# Pelvic Girdle



## Hudson69 (Dec 31, 2009)

Hola,
Any shooters out there train to put rounds into this area.  It has come up with some of the people I shoot with as a potentially better place to effectively render a bandit immobile and less of a threat since body shots are hard to make into instant "man-stoppers" and head shots are harder to pull off.  The thought is if you can take out a hip, even if the shooter is still semi-functional he/she is mostly immobilized.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 31, 2009)

Hudson69 said:


> Hola,
> Any shooters out there train to put rounds into this area.  It has come up with some of the people I shoot with as a potentially better place to effectively render a bandit immobile and less of a threat since body shots are hard to make into instant "man-stoppers" and head shots are harder to pull off.  The thought is if you can take out a hip, even if the shooter is still semi-functional he/she is mostly immobilized.



It's an option, though I don't train for it specifically.  Center of mass and head shots are my preference.  In aiming situation, I trust my ability to hit the head.  In a far more rapid point shoot situation, center mass is the way to go anyway, or if it's nearly punch out and touch them range, back to simply punching the gun in their face and squeezing the trigger.

Where pelvic girdle shots would seem to be most preferable is EXTREME close range (guy on TOP of you), where one cannot draw and get extension, merely draw and cant the gun forward at a downward 45 degrees and fire......repeat as needed until space is made.


----------



## Skpotamus (Dec 31, 2009)

I've seen it talked about on other forums and pretty much thought of as a bad idea by most people.  

First, their is a lot of doubt about a handgun actually being able to break the pelvis.  There's been lots of people in 60mph+ car crashes that didn't break their hip bones (the lap belt goes right across your pelvis), if that amount of energy doesn't break it (enough energy to bend and snap steel that handgun rounds bounce off of), I doubt a pistol bullet will.  

Even if it does work, and say the pelvis breaks and the guy drops like a sack of potatoes.... nothing has been done to immobilize his arms, so if he has a gun, he can still shoot you with it.  Which is going to depend on the mindset of the guy shot.  Some people might freak out at the sound of gunfire, or drop with a graze to the arm, others fight after taking shots to the head and body.  

The general consensus I've seen on other forums was to pump as many rounds into the bad guy as you can until they are out of the fight.  If the body doesn't put them down, transition to the head.  

Personally, after some FoF training, I found head shots easier to pull off than I thought they would be.  Realistic civilian engagement distances are typically close (well within 3 yards).  Even the home invasion scenario isn't a long distance thing, take a look around your house and see what the longest straight line is.  Now keep in mind it's your home, so you'll probably have a long gun available.  


As always, YMMV.


----------



## lklawson (Dec 31, 2009)

I don't think it's a bad idea.  There are significant nerve bundles and arteries/veins running through the area.  As stated earlier you might not be able to get a bone break.  However, you still might get a knock-down due to balance disruption.

But I think there are better target areas for firearms.  CoM is still the best target area, IMO.  Lots of squishing things that bleed a lot when you poke holes in them or cause people to die when they stop working (due to having holes poked in them). 

That said, I think Pelvic Girdle is as viable a target as the head.  Just as hard to hit the target area (size).  Plus, there seems to be lots of anecdotal stories of pistol caliber rounds bouncing off of skulls.

Nah.  CoM 'till the threat is neutralized or you run dry.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Grenadier (Dec 31, 2009)

Adrenaline surges create tunnel vision, and for most of us folks here, I'm not so sure that we'd be thinking about going for the pelvis in the heat of the moment.  Going for head shots if COM hits aren't working should already be ingrained in someone's mind, and if it isn't then practice, practice, practice.  

Maybe repeated training on this could help condition someone, though, that it could become a response that's unconsciously done?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 31, 2009)

Having treated more gun shot wounds than I care to count, I would have to say that it is *not* a quick, easy, or reliable way to take an opponent out of a fight. 

A handgun is unlikely to break the bones of the pelvis. Further, even if it *does*, most of the pelvic fractures I have seen fall into the non-weight bearing category; they will not stop the person from walking.

And although there are significant neural and vascular structures in the pelvis, they are not prone to damage from cavitation. Certainly a direct hit to the femoral artery will kill, and quickly. But if you can score a direct hit on an artery the diameter of your index finger, why aren't you going for the headshot? Or the chest, where the aorta is not only bigger than the femoral, but more prone to cavitation injury.

