Where would you shoot.......head or body

[RichardR]

When I train it is almost always for center mass, there are exceptions to this rule however, say for instance when the only viable target presented to you is the target's head or some other extremity.

Reasons for this are to numberous to list, but in short some of them would be in scenarios where a non-combatant of some sort (hostage/victim, kid, etc) was in the way of a clear torso shot, or if the target is wearing body armor, or if they are behind some sort of cover, etc

Legally there is no distinction, justified is justified, regardless of bullet placement.

[wjh2657]

When I took my Gunseye Pistol self defense course, several students brought this up to LTC Cooper, and yes, he did have "Mozambique Drills" in his course, He told us that the "Mozambique" always works on paper targets that don't move around and is always demonstrated on same. The problem he brought up was that a real target is doesn't usually stand still and for sure is moving in some way if you just shot him twice in the chest. The human head rarely is anywhere as still as the body. He set up a helium filled balloon in a breeze and had the people asking the question fire at it. They were all good shots but they all missed the balloon completely. It made a believer of me. I would fire five shots ( EDC is a 642) COM. At home I would fire two shots COM (Mossberg 500 with 00) I believe if you practice enough to keep your shots within a 5" circle and buy good effective HP ammo COM will do the job. If somebody is rushing you or shooting at you it is no time to be playing Roy Rogers!

[Transplanted Hoosier]

2 shots center mass. If the threat still exists, then 2 more shots center mass.

[Guest Gen. Patton]

[quote name='RichardR' timestamp='1353334503' post='848116']
When I train it is almost always for center mass, there are exceptions to this rule however, say for instance when the only viable target presented to you is the target's head or some other extremity.

Reasons for this are to numberous to list, but in short some of them would be in scenarios where a non-combatant of some sort (hostage/victim, kid, etc) was in the way of a clear torso shot, or if the target is wearing body armor, or if they are behind some sort of cover, etc

Legally there is no distinction, justified is justified, regardless of bullet placement.
[/quote]

Well yeah but here's the thing, you have to get to "justified" status first. If you live somewhere like where I do the D.A. is an elected official, plus add the fact that there is a huge amount of people who don't believe in the carring of a firearm for any reason because they don't like guns, you have to take into account that this D.A. and his staff are all politicians with constituencies that they need to please in order to keep their jobs. That being said it behooves one to take certain things into account when acting in self-defense. Justified dosen't mean anything if you can't prove it. If someone is hiding behind a vehicle and the only exposed target is the top of someones head then take the shot. Also, if it's a leg or an arm that's exposed as a target you'll have to decide on-the-fly if it's exposed enough so as to knock the assailant off balance and expose more of them for follow-up shots against the possibility that your bullet might miss and hit a bystander. With freedom comes responsibility. Edited November 19, 2012 by Gen. Patton

[Guest nysos]

2 shots and if they keep coming 2 more shots?

I'm sorry but I won't be counting shots if I feel my life is in danger. I am going to do a controlled mag dump and only stop if the guy turns around to turn the other way, or falls face forward into the dirt. It is simple as that. "Shoot to stop the threat", which also means, don't stop shooting until he no longer becomes a threat.

[TMF]

[quote name='Gen. Patton' timestamp='1353346203' post='848223']

Well yeah but here's the thing, you have to get to "justified" status first. If you live somewhere like where I do the D.A. is an elected official, plus add the fact that there is a huge amount of people who don't believe in the carring of a firearm for any reason because they don't like guns, you have to take into account that this D.A. and his staff are all politicians with constituencies that they need to please in order to keep their jobs. That being said it behooves one to take certain things into account when acting in self-defense. Justified dosen't mean anything if you can't prove it. If someone is hiding behind a vehicle and the only exposed target is the top of someones head then take the shot. Also, if it's a leg or an arm that's exposed as a target you'll have to decide on-the-fly if it's exposed enough so as to knock the assailant off balance and expose more of them for follow-up shots against the possibility that your bullet might miss and hit a bystander. With freedom comes responsibility.[/quote]

If it ain't justified it don't matter where you shoot him. You're going to jail.

A halfway literate defense attorney can easily turn a jury off to the relevance of shot placement (talking headshot versus body) so long as action can be seen as justified. For example: there are people who make a living out of shooting bad people, and have lots of experience doing so over the past decade. They would not use the head as a primary target versus center mass due to the increased likelihood of missing and getting shot by the bad guy. They just put a whole mess of rounds into the body until the threat is eliminated. It works.

[Cruel Hand Luke]

Let's define the problem a little better.....

Is the target a suspect held at gunpoint 6 yards away who suddenly produces a weapon?

