting at the upper chest area, may score hits to the chest, head, arm, hand, and just about anywhere else on the body.
The defender does not choose the locations or angles of such entry wounds.
No one can really predict with any certainty how the attacker might react to any one of them.
Nor is the subject of "demoralizing" effects really relevant if the attacker is trying to kill the defender.
Let's not go down that road.
And it would be of no value whatsoever to the discussion of strategy, tactics, or training.
In a real use of force incident, a defender firing at an advancing violent criminal actor, shooting at the upper chest area, may score hits to the chest, head, arm, hand, and just about anywhere else on the body.
The defender does not choose the locations or angles of such entry wounds.
No one can really predict with any certainty how the attacker might react to any one of them.
Nor is the subject of "demoralizing" effects really relevant if the attacker is trying to kill the defender.
Let's not go down that road.
That thought crossed my mind.
But--one obvious scenario that could involve carefully aimed fire in a lawful use of force incident might be hostage rescue. Another might be the taking out of a violent criminal actor who is about to shoot someone else.
The risk in either case is causing violence that might not occur but for the shots fired by the defender. If shooting were necessary, one would be far better off with a rifle, and one would be better served by having a "spotter" to help.
In any event, one would most probably aim for the cerebral cortex, which is an extremely small target. I suppose one could conjure up a scenario in which one might decide to aim for the gun hand.
But if one is defending oneself against an ambush by a violent criminal actor, that immediate necessity and imminent danger that we discuss here so often would certainly preclude taking the time to try for any great degree of precision.
The bullets will hit where they hit. As leadcounsel mused, "Seems some folks think their bullets will go exactly where they want, as they sit and sip a soda while on the computer...".
To think so is naive in the extreme.
In some of my close range training , in which one is at contact range....the instruction has been to strike with the support hand and/or raise the support hand to block incoming blows. Holding the gun at your side and as far away from the attacker as possible, it was suggested that you fire a couple of rounds into the low abdomen/pelvis as you're taking the first step or two backwards. You do this as you're creating distance to actually aim the gun. You aim at the pelvis to avoid shooting your own hand , which is higher.
I wasn't suggesting that you actually aim for his "package" just asking and /or suggesting that if you hit his "package" , would it be particularly effective in stopping the attack ?? It seems to me, that it would....but I've never read a case report that dealt with this type of wound.
The only similarity that I can imagine , is during hand to hand fighting.....a groin kick or punch is certainly an acceptable and effective move.... I don't see why a gunshot wound to the area wouldn't be just as effective or more so ?? mike
I wasn't suggesting that you actually aim for his "package" just asking and /or suggesting that if you hit his "package" , would it be particularly effective in stopping the attack ?? It seems to me, that it would....but I've never read a case report that dealt with this type of wound.
The only similarity that I can imagine , is during hand to hand fighting.....a groin kick or punch is certainly an acceptable and effective move.... I don't see why a gunshot wound to the area wouldn't be just as effective or more so ?? mike
- Status
