# Aiming at the pelvis...



## Cruentus (Dec 21, 2004)

This has been discussed in bits and pieces before, but what do you all think about the idea of aiming at the pelvic region (instead of center-mass, or 2 in chest one in head, etc.)?

This is an unorthadox way of shooting to stop, but I see both advantages and disadvantages to the idea.

What are your thoughts?

Paul


----------



## FearlessFreep (Dec 21, 2004)

Well, unless you are a vrey good shot, trained to respond to stressful/emergency situations against a moving target, I think your odds are a lot higher if you shot toward the middle of the largest area you can see


----------



## Tgace (Dec 21, 2004)

Massad Ayoob advocates using the pelvis as a secondary aiming point and specifies three circumstances when one should aim there: 

-When shots to the chest area have failed to produce any result; 

-When the threat is with a contact weapon and one's firearm launches a projectile with enough energy to break the pelvis; 

-Whenever one holds an assailant at gunpoint, to ensure visibility of the assailant's hands. 

Many of the point shooting advocates, from Fairbairn and Sykes to Bill Jordan, have advocated shooting your assailant in the belly. Jordan phrased it in terms of shooting in the vicinity of the belt buckle. Recently, John Farnam, a fervent advocate of aimed fire, has argued for aiming at the navel. 

John's basic argument is that if you are aiming for the upper chest and the assailant ducks, you lose your sight picture. If you aim no higher than the navel, you'll still be able to see where the assailant is and score an initial hit. After that follow-up shots moving up into the chest should be relatively easy. 

The theory is that the head is far too mobile (and curved) to be a reliable fight stopping target. The Pelvis, being closer to the targets center of gravity is somewhat less so unpredictably mobile. I dont know if Im entirely on board with the theory but it has some merit.


----------



## GAB (Dec 21, 2004)

Hi all,

The "gut shot" has always been recommended as far as I have ever read for humans.

Low you are catching them in the pelvis area and high you are hitting in the diaphram  and chest cavity.

The involuntary muscle contraction alone usually puts them down. major bleeding and vessels in that area especially in women.
Regards, Gary


----------



## dearnis.com (Dec 21, 2004)

We beat this up pretty good before as I recall...  After more thought I don't like it.  Consider the fashions today; the pelvis is too elusive a target in the mass of baggy clothing; center mass is just a surer thing.  As a failure drill or a counter-armor technique it makes sense, but this also plays off the initial shots slowing the target so that a more mobile target (be it head or pelvis) is a mite more accessible.

Just some thoughts.


----------



## 8253 (Dec 21, 2004)

Myself i like to aim at the center mass of my target when im am just shooting to be shooting, but when i am practicing for a home defence situation i point shoot for center mass.  A person can practice aiming all of the time, however when they are in a situation where their life is in danger and they may have to shoot someone there is a problem with precise aiming.  In this type of situation most people will loose their fine motor skills and get tunnel vision.  This causes a person to not be able to sight their weapon onto a target, they pretty much have to point shoot.  That is why i prefer to point shoot at center mass, simply because you have a lot better chance of hitting center mass by point shooting.  Hitting anything is better than not hitting at all in that type of situation.


----------



## KenpoTex (Dec 22, 2004)

I think that it's a viable option in some of the situations listed (body armor, assailant w/contact weapon etc.) but for the most part I think I'd still prefer to go COM.  By going COM you have the biggest target with the largest margin for error as opposed to other targets.  I do like the idea that TGace listed about aiming low when holding someone at gunpoint.  As was stated, you have better visibility and if they duck or otherwise try to evade (probably by diving to the floor) you can be on target, or back on target more quickly.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 22, 2004)

Nothing wrong with "zippering" him up from the pelvis to the head....


----------



## dearnis.com (Dec 22, 2004)

Make muzzle climb work for you I always say...

That's it for now; Santa  brought me a new upper today; off to assemble...
 :mp5:


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 22, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Nothing wrong with "zippering" him up from the pelvis to the head....



