COPs magazine on shooting to stop

[Lennie]

SHOOTING WITH X-RAY VISION PART II | Ethics Of Deadly Force Training - American Cop

At a 2007 law enforcement training conference the wife of one of the attendees criticized me sharply for training cops in Tactical Anatomy. She contended, quite rightly, if cops shoot more effectively more felons are going to be killed. “Excuse me,” I replied. “What part of the term “deadly...

americancop.com

I had never thought of facing bad guys wearing body armor until I read this. Brings a new concern to me if I am faced with a gravest extreme situation.

Read More

 

[ilikegunspdx]

SHOOTING WITH X-RAY VISION PART II | Ethics Of Deadly Force Training - American Cop

At a 2007 law enforcement training conference the wife of one of the attendees criticized me sharply for training cops in Tactical Anatomy. She contended, quite rightly, if cops shoot more effectively more felons are going to be killed. “Excuse me,” I replied. “What part of the term “deadly...

americancop.com

I had never thought of facing bad guys wearing body armor until I read this. Brings a new concern to me if I am faced with a gravest extreme situation.

I didn't read the article but imo it's always good to practice crotch, center mass, and head shots with your edc every time u are at the range. The main reason is body armor but also because on a moving target most likely the head moves a ton, the center mass moves less, and the crotch moves even less. Need to be able to hit all three without thinking about it at any given time imo.

 

[Idaho44]

Think solar plexus hit even with body armor, pelvis triangle (hip), eye triangle (head). What would you do to a bear? Civil War stats: body is water mass, attenuation from large slow moving item (bullet) will do damage, but may not incapacitate.

 

[titsonritz]

Fackler ML: "Shots to the Pelvic Area". Wound Ballistics Review. 4(1):13; 1999.

"I welcome the chance to refute the belief that the pelvic area is a reasonable target during a gunfight. I can find no evidence or valid rationale for intentionally targeting the pelvic area in a gunfight. The reasons against, however, are many. They include:

-- From the belt line to the top of the head, the areas most likely to rapidly incapacitate the person hit are concentrated in or near the midline. In the pelvis, however, the blood vessels are located to each side, having diverged from the midline, as the aorta and inferior vena cava divide at about the level of the navel. Additionally, the target that, when struck, is the most likely to cause rapid and reliable incapacitation, the spinal cord located in the midline of the abdomen, thorax and neck), ends well above the navel and is not a target in the pelvis.
-- The pelvic branches of the aorta and inferior vena cava are more difficult to hit than their parent vessels -- they are smaller targets, and they diverge laterally from the midline (getting farther from it as they descend). Even if hit, each carry far less blood than the larger vessels from which they originated. Thus, even if one of these branches in the pelvis is hit, incapacitation from blood loss must necessarily be slower than from a major vessel hit higher up in the torso.
-- Other than soft tissue structures not essential to continuing the gunfight (loops of bowel, bladder) the most likely thing to be struck by shots to the pelvis would be bone. The ilium is a large flat bone that forms most of the back wall of the pelvis. The problem is that handgun bullets that hit it would not break the bone but only make a small hole in passing through it: this would do nothing to destroy bony support of the pelvic girdle. The pelvic girdle is essentially a circle: to disrupt its structure significantly would require breaking it in two places. Only a shot that disrupted the neck or upper portion of the shaft of the femur would be likely to disrupt bony support enough to cause the person hit to fall. This is a small and highly unlikely target: the aim point to hit it would be a mystery to those without medical training — and to most of those with medical training.

