Why aiming for center mass is important

[Omega]

1 hour ago, alleycat72 said:

You simply don't know how you are going to perform in a situation where you're either shooting at someone or getting shot at unless it's happened to you. Center mass gives you the highest hit percentage. No matter how good you are you will probably be worse when your life is on the line. A buddy of mine woke up with a guy in his living room. He confronted the guy and it went south. He aimed directly between the guy's eyes and pulled the trigger.  He hit the guy in his pinky.  I asked him if the guy raised his hand as a sheld.  His response was the guy had a weapon in one hand pointing at him. The hand he hit was at his side.  That's how far his aim was off. The guy hit the ground like a ton of bricks and begged for his life. At the range shooting drills are nice and pretty.  In real life they get ugly. Cops go into a situation prepared. They give themselves every advantage when bad things could happen.  As a regular guy, the bad guy has that advantage. None of us are John Wick. No matter how much we tell our Wives we are. 

Muscle memory is a thing, and when SHTF it comes into affect automatically, most times.  While on active duty, my greatest fear was how I would react under fire, knowing that, that is when you will either act, run or drop to your knees screaming.  I am happy to say, I reacted just fine each and every time, but it is a perishable skill and you must train with your EDC as much as you can, preferably with someone or something that will help identify bad practices to learn not to do them.

[Alleycat72]

48 minutes ago, Omega said:

Muscle memory is a thing, and when SHTF it comes into affect automatically, most times.  While on active duty, my greatest fear was how I would react under fire, knowing that, that is when you will either act, run or drop to your knees screaming.  I am happy to say, I reacted just fine each and every time, but it is a perishable skill and you must train with your EDC as much as you can, preferably with someone or something that will help identify bad practices to learn not to do them.

Let me ask you if you don't mind? Did it feel like the world was in slow motion, but you were moving in real time? Was it as if you were a spectator and you body took over. The sights seemed to align themselves kind of thing. I've talked a few guys, but they were in war and I didn't feel like is was right to talk to them about it.

[Omega]

3 hours ago, alleycat72 said:

Let me ask you if you don't mind? Did it feel like the world was in slow motion, but you were moving in real time? Was it as if you were a spectator and you body took over. The sights seemed to align themselves kind of thing. I've talked a few guys, but they were in war and I didn't feel like is was right to talk to them about it.

Kind of the opposite, seemed like I was trying to move in molasses, my eyes and mind located targets and my body engaged (or not in a couple cases) but we were taught slow is smooth, smooth is fast.  After the first time, my hands were pretty shaky once everything was over, the adrenaline was still pretty high I guess, but my rounds went where I wanted them so I don't think they were shaking then.  

[memphismason]

A force-on-force class is the closest we can get to the real thing, outside of being involved in the real thing. I learned so much about myself, not just gun stuff in that class. Even though you KNOW it isn't real, and the bullets aren't real, the adrenaline still hits and fingers become flippers and the world changes in those class scenarios. Taking one of those type classes is a real eye opening experience. 

[Omega]

45 minutes ago, memphismason said:

A force-on-force class is the closest we can get to the real thing, outside of being involved in the real thing. I learned so much about myself, not just gun stuff in that class. Even though you KNOW it isn't real, and the bullets aren't real, the adrenaline still hits and fingers become flippers and the world changes in those class scenarios. Taking one of those type classes is a real eye opening experience. 

You are so right, the first time I was involved in some training (as a hostage) with what we called "lipstick" rounds was such a rush.  Though I was not to be the target of any rounds, I was in the room when the HR team came in taking out the guards, I managed to pick one up, to the side of the head (with a helmet).  Seems I was sitting by a window where there was a straight line from a window in an adjoining room and one came through (no glass in the bldg).  The team guy was ticked, he had to carry me down three flights because they had to recover me dead or alive, and he didn't know why I would not cooperate when he told me to stand up and walk down until he seen my helmet.  As a support guy we got many opportunities to participate in such training, but as either a hostage or guard, even when you know it is coming, it is a surprise when you feel those rounds hitting you, and it is not pleasant, which adds to the realism. 

I encourage taking training courses that are using paint guns, because there is no arguing if someone missed or not.  But even the ones where there is no physical impact, you can get the sense of your reactions to certain conditions such as noise, light, and physical exertion.

 

[memphismason]

I took "The Fight" from Tactical Response and used Simunition rounds. 

[Moped]

Due to time, I haven’t had the opportunity to read all the comments, but will when I get back home.

I wanted to relay to you all, a conversation I had with a retiring Deputy Sheriff, two years ago, while taking my HCP course. He was shooting a Glock 23 and I was shooting my FNS9 (my groups were better , but I digress). We were talking about police shootings and he said, that they were seeing more and more of the bad guys utilizing bullet proof vests and they were rethinking center mass aiming, because of it. He said they were starting to shift to the lower abdomen, with the thought that if they hit one of the large femoral arteries there or in the upper leg, the bad guy would quickly bleed out, in seconds. It made sense to me.
 

just wanted to pass that little tidbit along.