Thats what I'm thinkin. Especially for bigger, meater guys. I figure that if I know I'm gonna die if I don't stop the guy with the gun, and I get blasted in the chest, I'm probably going to keep at him until my heart stops, which could take time. Plus, I have a pea head with a 5'' thick skull (I mostly run on brain stem, folks), so good luck stopping me with a headshot. 

Seriously, though, even if a guy is drugged up, large, and tough, I am thinking that it would be a lot harder for them to run at you with a shattered pelvis compared to a center mass shot...

I am still not sure about this and I guess it would depend on the circumstance, but I can see both the advantages and disadvantages with this one...

Paul


----------



## Tgace (Dec 22, 2004)

The thing with the pelvis shot is that, if successful, it mechanically disables the opponent. Even if drugged up...no skeletal support, no movement. The same thing with the brain, destroy the right sopt and its lights out. Hits to the torso that miss the spine may kill the guy seconds or minutes later but thats enough time to get you....with that in mind, a pelvis hit that drops the guy dosent mean that he still cant shoot at you, just that he cant manuver on you.

That being said, while the whole pelvic girdle is a target, I was taught to aim for the hip area where the joints are....the "wing" type structure on either side.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 22, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> The thing with the pelvis shot is that, if successful, it mechanically disables the opponent. Even if drugged up...no skeletal support, no movement. The same thing with the brain, destroy the right sopt and its lights out. Hits to the torso that miss the spine may kill the guy seconds or minutes later but thats enough time to get you....with that in mind, a pelvis hit that drops the guy dosent mean that he still cant shoot at you, just that he cant manuver on you.
> 
> That being said, while the whole pelvic girdle is a target, I was taught to aim for the hip area where the joints are....the "wing" type structure on either side.



That's exactly what I have researched, so I see a lot of advantages to the pelvis shot.

I guess a disadvantage for aiming for a hip would be that the hip is probably harder to hit for someone with only average training/skill + adreline dump. It might be harder to hit if your front site or point shooting. It might be harder to hit right if the attacker is on the move. Particularly if he is barreling at you, legs pumping, slight curve in spine, etc.

But I guess all this boils down to training and practice and confidence/ability. I am confident that I can hit the pelvic girdle just right in 25 feet or less, but I'd have my wife who has had very little training/practice aim center mass.

Paul


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 22, 2004)

Lethality...

I would also imagine a hip shot would be less lethal then a center mass shot, which could be good. This is of course assuming that you don't hit the bladder or intestinal region, causing the blood to poison.

Thoughts...?

Paul


----------



## Tgace (Dec 22, 2004)

Lots of major blood vessels in the region, assisted by gravity...think femoral preferation. Its also harder to stem the flow. Easily fatal.


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 23, 2004)

8253 said:
			
		

> Myself i like to aim at the center mass of my target when im am just shooting to be shooting, but when i am practicing for a home defence situation i point shoot for center mass. .


General rule is to aim 'center of mass' for the highest probability of making impact...

Here is the twist on it that changes this 'technique' into a 'concept/tactic' though.

If you are aiming at a paper silhoutte at the range you aim 'center of mass' by aiming at the center of the torso BUT if you are facing a BG who is partially covered/concieled you STILL AIM CENTER OF MASS because you choose an aiming point that is in the 'center of mass' of what you can hit (Whether 'center of thigh', 'center of head', 'center of the 2/3 exposure that isn't being covered by the wall....').

Pelvic shooting is a translation of an old big game hunter's tactic on taking down large game that are being aggressive/charging when the firearm isn't going to generate 'stopping power' (such as Elephants, Moose, Hippo...).

If you can't cause 'life dysfunction/stopping power impact' then you go for locomotion/mobility stoppage so that you can at least 'fix' your target for a good finishing shot.

I wouldn't say Pelvic shooting is a great stress target to practice because it if you miss high you are probably going to get a through and through in soft tissue that won't do much in terms of hydrostatic shock.  Whereas, in the torso or standard 'center of mass' aiming for stress, if you miss, you will still get hard boney targets that will cause spinning, snapping impact responses that - at the VERY LEAST - will reduce the BG's aiming accuracy when they are shooting at you.