The "theory" stated in the question postulates that "certain autonomic responses the body undergoes during periods of stress" causes officers to shoot low, and that apparently this is good in a gunfight because such shots cause "severe disability." I hope that the points presented above debunk the second part of the theory. As for the "autonomic responses" that cause officers to shoot low, I am unaware of anything in the anatomy or physiology of the autonomic nervous system that would even suggest such an occurrence. Most laymen do not understand the function of the autonomic nervous system. It is simply a system whose main function is to fine tune the glands and smooth muscles (those in the walls of organs and blood vessels) of the body. During times of stress such as perceived impending danger, the autonomic nervous system diverts blood from the intestines and digestive organs to the skeletal muscles — in the so-called "fight or flight" response. The effects of this response are constantly exaggerated by laymen who lack an adequate understanding of it — most notably by gun writ-ers eager to impress their readers. Interestingly, the human body can get along quite well without major parts of the autonomic nervous system. During my professional life as a surgeon, myself and colleagues removed parts of thousands of vagus nerves (mostly in treating peptic ulcer disease) -- thus depriving the patient of the major part of the parasympathetic half of the autonomic nervous system. We also removed many ganglia from the sympathetic half of the auto-nomic nervous system, in treating such things as profusely excess sweating and various problems caused by spasm of the arteries. I am unaware of any evidence that these operations produced any significant effect on the future capacity of these patients to react appropriately in times of impending danger.

Unfortunately, the pelvis shot fallacy is common. This fallacy, along with other misinformation, is promoted constantly by at least one gun writer who is widely published in the popular gun press. Because of this, I regularly debunk this fallacy by including some of the above rationale in my presentations to law enforcement firearm instructor groups."

There are no doubts regarding serious mortality rates with pelvic wounds, the issue is whether wounds to the pelvis offer rapid enough incapacitation to reliably stop an adversary during a lethal force encounter. Obviously use a pelvic shot if it is the only target available, but it may not be the best primary target or failure to stop response target.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?4330-Shots-to-the-Pelvis

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Fackler ML: "Shots to the Pelvic Area". Wound Ballistics Review. 4(1):13; 1999.

"I welcome the chance to refute the belief that the pelvic area is a reasonable target during a gunfight. I can find no evidence or valid rationale for intentionally targeting the pelvic area in a gunfight. The reasons against, however, are many. They include:

-- From the belt line to the top of the head, the areas most likely to rapidly incapacitate the person hit are concentrated in or near the midline. In the pelvis, however, the blood vessels are located to each side, having diverged from the midline, as the aorta and inferior vena cava divide at about the level of the navel. Additionally, the target that, when struck, is the most likely to cause rapid and reliable incapacitation, the spinal cord located in the midline of the abdomen, thorax and neck), ends well above the navel and is not a target in the pelvis.
-- The pelvic branches of the aorta and inferior vena cava are more difficult to hit than their parent vessels -- they are smaller targets, and they diverge laterally from the midline (getting farther from it as they descend). Even if hit, each carry far less blood than the larger vessels from which they originated. Thus, even if one of these branches in the pelvis is hit, incapacitation from blood loss must necessarily be slower than from a major vessel hit higher up in the torso.
-- Other than soft tissue structures not essential to continuing the gunfight (loops of bowel, bladder) the most likely thing to be struck by shots to the pelvis would be bone. The ilium is a large flat bone that forms most of the back wall of the pelvis. The problem is that handgun bullets that hit it would not break the bone but only make a small hole in passing through it: this would do nothing to destroy bony support of the pelvic girdle. The pelvic girdle is essentially a circle: to disrupt its structure significantly would require breaking it in two places. Only a shot that disrupted the neck or upper portion of the shaft of the femur would be likely to disrupt bony support enough to cause the person hit to fall. This is a small and highly unlikely target: the aim point to hit it would be a mystery to those without medical training — and to most of those with medical training.