To quote my mother: Two in the chest and one in the head, leaves the target good and dead.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 31, 2009)

lklawson said:


> That said, I think Pelvic Girdle is as viable a target as the head. Just as hard to hit the target area (size). Plus, there seems to be lots of anecdotal stories of pistol caliber rounds bouncing off of skulls.
> 
> Nah. CoM 'till the threat is neutralized or you run dry.
> 
> ...


 
While the head and the pelvis are simliar sized, a gunshot to the head is an order of magnitude more likely to result in death or immediate disability than one to the pelvis.

As far as pistol rounds bouncing off skulls... In 30 years of EMS, I've heard them all. I've actually seen it twice. In both cases, they were .22 caliber, short barrel handguns, and the shot clearly hit the head at a significant angle. Twice. I don't care to try and count how many I have seen that did not bounce... And those certainly are not odds I'd like to count on.


----------



## KenpoTex (Dec 31, 2009)

I don't buy the whole incapacitation thing...I've seen too many articles by medical professionals (e.g. Dr. Martin Fackler of the IWBA) to be convinced that specifically targeting the pelvis is a viable tactic.  As others have pointed out, pistol rounds are VERY unlikely to do enough damage to the pelvis or femur to actually render the person mechanically unable to move/stand.  

Obviously, I'll shoot whatever is available.  If they're behind cover or partially obscured, I'll shoot what I can see until they either give up or another target becomes available.  However, I'm not going to specifically target the pelvis if the upper torso or head is available.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 1, 2010)

Dirty Dog said:


> Having treated more gun shot wounds than I care to count, I would have to say that it is *not* a quick, easy, or reliable way to take an opponent out of a fight.
> 
> A handgun is unlikely to break the bones of the pelvis. Further, even if it *does*, most of the pelvic fractures I have seen fall into the non-weight bearing category; they will not stop the person from walking.
> 
> ...



I'd say that's pretty spot on............probably nothing short of a shotgun would get the predicted 'Pelvic Girdle' response.

Handgun rounds are simply anemic man-stoppers.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jan 1, 2010)

Exactly. In fact as I had heard of it the pelvic-girdle technique was to be considered a shotgun technique *only*.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jan 1, 2010)

I kind of see both sides of the issue.

The head is hard to hit. It is also armored with bone that is shaped to make things glance off it. But a hit there tends to turn the lights out.

And the pelvic region, while not as vital or immediate, it does then to force the opponent to collapse to the ground (but they still can shoot!)

If, say, in a crowded place where a head shot, if missed, would endanger many people, then the pelvic shot would be indicated. And if the range was very short, and a good opening for a head shot, well that would be the first choice.

Our real problem is we train to shoot COM so much we tend to forget the possibility of bullet proof vest. 

At the Tyler Texas Court House shooting, the killer, Arroyo had both a flak jacket and bullet proof vest on. Wilson kept shooting COM several times and Arroyo fell to the ground. Wilson, not realizing Arroyo got up, turned around and went behind the truck. Arroyo followed and shot him in the back with an AK.

If Wilson had just fired twice COM, and as Farnam says, assess, then maybe he would have realized COM wasnt doing anything and went for the head shot.

Deaf


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 2, 2010)

Deaf Smith said:


> I kind of see both sides of the issue.
> 
> The head is hard to hit. It is also armored with bone that is shaped to make things glance off it. But a hit there tends to turn the lights out.
> 
> ...



It's true, and why training only COM is in error.........the good Col. invented the 'Mozambique Drill' for a reason.........when COM fails, go to the head.


----------



## lklawson (Jan 4, 2010)

Dirty Dog said:


> As far as pistol rounds bouncing off skulls... In 30 years of EMS, I've heard them all. I've actually seen it twice. In both cases, they were .22 caliber, short barrel handguns, and the shot clearly hit the head at a significant angle. Twice. I don't care to try and count how many I have seen that did not bounce... And those certainly are not odds I'd like to count on.


I'm not a fan of head shots in any case.  Like I said, CoM until either the threat is stopped or you run dry.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Jan 4, 2010)

Deaf Smith said:


> Our real problem is we train to shoot COM so much we tend to forget the possibility of bullet proof vest.


