7 Most Common Defensive Shooting Myths

[Grand Torino]

http://www.handgunsmag.com/personal-defense/common-defensive-shooting-myths/?utm_source=feedly&utm_reader=feedly&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=common-defensive-shooting-myths

 

MYTH: It does not matter what caliber you use. Just hit them in the head, and they will drop.

Well, yes and no. If the aggressor is hit in the right place within the head—pretty much regardless of caliber—they will most likely drop right there. However, hitting that spot is not as easy as it may seem. There are not many vital organs in the head below the nose, and the cranial vault is located above the eyes. It is called a vault because it protects the brain. 

Read more.

[peejman]

I have an acquaintance who's a federal marshal.  He was involved in apprehending a criminal who was shot in the forehead with a suppressed MP5 from about 10 ft away.  The bullet bounced off and didn't knock the guy down (big dude).   I recall seeing the guy's mug shot with a nasty bruise just to the left of dead center. 

[bersaguy]

I have heard of many people being shot in the head and not stopped. You can stop a bad guy really quick with a 22lr caliber if you know where to put the bullets. I had a buddy's wife get approached by two bad guys in the Rivergate Mall Parking lot on night. She wheeled around with her 22 Cal pistol and pointed it at them. They said you won't shoot and began towards her and she put to fast rounds in the groin area of the first one and he went down fast rolling in pain and screaming. The second one broke and ran. He husband told her where to shoot  and took her out with a shooting dummy and she practiced to where at about 15 feet she was dead on. Bullet placement is priority 1 in my mind..........................jmho

[KKing]

I have heard of many people being shot in the head and not stopped. You can stop a bad guy really quick with a 22lr caliber if you know where to put the bullets. I had a buddy's wife get approached by two bad guys in the Rivergate Mall Parking lot on night. She wheeled around with her 22 Cal pistol and pointed it at them. They said you won't shoot and began towards her and she put to fast rounds in the groin area of the first one and he went down fast rolling in pain and screaming. The second one broke and ran. He husband told her where to shoot and took her out with a shooting dummy and she practiced to where at about 15 feet she was dead on. Bullet placement is priority 1 in my mind..........................jmho

I'm sorry, and I'm glad it worked in her case, but that's terrible advice.

[jacob]

That would probably seem sadistic to a DA...I would stick to shooting center mass...

[Ray Z]

" I was shooting center mass. I must have pulled low OOPS"

[jacob]

With all due respect if you shoot to wound then you have no business carrying a firearm...

[2.ooohhh]

I aim for an invisible triangle formed by the location of the kidneys, and the xiphoid process(base of the sternum).  It's a nice soft spot with a good chance of taking out the thoracic aorta, vena cava, or spine where they are least protected. Hitting the liver where it peeks from under the rib cage isn't a terrible byproduct either. I used to aim higher as that was how my grandfather instructed me, but have changed the pattern slightly lower after seeing just how tough the sternum can be in the OR.

[bersaguy]

Well, I know it sounds like a bad move on her and her hubby's part but with a 22lr caliber when the person has any size to them a person is limited to areas that will put them down. The police said that she did what she had to do and did well. I myself, am a center mass shooter. 3 center of chest and if they don't go down they get more rounds till they do........................jmho

[TrickyNicky]

I'm sorry, and I'm glad it worked in her case, but that's terrible advice.

It is, but IMO its not too far off from being potentially sound. Sort of.

I recall reading in Police magazine maybe in the early to mid 90's about a female officer who was confronted suddenly in a relatively crowded park by a man with a butcher knife. As I recall he turned out of the crowd and pulled the knife while advancing from 10-15 feet away or so. The officer was credited for thinking quickly with a shot to the hip/pelvic area which as the article pointed out did two things;

1. Lessen the chance of a passing through bullet from coming out straight on into the crowd by instead sending it in at a downward angle.

2. Dropped the guy right there. Again per the article that while it was unlikely the attacker would have been able or motivated to continue the attack after being shot COM, he was pretty much physically unable to remain on his feet with a shattered pelvis, nonetheless progress any further forward.

I don't know. It's not where I would have anyone learn to shoot if they were getting started or getting a basic crash corse or what have you, but for people who work on the basics with enough regularity that they like to also train in some unlikely scenarios, it may not be a bad option to work on it a bit.