The "theory" stated in the question postulates that "certain autonomic responses the body undergoes during periods of stress" causes officers to shoot low, and that apparently this is good in a gunfight because such shots cause "severe disability." I hope that the points presented above debunk the second part of the theory. As for the "autonomic responses" that cause officers to shoot low, I am unaware of anything in the anatomy or physiology of the autonomic nervous system that would even suggest such an occurrence. Most laymen do not understand the function of the autonomic nervous system. It is simply a system whose main function is to fine tune the glands and smooth muscles (those in the walls of organs and blood vessels) of the body. During times of stress such as perceived impending danger, the autonomic nervous system diverts blood from the intestines and digestive organs to the skeletal muscles — in the so-called "fight or flight" response. The effects of this response are constantly exaggerated by laymen who lack an adequate understanding of it — most notably by gun writ-ers eager to impress their readers. Interestingly, the human body can get along quite well without major parts of the autonomic nervous system. During my professional life as a surgeon, myself and colleagues removed parts of thousands of vagus nerves (mostly in treating peptic ulcer disease) -- thus depriving the patient of the major part of the parasympathetic half of the autonomic nervous system. We also removed many ganglia from the sympathetic half of the auto-nomic nervous system, in treating such things as profusely excess sweating and various problems caused by spasm of the arteries. I am unaware of any evidence that these operations produced any significant effect on the future capacity of these patients to react appropriately in times of impending danger.

Unfortunately, the pelvis shot fallacy is common. This fallacy, along with other misinformation, is promoted constantly by at least one gun writer who is widely published in the popular gun press. Because of this, I regularly debunk this fallacy by including some of the above rationale in my presentations to law enforcement firearm instructor groups."

There are no doubts regarding serious mortality rates with pelvic wounds, the issue is whether wounds to the pelvis offer rapid enough incapacitation to reliably stop an adversary during a lethal force encounter. Obviously use a pelvic shot if it is the only target available, but it may not be the best primary target or failure to stop response target.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?4330-Shots-to-the-Pelvis

Methinks double taps to the center mass, crotch, and head in rapid succession is pretty effective. I agree with not shooting pelvic area only as the only means to stop an attacker. Fwiw I personally I think in terms of hitting all three cuz you don't know what part of the target will be available and also what innocents may be nearby (such as behind the opponent or god forbid in front of). If you are well practiced at hitting all three without fail we are more likely to have effective options when the "the red flag flies" as Col Jeff Cooper used to say. Just my thinking on it. Also the more chances to practice shooting at moving targets the better imo.

 

[salmon creek gary]

Competing experts collectively (but unintentionally) provide arguments that support the need for 17 round handgun magazines.
Short Title: Ten Ain't Enough For All Those Spots.

 

[Member 53328]

T box. Pelvic girdle. It will get the job done.

 

[OldBroad44]

Article gives detailed diagram of brain but gives no info about where to shoot in the brain. Can anyone look at that diagram and tell us in terms of the zones shown what the effect would be of hitting various areas in the brain?

 

[Certaindeaf]

Article gives detailed diagram of brain but gives no info about where to shoot in the brain. Can anyone look at that diagram and tell us in terms of the zones shown what the effect would be of hitting various areas in the brain?

It could skid off so square on is what I'm thinking.

 

[Member 53328]

Article gives detailed diagram of brain but gives no info about where to shoot in the brain. Can anyone look at that diagram and tell us in terms of the zones shown what the effect would be of hitting various areas in the brain?

The T box.

 

[WillametteWill]

From the article:

While a high-power rifle bullet any-where in the brain is an almost certain fight-stopper, the lower energy of handgun bullets requires more precision.​

A precision shot with a handgun gun, on a moving target, during a fight, is not likely going to be one of the easiest feats to accomplish. Not that I disagree that we should learn from this information and practice alternatives to COM, but know there needs to be some intellectual honesty with this as well. Head shots, although perhaps advantageous to necessary in some cases, are going to result in more misses, which means our bullet is going somewhere not intended. LEO's already have only about a 20% hit ratio.

ackler ML: "Shots to the Pelvic Area". Wound Ballistics Review. 4(1):13; 1999.