I've search high and low in vain to find even semi-reliable statistics on how many civilian self defense firearms exchanges have the BG in armour.

I still have not found any.  To date, I've collected a tiny handful of anecdotal stories in which the BG was armoure up.  But for every anecdote of BG in armour, I can point to more than 100 which do not.  Therefore, at the moment, I must conclude that the odds of the BG in armour is unlikely in the *EXTREME*. 

I have heard that, down near the border, smugglers are beginning to make armour a standard accessory.  But, first, I'm in Ohio and second, I take that with a grain of salt as being hear-say since I can't seem to find any official/semi-official reports corroborating the claim.

If anyone has actual statistics on armoured vs. unarmoured BGs in civilian (or even LEO) shootings, I'd be grateful.

In any case, if I determine that odds of me having to run against a bullet resistant vest go up to a point of serious consideration, I have a solution:







I figure I'll pattern load standard ball and XTPs from Reeds Ammo.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jan 4, 2010)

Kirk,

One comes to mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler_courthouse_shooting

Even Bonny and Clyde had some! I think Dillenger did to!

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

They used vest to. In fact they were armored from head to toe!

Deaf


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 5, 2010)

lklawson said:


> I've search high and low in vain to find even semi-reliable statistics on how many civilian self defense firearms exchanges have the BG in armour.
> 
> I still have not found any.  To date, I've collected a tiny handful of anecdotal stories in which the BG was armoure up.  But for every anecdote of BG in armour, I can point to more than 100 which do not.  Therefore, at the moment, I must conclude that the odds of the BG in armour is unlikely in the *EXTREME*.
> 
> ...



Body armor is only ONE reason to train to place head shots........another far more likely and common reason is a BG partial obscured behind cover.......the fact is that BG's won't always comply by firing from the open........so you have to shoot off whatever they stick out.


----------



## lklawson (Jan 5, 2010)

Deaf Smith said:


> Kirk,
> 
> One comes to mind.
> 
> ...


Yes, thanks, I'm familiar with these instances and I can provide at least 100 others that didn't include armour for each.

I'm not looking for anecdotal instances, but rather for some sort of reliable statistics on how often it happens to compare against how often it does not.

If, for instance, if some reputable statistics generating organization released that for every 10,000 civilian SD encounters, only 1 had the BG wearing any sort of body armour, then we can pretty much dismiss it as a statistical aberration and focus our training and concern on far more likely scenarios.  On the other hand, if the same statistics indicated that it was more like 1 in 100 then we might need to start thinking about it.  1 in 10 and it's a very real concern.

At the moment, based on media reports and other non-reliable information, which is all that seems to be available, BG's wearing body armour appears to be somewhere well over the 1 in 100 and approaching the 1 in 1,000 if not less.

In short, from everything I can tell, BG's wearing body armour simply isn't an issue for the average SD minded civvie.  But I'd really like to have some concrete numbers to make a more informed decision on.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Jan 5, 2010)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Body armor is only ONE reason to train to place head shots........another far more likely and common reason is a BG partial obscured behind cover.......the fact is that BG's won't always comply by firing from the open........so you have to shoot off whatever they stick out.


I agree with that.  But if the BG is not exposing CoM then the Double Tap/H-and-H is simply not on the table.

I'm not arguing against marksmanship.  I'm arguing for highest percentage effectiveness.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 5, 2010)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Body armor is only ONE reason to train to place head shots........another far more likely and common reason is a BG partial obscured behind cover.......the fact is that BG's won't always comply by firing from the open........so you have to shoot off whatever they stick out.


This is a common misunderstanding; everyone talks about "shooting center mass" as if the idea is to shoot the center of the body.  And -- if the person is standing face on at you, it is.  But if they're hiding behind a wall, with only the left side of their body exposed, the idea is to shoot the center of what you can see.  Same thing if all you can see is the head.  In either situation, you maximize your chances of a successful hit by shooting to the center of the biggest lump you can see.


----------



## Skpotamus (Jan 5, 2010)

Body Armor?  Every single incident where a BG had a shootout with police and was wearing body armor started out with them and civilians.  The reason for the switch for law enforcement to the 357 magnum back in the day was that gangsters were wearing vests that could stop the lighter rounds they were using.  This was the 20's and 30's.  