Or is it an aggressive panhandler who had maneuvered to within 2 arms length and then suddenly produced a weapon?

Or is it an active shooter who is 30 yards away?

Or is it someone doing their best Trayvon Martin impersonation who has mounted you and working the ground and pound trying to beat you to death?

You see the answer largely depends on the situation. If he is 30 yards away then COM is all you are likely hit ....no matter how good a shot you are . If he is farther than 5 yards then the head is not an easy shot unless he is not mobile.

At less than 4 yards (and closing on you) then head shots are A LOT easier than most people realize. Can you hit a volleyball at 3 yards ? How about 2 yards? If we plug it into actual close range assaults the head shots get easier...IF that is what you have trained to do and trained to do it against live opponents while you are semi adrenalyzed. And if you understand the OODA concept, action vs reaction, and how to exploit that to your advantage it is easy.

How about in touching distance? With him on top of you ? Once you have grabbed his left arm and pulled across to your left side(unbalancing and dropping him onto his face and chest onto the ground) and scooted your hips (to your right) out from under him? Now you just draw and lay the muzzle on the back of his left shoulder and fire a shot from 4 inches from his head. Can you make THAT shot? I would hope so.

So we see that depending on the distance and depending on your training and depending on your skill as a shooter and your ability to shift gears from the defensive to the offensive you can in fact make head shots IF you try to. Would I recommend it for the typical CCW license holder? No. But there are people out there carrying guns in public that have FAR and AWAY more skill than the typical CW holder and FAR and AWAY more skill than the typical police officer.

For THOSE people? They can make those shots. You just have to make a real serious assessment of your skill level and decide accordingly. And that decision does not need to be made for the first time in the middle of the situation when it is real.......

As for me, in MOST situations the body shots are plan A. But realizing pistols are notoriously weak stoppers plan A is actually a burst of 3 to 5 to the body...and then IMMEDIATELY stage for the headshot. If the head is still there...then take the shot. If it is not...then he fell down....and we simply do not take the shot. Pretty simple.

I look at the body shots like a flurry of punches to the body setting them up for a knockout blow.....if they fall from the body blows then we don't throw the hook....

The body shots at 3 yards (assuming you understand grip and follow through) are fired like a burst from a submachine gun. Due to the close proximity of the target these can be fired at warp speed and still get tightly grouped high COM hits. These are more times than not going to be LIKELY to do what needs to be done.....but I do not EXPECT them to. I EXPECT to then have to take the head shot. And since I am EXPECTING it, I am already looking for a sight picture and getting ready to take the head shot once the last shot of the body burst is fired. Not standing and gawking wondering why it didn't work and what to do next. Training fills in those empty pages in your mental rolodex so you know what to do next and don't hesitate or freeze.

But there are situations where head shot might be plan A. If the BG is rapidly closing with a contact weapon or if he is reaching for a weapon and at 2 arms length distance then the head may well be plan A. but for MOST situations outside 2 arms length then the body is still plan A. Edited November 19, 2012 by Cruel Hand Luke

[TMF]

If you empty your entire carry gun capacity (5-10) shots into someone's center mass and they're still coming at you, then you are likely not in a self defense shoot; you are a character on The Walking Dead. Edited November 19, 2012 by TMF

[Will Carry]

I would go center mass.
It would be cool if someone on this post could do a little experiment on ballistics and winter clothing. I would love to know how many layers of winter clothing it takes to stop a handgun round. There must be some research already available on the net.

[bubbiesdad]

[quote name='timcar86' timestamp='1353307015' post='848051']
The first option should be center mass. Its the best and largest target. If the threat fails to stop, your next target is the pelvic region. Splitting the pelvic girdle will take away the threat's mobility and there are several large arteries in that area. If the threat still doesn't stop, your last option is the head. And when we're talking about the head we're really talking about an upside down triangle that goes from the eyes to the nose. That's it. The forehead is very hard and has been know to deflect bullets because of the slope. From the cheekbones down is also a poor choice because there are no vital targets in that area. So to sum up: 4 to 6 center mass, 4 to 6 pelvis and if you don't get compliance after that, you have to make a precise shot to the eyes/nose area. This all was from the class I took from Tiger McKee.
[/quote]

I wouldn't waste ammo on the pelvis. Taking a chance on hitting an artery? No. If the chest doesn't work, go for the head. That's what Cruel Hand Luke told us this past weekend. Edited November 19, 2012 by bubbiesdad

[peejman]

[quote name='Will Carry' timestamp='1353351429' post='848264']
I would go center mass.
It would be cool if someone on this post could do a little experiment on ballistics and winter clothing. I would love to know how many layers of winter clothing it takes to stop a handgun round. There must be some research already available on the net.
[/quote]

Lots and lots. http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot8.htm Some newer rounds are better designed to expand after passing through various things (clothes, glass, drywall, etc.).