----------



## dearnis.com (Dec 23, 2004)

> Pelvic shooting is a translation of an old big game hunter's tactic on taking down large game that are being aggressive/charging when the firearm isn't going to generate 'stopping power' (such as Elephants, Moose, Hippo...).



Good analogy as far as it goes; of course four-legged targets do offer the possibility of taking a shoulder, a hip, and raking various vitals....

And a very good point about COM not being a magic dot somewhere on the torso; it does indeed vary with the target presented.

To bring up my reservation on the pelvic target once again, I had a, um, client the other day who went around 6'4", maybe 140.  Jeans were baggy, hanging off his hips (which were obscured by long jersey and jacket, thighs not evident in the mass of cloth, and the crotch of the pants was about 3" above his knees.  
Despite his build (or lack thereof) gravity still defined the  shoulders for me, allowing a fairly accurate COM identification.  Now, if he had become a target, what are the odds that a round into the pelvis is going to connect with layers of clothing only??  
Again, not a reason to write off the technique, but a fairly glaring issue, at least with certain potential threats.


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 23, 2004)

dearnis.com said:
			
		

> Again, not a reason to write off the technique, but a fairly glaring issue, at least with certain potential threats.


Absolutely, I'd say that if you are at h2h range and you drive a muzzle in and down on a BG during the struggle and squeeze off rounds into the torso/pelvic region, you are going to do a good job of taking out his base/foundation.

As a danger close option (can't get the gun up above your own waist) it has a place but not as a main choice/tactical first option.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 23, 2004)

I havent really seen anybody recommending the pelvis shot as the target of choice. Its usually used as a failure option, a hold at gunpoint target or against targets with contact weapons at a range where you are capable of aiming for the region. Its a viable target when you know you just arent going to be able to hit the head after your initial COM shots didnt work. The head can be a bobbing, weaving, turning ba$%#rd of a target to hit in real world situations. 

Like Paul M said too, at CQB range where the BG is fighting your raising the gun up, pointing down into the pelvis is better than straight into the gut where theres less vital organs or solid bone to stop the guy.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 23, 2004)

Basically, its one of the 3 desired targets, COM (hydraulics), Head (electronics), Pelvis (mechanics)........


----------



## Escrima Demon (Dec 23, 2004)

My shooting instructor tells me that shooting for the pelvis will look real good for you in court. The poor guy sitting there in a wheelchair, unable to work to support his poor starving family because you crippled him for life.

I dont know who bernie getz is but he did something like that in new york city. but he talked about that too

My instructor says to shoot center mass until they stop being a threat, continue to cover them, and observe.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 23, 2004)

Yeah, but if you hit him COM and hit the spine (and he survives), you get the same result. Id hesitate to tell people to worry about "appearances" when it comes to use of force. In the same manner, I wouldnt tell somebody to try to "wound" a BG in a lethal force situation. If its a lethal force situation, you do what you have to to survive. If COM isnt working sometimes other targets are necessary.


----------



## dearnis.com (Dec 23, 2004)

"I directed my shots to the defendant/decedant's center of mass _in the manner in which I have been trained_ until the deadly threat with which I was  faced ceased.  I was in fear for my life.  My intention was to _stop the threat in the manner in which I had been trained._ "


----------



## Tgace (Dec 23, 2004)

dearnis.com said:
			
		

> "I directed my shots to the defendant/decedant's center of mass _in the manner in which I have been trained_ until the deadly threat with which I was faced ceased. I was in fear for my life. My intention was to _stop the threat in the manner in which I had been trained._ "


Exactly. Although the "real life" statement is probably closer to... "He was trying to kill me so I pointed my gun at him and started pulling the trigger until he went down. (and/or the gun went "click")".


----------



## dearnis.com (Dec 24, 2004)

Ooooooops; forgot the civilian version:

"I'm not sure about the details; I was in fear for my life; I'd like to call my attorney now."


----------



## AC_Pilot (Jan 6, 2005)

Interesting discussion. This is proof enough of the need for a large capacity auto pistol (at least 10 shots, more is better) or a magnum revolver for self defense. This way you get plenty of ammo to do damage wherever you have to, without a reload. OR you do massive damage with your 5-6-7 magnum shots. Assuming proper load selection of course.


----------