I think that you need to look at head shots from the viewpoint of a "victim" and not a LEO.  Our attackers will be CLOSE.  Close enough to talk, close enough to grab you, stab you, etc.  They don't want to be shouting out for your wallet for all the world to hear, they want it quiet so others don't come to help you.  Pretty much conversation distance and closer.  At that 3-10 foot range, head shots are easily doable, even by bad marksmen.  

Police get to deal with the guys that are holed up behind a car, in a building, etc, and have to deal with longer shots than any civilian will ever have to.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jan 5, 2010)

lklawson said:


> In short, from everything I can tell, BG's wearing body armour simply isn't an issue for the average SD minded civvie. But I'd really like to have some concrete numbers to make a more informed decision on.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


 
True Kirk, but people can be high on drugs or booze or just plain adrenaline making COM shots useless.

Now there are LOTS of incidences where attackers took multiple hits with powerful weapons and still kept fighting.

And thus a good reason by itself to learn to hit the head or pelvis if needed.

Plus like sgtmac_46 mentioned, partial exposure of the attacker is another reason.

Deaf


----------



## lklawson (Jan 6, 2010)

Deaf Smith said:


> True Kirk, but people can be high on drugs or booze or just plain adrenaline making COM shots useless.


I absolutely disagree.  There are only three things related to a gunshot that will stop an attacker.  

First, a CNS hit.  This will shut down the attacker post haste.  But every one readily admits that CNS hits are hard, at best, and usually this side of miraculous.  This will stop an attacker regardless of whether or not he's "high" or just too stupid or angry to know he's supposed to stop.

Second, mechanical damage and blood loss.  This, again, will stop an attacker regardless of the attacker's status of being drugged up or pissed off.  If the heart can't pump blood, the muscles can't operate, or there's not enough blood left in his body to keep the brain and muscle oxygenated, then his attack will terminate.  But this typically takes time.  Usually a minimum of several seconds, sometimes minutes (or longer!).

Third is placebo.  Yes.  Because of watching too much Starsky and Hutch or SVU, the attacker stops because he believes that's how it's supposed to work.  Often this is accompanied by dropping to the ground and moaning dramatically.

Now, of these three, the best way to get a CNS hit is the head.  The small, independently moving, bone-armoured, difficult to hit head and the Placebo effect is about as common and dependable as honest politicians. 

The torso, on the other hand, is big, not naturally armoured, and has lots of vital organs and leaks blood in a quite dramatic fashion when poked full of holes.




> Now there are LOTS of incidences where attackers took multiple hits with powerful weapons and still kept fighting.


Because it takes time to exsanguinate.  Even when the heart is damaged beyond ability to pump blood if the body is in full FoF then it can still take more than 30 seconds.  In full adrenal dump the muscles and brain are highly oxygenated, adrenaline has constricted vessels in the extremities, pain awareness is shut down or reduced...

Sure, sounds like perfect reasons to go for a head shot.  But those are darn tricky to get, even under the best circumstances.  It doesn't take many range visits to see how hard it is for people in general to double-tap even under low stress, static conditions when the target isn't moving.



> Plus like sgtmac_46 mentioned, partial exposure of the attacker is another reason.


Well, sure.  If your preferred target isn't available, switch.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Skpotamus (Jan 6, 2010)

lklawson said:


> I absolutely disagree.  There are only three things related to a gunshot that will stop an attacker.
> 
> First, a CNS hit.  This will shut down the attacker post haste.  But every one readily admits that CNS hits are hard, at best, and usually this side of miraculous.  This will stop an attacker regardless of whether or not he's "high" or just too stupid or angry to know he's supposed to stop.
> 
> ...




Time to exsanguinate can be a LOT longer than people realize.  One of michael janich's knife videos shows a guy getting stabbed in the chest in the beginning of a fight in a bar. The guy takes a total of 11 stab wounds and continues the fight, eventually running the other guy off, sits down at the bar, wipes at teh blood on his chest, then falls over.  The first stab wound actually violated his heart.   It was something close to 1 min 11 seconds between his heart getting stabbed initially and him collapsing from blood loss.  That's a LONG time to keep going, especially if the BG has a gun and is plugging away at you or a knife and trying to pump it into you.  