[TMF]

[quote name='bubbiesdad' timestamp='1353356395' post='848317']

I had a class this past weekend, which taught us the pelvis doesn't work. If center mass doesn't work, [/quote]

Define "doesn't work".

[bubbiesdad]

[quote name='TMF' timestamp='1353356694' post='848320']
Define "doesn't work".
[/quote]

In the middle of editing. Doesn't work means that the threat was not stopped.

[Guest MilitiaMan]

"Center mass" is term that is used so incorrectly.

Learn a little human anatomy and then rethink your strategy.

As for me? I will be aiming a few inches above (upper chest area) your so thoroughly (and incorrectly) taught "center mass".

[TMF]

[quote name='bubbiesdad' timestamp='1353356982' post='848325']

In the middle of editing. Doesn't work means that the threat was not stopped.[/quote]

Oh. My uncle shot a guy in a justified shoot about 15 years ago. Once to the gut and twice to the pelvis. He stopped.

[Cruel Hand Luke]

As to the pelvis....It MAY work ..it MAY not. I had a girlfriend who was in a car wreck. The car went off the interstate and flipped end over end . Her pelvis was broken in THREE places..... yet she crawled 50 yards back to the road to flag down help....so if a 17 year old girl was able to do that I don't hold out much hope for a pelvic shot to turn off the bad guy's trigger finger. If pain does not stop them, then we are back to needing to turn off the lights....so why not just skip straight to shutting off the power?

As to rounds hitting them in the " credit card" or the "ocular-nasal triangle" YES those are all that will for sure get into the cranial vault and hit the brain....Both Platte and Maddox had pistol bullets recovered from under their scalp that did not penetrate their skulls in the Miami FBI shootout in 1986. The skull IS very hard and rounds need to be directed into the eye orbit and nose to reliably hit the brain....

But....... does anyone really think that a bullet through the teeth or a bullet in the jaw or square in the forehead does not hurt and does not have some kind of negative effect on their ability to do damage to us? And why do we always seem to assume that we will just fire ONE round and stop? The first 1 might not hit him in the eye, but the follow up shots will be doing damage too....

Also consider this....what follows the bullet? SOUND, hot gas and burning powder. At less than 3 yards that is like having a cherry bomb go off at arms length. If nothing else it is very likely to get them to close their eyes and flinch. Do we think that will make it easier or harder for them to continue their assault? And again....we keep shooting until they quit doing what made us shoot them to begin with . There is no "shoot 2 and assess" it is "keep shooting until they are no longer able to hurt you. " Edited November 19, 2012 by Cruel Hand Luke

[bubbiesdad]

[quote name='TMF' timestamp='1353359232' post='848350']
Oh. My uncle shot a guy in a justified shoot about 15 years ago. Once to the gut and twice to the pelvis. He stopped.
[/quote]

If he stopped, then it worked.

[TMF]

[quote name='bubbiesdad' timestamp='1353359383' post='848352']

If he stopped, then it worked.[/quote]

It did.

The point I'm making is that folks get so wrapped around the axle about shot placement hitting specific areas of the body. I think it's great to practice that in training to build that reflexive ability, but to think that you'll have the presence of mind to consciously aim for a specific vital area when you're fighting for your life is just silly. You will aim for center mass and (hopefully) keep shooting until the threat is eliminated. Just like training to fire twice is great, because it builds that muscle memory of following up your shot, but when it counts you're gonna keep shooting until you're sure it's done being a threat.

Once again, if a morale patch ranger thinks because he kills paper well he is gonna be some kind of tier one badass if he ever has to draw in self defense he is in for a disappointment.

[maroonandwhite]

Here is a simple test you can do with a buddy if you have access to a place to try it. We did it in one of our classes at my local range.

1: Set up one or two target stands and have your buddy draw shapes and numbers on them without you knowing where they are.

2: With you back to the targets do something to get your adrenaline going. Act like you are fighting someone off. Think bad thoughts. Anything to get your heart racing.

3: Have your buddy call out one of the random numbers or shapes then turn, identify the target and shoot.

This will kind of simulate a slight adrenaline dump and just how it can affect your accuracy. The adrenaline dump you will get in a real situation will be far greater from what I have read and been told. I am not saying you or anyone cannot shoot an accurate head shot but based on what I saw others do and experienced myself it will be difficult. Also keep in mind that this test is on a still target that you can anticipate the location of. Add in movement and, well I think you see where I am going.

[Cruel Hand Luke]

TMF, no one is saying (at least they shouldn't be) that shooting people in the pelvis NEVER works. Just like no one is saying shooting in the head ALWAYS works.