[Alleycat72]

54 minutes ago, Moped said:

Due to time, I haven’t had the opportunity to read all the comments, but will when I get back home.

I wanted to relay to you all, a conversation I had with a retiring Deputy Sheriff, two years ago, while taking my HCP course. He was shooting a Glock 23 and I was shooting my FNS9 (my groups were better , but I digress). We were talking about police shootings and he said, that they were seeing more and more of the bad guys utilizing bullet proof vests and they were rethinking center mass aiming, because of it. He said they were starting to shift to the lower abdomen, with the thought that if they hit one of the large femoral arteries there or in the upper leg, the bad guy would quickly bleed out, in seconds. It made sense to me.
 

just wanted to pass that little tidbit along.

You'd probably be better off hitting the top of the vest. Working the triangle. The guy may bleed out with a leg hit, but he can shoot while he's doing it. 

[Omega]

1 hour ago, Moped said:

Due to time, I haven’t had the opportunity to read all the comments, but will when I get back home.

I wanted to relay to you all, a conversation I had with a retiring Deputy Sheriff, two years ago, while taking my HCP course. He was shooting a Glock 23 and I was shooting my FNS9 (my groups were better , but I digress). We were talking about police shootings and he said, that they were seeing more and more of the bad guys utilizing bullet proof vests and they were rethinking center mass aiming, because of it. He said they were starting to shift to the lower abdomen, with the thought that if they hit one of the large femoral arteries there or in the upper leg, the bad guy would quickly bleed out, in seconds. It made sense to me.
 

just wanted to pass that little tidbit along.

Our training was for near-peer adversaries, so we figured they would have body armor.  So it was always two to the chest and one to the head, the thought was that even if they did have body armor the rounds in the chest would put them off balance and allow the follow on shot.

[Jeb48]

When my Sister In-Law took a handgun course in Ohio she was taught the triple tap, 2 in the chest, 1 in the head. I suggest she might want to do quad tap and put the 4th shot in the crotch. Gives the shooter something else to do with their hands.

[chances R]

Now the two to the chest one to the head works well with paper.  Practically speaking, how easy do you think that head is going to be hit after the BG reacts to the sight of a gun and the impact of the first two rounds?  Also if you are backing up creating distance?  Just saying two to the triangle first may be the best option.

[A.J. Holst]

1 hour ago, chances R said:

Just saying two to the triangle first may be the best option.

I'll say it, y'all on a budget?

As many as necessary, in important places, to stop the fight.

Don't be surprised if the BG doesn't do what he's supposed to with only 3 handgun bullets delivered in a very exciting environment.

Handgun bullets do strange things when the hit human bodies, excluding the card carrying Billy and Barbara Bada$$ types.

[Ray Z]

What our instructor told us was to continue to fire until the danger stops being a threat. Works for me.Unless There's someone behind the dude watching for the bullets to come through.

[DaveTN]

1 hour ago, Ray Z said:

What our instructor told us was to continue to fire until the danger stops being a threat.

That’s the way its always been. But lately, “Why did they shoot him so many times” has become an issue even when deadly force is justified. Looks as if “immediate danger” could become a more finely tuned issue than it is now. If the criminal huggers get their way a couple of rounds or a couple of seconds could take someone from “justifiable self-defense”, to murder”.

[TGO David]

4 hours ago, DaveTN said:

That’s the way its always been. But lately, “Why did they shoot him so many times” has become an issue even when deadly force is justified. Looks as if “immediate danger” could become a more finely tuned issue than it is now. If the criminal huggers get their way a couple of rounds or a couple of seconds could take someone from “justifiable self-defense”, to murder”.

Let's be honest, you want to be prepared with as much lawyer as you can afford if you have to shoot someone in self defense.  Whether it takes one shot or ten, the public will riot because they've learned that it is an effective way of manipulating the court.

 

[Omega]

2 hours ago, TGO David said:

Let's be honest, you want to be prepared with as much lawyer as you can afford if you have to shoot someone in self defense.  Whether it takes one shot or ten, the public will riot because they've learned that it is an effective way of manipulating the court.

 

Riots will depend on the perp me thinks, I don't think there would be any danger of that if you took out some redneck crackhead.

[Alleycat72]

19 minutes ago, Omega said:

Riots will depend on the perp me thinks, I don't think there would be any danger of that if you took out some redneck crackhead.

Or apparently a kid on his bike. 

[TGO David]

2 hours ago, Omega said:

Riots will depend on the perp me thinks, I don't think there would be any danger of that if you took out some redneck crackhead.

I suspect you are right, but 2020 isn't over yet.  There's still a chance the redneck crackhead contingent will surprise us.

 

2 hours ago, alleycat72 said:

Or apparently a kid on his bike. 

Man, that is just an awful story.  I don't know what the truth of that situation is, but that poor kid did not deserve to die.  It's going to be interesting to see what facts come out about the situation in the weeks ahead.