A similar situation involving a guy taking 45's to the chest and continuing his charge was why Col Cooper came up with the Mozambique drill.  

I highly recommend Janich's book Contemporary Knife Targeting for info on exsanguination times, a bit different from what we've been told in the  past.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jan 6, 2010)

There are plenty of examples where attackers have taken many, and I do mean many, hits in the chest (COM) and still stood. What is more, if you have a limited capacity weapon, say revolver or single stack auto, you can run out off ammo very quickly.

And keep in mind while you are machineguning your attacker, if he has friends they will have time to repay you (or even the one you are shooting will have time to repay you.)

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010572291_shootingmain23m.html

Here police shoot man multiple times yet he returns fire.


"Just before the shooting, Troyer said, David Crable *appeared intoxicated* but was cooperative and had agreed to leave the home with the deputies. But then he pulled out a handgun hidden in a shirt that was tucked under his arm and opened fire at almost point-blank range. Mundell, Troyer said, was shot several times but managed to return fire. *He then was shot multiple times again* before Crable collapsed, Troyer said"

And here is another:

http://www.co.washington.or.us/sheriff/media/shttual6.htm

"The suspect turned around and started running back toward the apartments. At that time a Washington County Sheriff's deputy arrived on scene. The deputy parked his car on Tualatin Road and as he was exiting his vehicle he saw the suspect running toward him. The deputy gave the suspect commands to stop, but the suspect did not comply.

As the suspect / threat approached the deputy&#8217;s marked patrol vehicle, he was again shot with a Taser, which had no effect on the suspect. The threat continued toward the deputy&#8217;s car, opened the driver side door, and leaned into the patrol car and reached for the MP-5 rifle mounted between the seats. 

The deputy reasonably believed that the threat would gain access to the rifle, *so he shot the suspect with his duty pistol multiple times* with at a least one of the rounds striking the threat. 

The threat, after being shot, *came back out of the vehicle and hesitated for a brief moment before again entering the police car, moving towards the police MP-5 rifle. *The deputy again shot the suspect with his duty weapon. The suspect again got back out of the car, hesitated for a moment before he collapsed to the ground. The suspect was pronounced dead at the scene. The woman, daughter, and law enforcement personnel involved are safe and the woman received minor injuries from the initial attack."

And earlier in the article he had been shot with another Taser! Now what if he had been carry a gun?

And that's just one google search. There are many on record where cops had to shoot someone quite a bit to get them to stop.

And this is why the CNS shot is a vaild method. Might even be the only real option to stop a determined attacker on drugs or booze or just plain nuts.

Deaf


----------



## Gaius Julius Caesar (Jan 7, 2010)

Deaf Smith said:


> True Kirk, but people can be high on drugs or booze or just plain adrenaline making COM shots useless.
> 
> Now there are LOTS of incidences where attackers took multiple hits with powerful weapons and still kept fighting.
> 
> ...


 
If you read Miller's Meditations on Violence, he relateas a tale where a Cop was attacked and he unloaded his .357mag into the guy and he said he could see daylight through the guys head as he was still coming at him.

People can take some heavy damage, nothing is for sure, that's why training with different options is a good thing.

 I worked at a Range in South Florida in the early 90s and being 18 at the time, most of the older guys who worked there or trained DT there took me under wing.
 Most considered the pelvis a viable target, not a primary one, but good for  the above mentioned multiple rounds in the body and no effect or if the are in infighting range.

 Among those that "schooled" me was a 22SAS vet, a former S.E. Asia Riverine froces vet, a ex cop who had 2 on the job shoots and a former Capt. for the Jamacan national Police.

This all does factor into my preference for .45 cal handguns, Shotguns and big, nasty rifle rounds like 308 and 45-70. I like bullets that pulverize tissue and shatter bone.


----------



## lklawson (Jan 7, 2010)

Skpotamus said:


> Time to exsanguinate can be a LOT longer than people realize.


Absolutely!