[chances R]

Pelvic shots are a very effective option and taught in many tac. classes.  COM is known for its quick target/hit probability but may be ineffective for several reasons.  Pelvic shots are taught because of almost immediate immobilization, pain if for no other reason, but also fractures and incapacitation.  Additionally in crowds, the downward trajectory is a consideration for possible shoot through and safety for by-standers.  So it is a very good option and has its place in defensive shooting.

[Jamie Jackson]

Whew. I'm gonna have to differ with the opinion on pelvic shots, intentionally targeting the pelvis in hopes of incapacitating the aggressor...

 

I have had many, many patients with fractured pelvic injuries, sometimes broken in several areas, both young and old, that could still stand, and walk. It was painful, but not incapacitating for them.

 

A rifle round may cause significant pelvic damage...but that's just a maybe. The aggressor may in fact die..but our goal is, should be, to stop the aggressive action quickly.

 

Please take a look at the below, from Dr. Gary Roberts, a reliable source, imho.

 

I don't have a dog in this fight as they say, but I also believe that center of mass, torso type hits, are preferable.

The occular window for a head shot is tough, and may well be more luck than skill in a lethal confrontation..again, just an unsolicited opinion...

 

 

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf

 

 

"Shots to the Pelvis

8/23/11

Dr. Fackler has written the following discussion on shots to the pelvis:

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."

[Omega]

Pelvic shots are a very effective option and taught in many tac. classes.  COM is known for its quick target/hit probability but may be ineffective for several reasons.  Pelvic shots are taught because of almost immediate immobilization, pain if for no other reason, but also fractures and incapacitation.  Additionally in crowds, the downward trajectory is a consideration for possible shoot through and safety for by-standers.  So it is a very good option and has its place in defensive shooting.

I think the difference is between who is being taught.  For everyday SD situations COM is the best course or action, if you are a trained professional such as a patrolman, SWAT or Hostage Rescue then it may make sense to give them the option depending on circumstance and target.  We were/are taught COM, body, body, head is the string; this is for the times the opponent may be wearing body armor.  The two body shots will either kill or disable a non protected opponent, or take him off balance if he is, with a follow up CNS shot.  While shooting at the pelvic region is effective and may take an opponent down, even kill him it does not take a determined one out of the fight, specially if armed.  Of course many thieves are not that determined, most will run when confronted with any weapon which they feel may kill or injure them such as a .22, but if they are cranked up on drugs they may feel little to no pain and have no sense to stop the attack no matter what. 

[chances R]

Well, COM is target #1, but, what about body armor, what about continued attack, what about other people around you?  Of course no one knows until the fecal matter hits the revolving blades.  The pelvis may be your best option.  It is still a 'frontal' view, less likely covered by armor, and highly sensitive.  Think taking the head shot is going to be easy and a stationary target....think again.  Just another tool in the tool box for SOME situations.

[Omega]

Well, COM is target #1, but, what about body armor, what about continued attack, what about other people around you?  Of course no one knows until the fecal matter hits the revolving blades.  The pelvis may be your best option.  It is still a 'frontal' view, less likely covered by armor, and highly sensitive.  Think taking the head shot is going to be easy and a stationary target....think again.  Just another tool in the tool box for SOME situations.

I think I covered that.  While body armor is getting easier to get, most bad guys are not going to be wearing it.  If they are, well as a civilian with minimal training you just may be up the fecal creek without a paddle because then the bad guy is probably a little more trained and determined than the average one.  But getting hit with body armor is not fun, and if you are a little guy, or not supported you will end up on your backside.  Continued attack is a very good likelihood, and there is no way to keep it from happening 100% of the time.  If you get a CNS shot, which is difficult, he is down, no matter what.  But with adrenaline, fear, anger etc, it just makes the situation worse on both sides.  Doing head shots at the range is hard enough, but add any of the mentioned things and it just makes it that much harder.  That is why COM is taught to even the most capable shooters.  Now, this is not to say that you should not take that shot if it presents itself, heck I would take a shot at a hand or foot if that is all I could see.  But percentage wise, you are better off shooting at the largest portion you can see.  As far as pass through, I don't worry about that as much as missing. 

[E4 No More]

I wouldn't look at it as a pelvic shot. True that if you strike the acetabular or SI joints they are likely to go down, but usually the appeal of shooting just below the "belly-button" is that you are shooting at a lot of nerves called the Lumbar Plexus, and the angle of the shot from a charging aggressor has a high probability of striking major nerves controlling the leg(s) and thus dropping them.