"I welcome the chance to refute the belief that the pelvic area is a reasonable target during a gunfight. I can find no evidence or valid rationale for intentionally targeting the pelvic area in a gunfight. The reasons against, however, are many. They include:

I know much has be written on this topic, but I look at pelvic shots as more useful with a rifle or shotgun. The bones in this area are larger and stronger and handgun rounds will not be as effective. Still a possible target but not magic.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

From the article:

While a high-power rifle bullet any-where in the brain is an almost certain fight-stopper, the lower energy of handgun bullets requires more precision.​

A precision shot with a handgun gun, on a moving target, during a fight, is not likely going to be one of the easiest feats to accomplish. Not that I disagree that we should learn from this information and practice alternatives to COM, but know there needs to be some intellectual honesty with this as well. Head shots, although perhaps advantageous to necessary in some cases, are going to result in more misses, which means our bullet is going somewhere not intended. LEO's already have only about a 20% hit ratio.

I know much has be written on this topic, but I look at pelvic shots as more useful with a rifle or shotgun. The bones in this area are larger and stronger and handgun rounds will not be as effective. Still a possible target but not magic.

Agree. We often think of targets as static but they move. The heads move a lot! In a fraction of an instant it can be in a different place than where you were aiming. All we have to do is move our head to the side, towards the shoulder, or whatever to see how fast it can be in completely different place. The torso moves less but if the target is moving it still is a lots of movement. The crotch moves the least. Clint Smith's moving targets -as you know I'm sure, having taken his classes (you lucky dog!)- demonstrate this well (although the base of those targets is fixed). I'll try to find a video of that and post here if it's on YouTube.

I think we like to latch onto simple concepts like "the head shot is the only/best place to shoot" or whatever but in reality we need to an understanding of what the pros and cons are for each area (like you said about bones in crotch area) and have the capacity to attack any one of those areas (or all) as needed. Yes headshot more likely to incapacitate but like you said much less likely to get a hit. For me it's not one spot or the other. Be ready to attack all 3.

Edit: can't find a good example of Clint Smiths moving target in you tube but this video shows it for a millisecond at the 0:24 mark. Good visual aid to show that if your gun is tracking the head it has to move a lot from side to side to stay on center. Center mass you don't have to swing the gun as far side to side. Crotch you swing even less. Poeple don't move like that of course but it's still helpful to understand the concept imo.

 

[Diamondback]

Back in the day when I was first starting I used to call what I trained for the "Four-S Drill": two each in this order to Scrotum, Spleen, Sternum and Septum, riding the recoil up the centerline between pairs. As I developed better recoil control I evolved to "two COM then two either pelvis or snotlocker, whichever has a better shot."

 

[No_Regerts]

I lost a friend in a shooting where the suspect was wearing body armor. I believe 4 hits would have been fatal given the placement, absent the armor.

Humans are just an upright animal. You can break them down like you would any dangerous animal. Head, hips, through the shoulders when broadside.

The broadside shot is one of the major reasons there are FBI penetration standards. Most pistols won't exit, but you have to get through the first set of ribs into the vitals.

 

[Certaindeaf]

The T box.

View attachment 1172475

The locker of snot.

Lol

 

[Stomper]

I didn't read the article but imo it's always good to practice crotch, center mass, and head shots with your edc every time u are at the range. The main reason is body armor but also because on a moving target most likely the head moves a ton, the center mass moves less, and the crotch moves even less. Need to be able to hit all three without thinking about it at any given time imo.

You've clearly never met my crotch!

 

[Stomper]

The locker of snot.

Lol

The T of zone….

 

[Diamondback]

The locker of snot.

Lol

Mandalorian visor...

 

[Cerberus Group]

The locker of snot.

Lol

This sounds familiar...

 

[Andy54Hawken]

When having to shoot for real as it were...
One is very often presented with a less than ideal shot or target.

Center mass , the "T Box " pelvic area , head shot ...all can work ....all can also fail to stop the threat.

Take the best shot that you have at the time.
Do what is needed to survive and do so without regrets.
Andy

Edit to add :
To be blunt :
In my experience it ain't difficult to shoot a man.
However...
What you think might happen and how you planned for it to happen , mostly likely will be different than what actually happens.
It is of more importance to be of a flexible and adaptable mindset...
And not get "stuck" with a plan or on a practice / method that ain't working.