I recall reading a report on two LEOs responding to an armed robbery at a grocery store.  One of the BGs was toting a Tommy.  The LEOs leveled their issue shotguns and ordered compliance.  The first BG did but Tommy-gun didn't and swung his weapon around.  The LEO emptied a charge of 00 Buck point blank and the BG ran off into the parking lot to play hide-n-seek.  The cop was dumbfounded.  How could he miss at such short range?  When the swept the lot, they found him.  Dead.  Several of the .32 pellets had found his heart and, essentially, destroyed it.  But he had enough adrenalin and oxygen in his body to continue to operate for a time.  Certainly long enough to continue to be a threat.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Jan 7, 2010)

Deaf Smith said:


> And this is why the CNS shot is a vaild method. Might even be the only real option to stop a determined attacker on drugs or booze or just plain nuts.


Which doesn't change the fact that actually obtaining CNS hits is low percentage due to the nature of the organs involved and the chaotic high movement nature of armed conflict.

If nothing else is working or if it's the only viable target, sure.  But don't *START *there.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 8, 2010)

lklawson said:


> I agree with that.  But if the BG is not exposing CoM then the Double Tap/H-and-H is simply not on the table.
> 
> I'm not arguing against marksmanship.  I'm arguing for highest percentage effectiveness.
> 
> ...



And unfortunately the highest percentage effectiveness........is situational.  I like training to the percentages just like everyone else, but the reality is that one simple rule isn't going to cover all situations.........if the real world teaches us anything, it's that it's unpredictable.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 8, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> This is a common misunderstanding; everyone talks about "shooting center mass" as if the idea is to shoot the center of the body.  And -- if the person is standing face on at you, it is.  But if they're hiding behind a wall, with only the left side of their body exposed, the idea is to shoot the center of what you can see.  Same thing if all you can see is the head.  In either situation, you maximize your chances of a successful hit by shooting to the center of the biggest lump you can see.



That's changing the definition of center mass the fit the argument.  When we're talking HIS center of mass, we're talking the center of the body.  If we change it to mean the center of whatever we see, then we've changed it to the center of the bullseye, and simultaneously re-validated marksmanship and being able to put bullets in to small holes again.........in that case, we can also change 'Center of Mass' to mean the center of the most effective target exposed........but that's not what we generally mean.

In which case, if that is the definition of 'Center Mass' we're using, then nobody has any argument in the first place.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 8, 2010)

lklawson said:


> I agree with that.  But if the BG is not exposing CoM then the Double Tap/H-and-H is simply not on the table.
> 
> I'm not arguing against marksmanship.  I'm arguing for highest percentage effectiveness.
> 
> ...



Here's another statistic to chew on.........for LEO's (and I have no reason to believe that civilians uses are much different) 90% of all gunfights occur at 10 feet or less, 50% at 5 feet or less.........touching, bad breath distance.

If one can touch the target, it would seem to be the most effective response to simply punch the muzzle in to the other persons face, and directly inject bullets in to their eye, nose and/or mouth.

At the same time, despite these statistics, the other 10% of law enforcement shootings do occur at extended ranges.

Basically, as I said, one needs to prepare for the most common encounters.........but one is less than fully prepared if one doesn't train for some 'less common' situations.

Here's a real world situation that DID involve bad guys with body armor. http://www.footypd.com/view_video.php?viewkey=2d6d4f975380ee45ef8d&page=1&viewtype=&category=mr


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 8, 2010)

lklawson said:


> Absolutely!
> 
> I recall reading a report on two LEOs responding to an armed robbery at a grocery store.  One of the BGs was toting a Tommy.  The LEOs leveled their issue shotguns and ordered compliance.  The first BG did but Tommy-gun didn't and swung his weapon around.  The LEO emptied a charge of 00 Buck point blank and the BG ran off into the parking lot to play hide-n-seek.  The cop was dumbfounded.  How could he miss at such short range?  When the swept the lot, they found him.  Dead.  Several of the .32 pellets had found his heart and, essentially, destroyed it.  But he had enough adrenalin and oxygen in his body to continue to operate for a time.  Certainly long enough to continue to be a threat.
> 
> ...



That can certainly happen.......but I also suspect that the range they engaged him at with the shotguns was probably a little outside the 25 yard optimal range for 00 Buck.......a reason I don't load my shotguns with anything but rifled slugs, which makes them lethal out to about 100 yards.