[Omega]

Some good reading:

 

www.mouseguns.com/Defensive%20(Combat)%20Accuracy.pdf

 

[KKing]

All I can say is for those of you that wish to aim for the pecker, go for it. I'll stick to center mass. I feel as though (and science along with multiple trainers agree) center mass gives me the highest probability of stopping the threat.

[2.ooohhh]

Some good reading:

 

www.mouseguns.com/Defensive%20(Combat)%20Accuracy.pdf

 

Medically his diagrams on penetration vs. weapon caliber are incorrect, at least as he explains them. Trying to punch through the sternum to get at the heart/lungs is NOT the most efficient way to incapacitate a threat with a sub-rifle caliber, especially a lower power one. Though he cites a forum poster from THR as his "source" so they may have been prepared by someone with little or no experience in clinical anatomy.  :2cents:

[E4 No More]

All I can say is for those of you that wish to aim for the pecker, go for it. I'll stick to center mass. I feel as though (and science along with multiple trainers agree) center mass gives me the highest probability of stopping the threat.

Not the pecker...that's just being mean. But I submit that a person shot in center mass while charging you can carry forward long enough to stab you.

[Caster]

Myth that many people cannot get in their thick heads,

Gun beats knife
Gun beats hand to hand

I think a LOT of people would defocate in the undergarments if they knew how fast a motivated and/or experienced assailant can close a 15 ft distance and perforate a few organs. Faster than most people can draw aim and fire that's for sure.

[E4 No More]

Myth that many people cannot get in their thick heads,

Gun beats knife
Gun beats hand to hand

I think a LOT of people would defocate in the undergarments if they knew how fast a motivated and/or experienced assailant can close a 15 ft distance and perforate a few organs. Faster than most people can draw aim and fire that's for sure.

Oh so true. I believe that there was video demonstration of this little fact a while back with several police, (Mexican?), and an attacker armed with a knife.

[LagerHead]

With all due respect if you shoot to wound then you have no business carrying a firearm...

 

No offense, but you're not the standard setter for the entire gun-carrying community. Some people don't deem it necessary to take a life if they believe they can avoid it. If they're successful, how is that a bad thing? You shoot to stop the threat, not to kill. If the person dies, well then that's their fault for putting themselves in a life-ending situation. 

[KKing]

Not the pecker...that's just being mean. But I submit that a person shot in center mass while charging you can carry forward long enough to stab you.

Just the same as they would if shot in the groin. I don't think odds are equal that you may hit something vital. If they are already within 21ft of you most would argue you're screwed regardless. If you guys believe people can't move with broken or even shattered pelvis', they can. I feel that I have a 6"-8" deviation of the center line I can hit and still do well at stopping the threat. I would not feel that way when aiming at a groin, especially not with a 22lr as I mentioned earlier. I highly doubt either aiming point will stop an attacker with one round fired anyway, I have no illusions about that. We carry pistols, not death rays.

I don't care where you aim to defend yourself, just stop the threat, expeditiously. Edited December 11, 2014 by KKing

[Omega]

No offense, but you're not the standard setter for the entire gun-carrying community. Some people don't deem it necessary to take a life if they believe they can avoid it. If they're successful, how is that a bad thing? You shoot to stop the threat, not to kill. If the person dies, well then that's their fault for putting themselves in a life-ending situation. 

Though I don't quite share the sentiment of either of you the fact stands that you don't train to wound.  You shoot to stop the threat, which means you shoot at the largest mass that will give you the best chance of a successful hit..  You seem to indicate that its not a bad thing to aim to wound, that is a sentiment that can get you killed.  If they survive, ok, if they die,so be it as long as you survive the encounter.  If that means you have to empty your gun before they stop, or if you have to reload to keep you in the fight then that is what you should do. 

 

Harsh as it may be, you WANT to kill your opponent, you want him to be out of the fight and have no chance whatsoever to return fire, stab, slash or throw rocks.  You want your story to be the only story there is.  When it comes down to it, all this worrying will cease when the fecal matter hits the rotary impeller and you have to make the choice of where to shoot and I hope no one on this board has to actually experience this.  But until then, train as you fight and fight as you train.