I have friend whose dad shot a guy in the leg and the guy stopped.

But then you have guys like my great grandfather who killed two guys after BOTH of them had shot him in the torso. Neither one hit anything vital...and he hit both the other guys multiple times in the chest and they died on the spot. You just don't know how someone will react to being hit in a non vital area.Sometimes they crumple and sometimes not.... Most people shot in the heart, spine or brain react the same....

Five things stop people.

1. Most common is FEAR.

2. Next is PAIN.

But if fear and pain don't do it we are gonna have to

3. drop blood pressure to where they pass out ....

4. Or hit the spine and paralyze them.....

5. Or turn off the lights with a round in the brain.

Fortunately most people stop when shot ANYWHERE. But for those that do not the quicker we can do the most damage the better. If it is the statistically typical civilian gunfight at 3 yards or less, then I'm a proponent of skipping the pelvic area and directing everything from the diaphragm up if at all possible.

And you will perform to the level you have internalized in training. A jumpshot with someone guarding you in the state tournament is a complex thing. Choosing whether you will use the board and bank it or shoot straight for the rim is a decision to be made in microseconds under stress and largely depends on how far you are, what the angle to the basket is and how the guy guarding you is playing you ....yet people do it every year. How? Because they practice game situations regularly.


If someone's idea of training involves sporadic once every other blue moon static square range bullseye shooting with no interaction via Force on Force against live uncooperative opponents then no...they probably will not be able to process info fast enough to shift targeting areas. Just like the guy who only watches basketball on TV will not be able to score on someone guarding him with 1000 people watching. But if it is something they do regularly (or at least train to a close approximation of) then they probably will be able to do it. I'm not interested in what the least common denominator can do. I'm interested in what the dedicated practitioner can do. Edited November 19, 2012 by Cruel Hand Luke

[maroonandwhite]

[quote name='Cruel Hand Luke' timestamp='1353362245' post='848395']

And you will perform to the level you have internalized in training. A jumpshot with someone guarding you in the state tournament is a complex thing. Choosing whether you will use the board and bank it or shoot straight for the rim is a decision to be made in microseconds under stress and largely depends on how far you are, what the angle to the basket is and how the guy guarding you is playing you ....yet people do it every year. How? Because they practice game situations regularly.


[/quote]

Not trying to be smart about this but here goes:

If the guy guarding you was going to stab you in the gut with a knife if you missed the shot wouldn't it be harder to make that shot. Again add in the adrenaline dump and I bet you would miss that shot.

Maybe not though..

[Cruel Hand Luke]

Ok fine....the Quarterback who throws a ball to the side away from the receiver's defender (avoiding the possible interception) while he knows he's about to get hit by the defensive lineman. He KNOWS that he may well get hit hard enough to be injured permanently every time he gets sacked..... yet he focuses on the task at hand.

That a better analogy?

[maroonandwhite]

Better but still not the same thing. Getting killed or seriously injured by a tackle is FAR less likely than a knife or bullet. The point I am trying to make is that we don't really have a way to train for that massive adrenaline dump and loss of motor skills. A quarterback can train for those hits. Again I am not saying it can't be done but in this instance I would rather not play the odds when they are stacked so high against it. Just my opinion though.

[Cruel Hand Luke]

Well under that logic then there is no point in ANY kind of training since we are never going to have a 100% replication of the real thing since we are not likely to be killed in training.....yet the Delta and Seal Team (and SAS and a mile long list of other folks) operators routinely are able to perform high levels of shooting under real life and death stress ....why? Training.

A big part of it is knowing what to expect. Not just some nebulous "danger" but seeing how the scenarios actually play out be they military or civilian.From civilian perspective it goes a LONG way just to have seen what it looks like for someone to approach you and pull a weapon on you. What does an assault look like? How does the bad guy close the distance? What are the cues of impending criminal assault? What will it take to get ahead of him in the OODA cycle?

These are what you get from training and while no you are not likely to get killed in training it comes a lot closer to the real thing than just reading books. Now, just shooting paper? No. I'm talking about well structured FOF training that acts as stress innoculation. We hear it all the time from mil and police guys who say "my training just took over". There is a reason for that. Edited November 19, 2012 by Cruel Hand Luke

[maroonandwhite]

Well if you have access to there level of training then I suppose you CAN simulate these situations. They do this for a living so I don't think we are talking about the same thing. Also I don't see why you think training isn't necessary with my logic. My logic is playing the odds in my favor.

To address the seal team reference on another point. They don't have to keep there weapons concealed and holstered until they for sure think there life is being threatened. Again another analogy that doesn't really apply to this situation.