There is a qualitative difference between several .32 holes and one massive fist sized hole through the chest.  It's kind of moot to talk about the stopping power of handguns, as it's generally negligible.........the stopping power of a 12 gauge slug is an order of magnitude higher, and i've yet to see anyone walk away with after a massive overdose of 400 grain .70 caliber 12 gauge slug through the chest........of course i'd never put just one slug in to someone's chest if they were a threat........where one is good, three is better. 

http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/12%20Gauge%20Foster%20Slug.jpg


----------



## lklawson (Jan 8, 2010)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Here's another statistic to chew on.........for LEO's (and I have no reason to believe that civilians uses are much different) 90% of all gunfights occur at 10 feet or less, 50% at 5 feet or less.........touching, bad breath distance.
> 
> If one can touch the target, it would seem to be the most effective response to simply punch the muzzle in to the other persons face, and directly inject bullets in to their eye, nose and/or mouth.
> 
> ...


I think we've given a good examination of both sides of this debate.

(Translation: I don't feel like arguing just for the sake of argument.   )



> Here's a real world situation that DID involve bad guys with body armor. http://www.footypd.com/view_video.php?viewkey=2d6d4f975380ee45ef8d&page=1&viewtype=&category=mr


Thanks.  Still looking for compiled statistics.

We know, roughly, what percentage of Firearms SD encounters are at what range, but we don't know what percentage has the BG in armour.  I find this odd.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 8, 2010)

It really boils down to something simple:

If you're in a shooting situation, shoot until you get the effect you want -- namely the threat is stopped.  If shots to center body don't do it, shift your target.  If that target doesn't work, shift again until it does.  

(Of course, executing this plan under pressure is a little harder than saying it... but that's a different discussion!)


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jan 8, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> It really boils down to something simple:
> 
> If you're in a shooting situation, shoot until you get the effect you want -- namely the threat is stopped.  If shots to center body don't do it, shift your target.  If that target doesn't work, shift again until it does.
> 
> (Of course, executing this plan under pressure is a little harder than saying it... but that's a different discussion!)



Yes it really is that simple!!!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 9, 2010)

lklawson said:


> I think we've given a good examination of both sides of this debate.
> 
> (Translation: I don't feel like arguing just for the sake of argument.   )
> 
> ...


 The problem is that I know of no single entity that compiles such statistics......so we have to operate under anecdotal evidence until then.  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, however. 

However, if anyone has some free time, or a thesis to write, and once to pour through thousands of newspaper articles on Lexis Nexus, it might be a good research opportunity.

Here lies the problem of body armor evidence........IF a shooting takes place, and a suspect is wearing body armor, is struck, the body armor stops the bullet, and he escapes.......how are you going to know he was wearing body armor?  The assumption will be that the bullets just missed him......and even if he's captured, he's not going to admit he was wearing body armor, he's going to deny being their in the first place.

We do know, however, that in a large number of planned shootings, the suspects were wearing body armor.



And I do see your point on simplicity of training.......but as an LEO I don't have the luxury of assuming that the bad guys are going to come san-body armor.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 9, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> It really boils down to something simple:
> 
> If you're in a shooting situation, shoot until you get the effect you want -- namely the threat is stopped.  If shots to center body don't do it, shift your target.  If that target doesn't work, shift again until it does.
> 
> (Of course, executing this plan under pressure is a little harder than saying it... but that's a different discussion!)



My sentiments EXACTLY!

The way we train that is with drop targets held up by balloons..........placing the balloon behind the head, and not the center mass, results in numerous holes being placed in the body not resulting in the target dropping until shots are placed in the head........the result is that several rounds are put in the body, then when the target doesn't drop, the emphasis is shifted to the head.

I stole that idea from Rob Pincus' Valhalla training center........plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery. 



Much like elsewhere in martial training, we start by focusing on the most common, simplest threat, and work our way up.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 9, 2010)

sgtmac_46 said:


> My sentiments EXACTLY!
> 
> The way we train that is with drop targets held up by balloons..........placing the balloon behind the head, and not the center mass, results in numerous holes being placed in the body not resulting in the target dropping until shots are placed in the head........the result is that several rounds are put in the body, then when the target doesn't drop, the emphasis is shifted to the head.
> 
> ...


Got a picture of that set up?  Might be interested in giving it a try...


----------



## Brian King (Jan 9, 2010)

*Hudson69 wrote*


> Any shooters out there train to put rounds into this area


 
I have not been trained to specifically fire at this area but have in the (distant) past been trained that while holding someone at gunpoint, that the pelvic area has some benefits. If while holding someone the need to shoot arises then simply immediately fire and zipper up their body with the rounds. 

Held at gunpoint
It is interesting the psychological and physical differences for both the person holding somebody and for the person being held at gunpoint between aiming at the hip level and aiming at the head. Physically often when aiming at the head (specially using one and two handed Modern Technique grips) vision gets obscured making it more difficult to observe fully the person being held. The psychology is interesting, there are times when the person being held at gunpoint actually takes the firearm pointed at their head as a challenging insult much like finger pointing, but when the perceived target is shifted to the pelvic area the psychological reactions are completely changed. For many shooters taking deliberate up close aim at a persons head sets up psychological and physical tensions. Shifting the aim to the pelvic area often helps to remove these tensions.

Regards
Brian King
&#12288;


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 10, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> Got a picture of that set up?  Might be interested in giving it a try...



If it wasn't ice cold i'd go out to the range and make a video.........but i'm not feeling too ambitious at -1. 

They're easy to make, however, you just need 3D targets, a lot of balloons, some tape, some string,and a frame of some sort to suspend the target balloon from.

Tape the balloon to the back of the target to hold it up where you want the 'vital' shot to be, tape the string to the back of the balloon, and tie the string to the frame.

When hit the balloon it pops, the target drops.  If you miss the balloon you have to keep shooting to you hit the balloon.

Here's where we stole the idea from, the now defunct Valhalla Training Center, operated by Robert Picus.

You can see one a 0:20 getting dropped, and at 1:39 you get a good look at the setup.  http://noolmusic.com/myspace_videos/valhalla_training_center_ii.php


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 10, 2010)

sgtmac_46 said:


> If it wasn't ice cold i'd go out to the range and make a video.........but i'm not feeling too ambitious at -1.
> 
> They're easy to make, however, you just need 3D targets, a lot of balloons, some tape, some string,and a frame of some sort to suspend the target balloon from.
> 
> ...


Definitely gonna have to think about how I can do something like that...  Beats putting holes in paper!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 11, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> Definitely gonna have to think about how I can do something like that...  Beats putting holes in paper!



Yeah, I get bored punching paper solely.  That's why I like reactive targets like this, and steel of course........something that gives instant feedback.


----------



## Gaius Julius Caesar (Jan 14, 2010)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Yeah, I get bored punching paper solely. That's why I like reactive targets like this, and steel of course........something that gives instant feedback.


 
 Stimulis response! There is something about that feeling when you engage a target and it goes down, much like the same durring a 1st person shooter game.

 A buddy of mine said when he nailed his first Haji in Iraq, he got the same exact feeling when the guy dropped as he did playing video games.

 He said "You know why I think so many guys feel guilty or get messed up about killing the enemy? It's because it feels real good to drop the enemy at the time. I liked it as sick as that sounds."


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 15, 2010)

Gaius Julius Caesar said:


> Stimulis response! There is something about that feeling when you engage a target and it goes down, much like the same durring a 1st person shooter game.
> 
> A buddy of mine said when he nailed his first Haji in Iraq, he got the same exact feeling when the guy dropped as he did playing video games.
> 
> He said "You know why I think so many guys feel guilty or get messed up about killing the enemy? It's because it feels real good to drop the enemy at the time. I liked it as sick as that sounds."



And truly there isn't anything wrong with the feeling of a job well done.  So long as you did the right thing, know you did the right thing, and sleep well with it, a clear conscience in the act of killing in a just and righteous situation is not a sign of mental illness, as some would try to claim, but one of a truly stable and fully functionally healthy human being.

I think where many soldiers and police officers get their minds twisted is in the cognitive dissonance of believing the idea that killing is ALWAYS something they should feel bad about, so they punish themselves for not feeling bad about it, until they do feel even worse about it.

I think that guys like Col. Dave Grossman and others have done a MARVELOUS job of getting the word out that feeling guilty about doing your job is okay.......but NOT feeling guilty about it is okay too!


----------

