Thoughts on shot placement and penetration

[DeltaKilo]

Is it standard to test rounds in gelatin with a simulated sternum or other objects simulating bone in place?

No. The FBI protocol test tests against bare gel, which simulates an "Average" of all tissue densities (which has proven very accurate over 25 years), 4-layer denim added to the bare gel which simulates heavy clothing, Plywood, Wall board, and spaced steel sheets simulating a car door, utilizing 12-14ga steel.

Bare gel profiles temporary cavitation and "best possible" penetration and expansion with no hard barrier interruption. The others simulate other possible barrier penetration mediums.

Bones themselves are not typically considered as for the round to be considered effective for Law Enforcement use (and by extension, self defense use) the round must show adequate penetration and expansion through all barriers listed above, and the presumption is that if it penetrates adequately and expands after 1/2" plywood, wall board, or other hard barriers, it will typically handle bone.

When considering the penetration of bone, too, one of the major criteria of bullet design is that it is blunt enough that it will crush bone if it strikes, rather than glance off. With round-nosed projectiles, unless an ideal center placement is achieved, the round profile will cause the bullet to glance off and do little to no damage to the bone comparative to flatter meplats which will have greater effect on bone even with more marginal shots than ideal center placement. There will of course be a point at which the bullet is striking along a radial surface to such a degree that not enough flat portion of the nose will strike the bone and cause damage but will rather simply slide and deflect.

Typical "center of mass" targets will actually place shots just at or below sternum level, which present little bone tissue interruptions, but neither do they avail themselves to quick incapacitation as in the sub-sternum region lie liver, kidneys, stomach, intestines, and other organs which, while certainly important and capable of profuse bleeding, will not be as damaging to the subject's effectiveness as shots to the upper center of mass, between sternum and collar bone, illustrated below:

http://rpmedia.ask.com/ts?u=/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d9/Internal_organs.png/135px-Internal_organs.png

As you can see, a strike to typical "center of mass" is only going to produce a possible shot to the lower quarter of the heart, presuming size of organ to scale.

Further to-scale diagrams show the rib structure and other internal organ placement, suggesting that the heart, with typical center of mass placement, will not be exposed.

http://www.creativecrash.com/system/photos/000/068/072/68072/big/Human_Anatomy_Systems_and_Internal_Organs_3D_Model .jpg?1258346755

http://theevolutionstore.com/modules/store/images/products/product_630_630_2.jpg

Thus, it is my opinion that utilization of rounds that prove themselves capable of penetration of hard barriers are ideal, and likewise an upper-center-mass shot placement, allowing for greater possible impacts to major Cardiovascular and Pulmonary structures.

Edit: I am not a medical professional, so exact anatomy and physiological minutiae may be inaccurate on my part. However, I did stay at a holiday inn express last night. :)

[EVP]

Pretty cool diagrams. I have the nice benefit of having a medical examiner in the family. So I ask all sorts of questions and receive good info and feedback. Makes good discussion, except the others seem to tune us out when we start talking about this stuff.:)

[Odin Bravo One]

Intersting observations. Certainly a good deal of time, energy, and effort are put forth by the various scientific personalities to the study of anatomy and ballistics. Of course, we should thank them and appreciate their efforts and resulting information which we can hopefully use to increase our awareness and knowledge when it comes to bullet selection and changes to our training philosophy and mindset to give us every possible advantage in a lethal force encounter.

But we also need to keep in mind that what happens under controlled testing conditions is not an accurate representation of what happens when bullets start hitting flesh and bone. Bullets do weird and unexpected things when they hit people. And people tend to do weird and unexpected things when hit by bullets.

I, as many people do, continue to monitor new bullet designs and continue to study terminal ballistics and ammunition performance, but tend to spend more time on getting lots and lots of rounds into the parts of the anatomy that house the important parts of the pulminary, cardiovascular, and nervous systems than I do focusing on whether or not the previous shot was an inch high, or two inches low. I will know my rounds were effective in hitting important parts of an adversary's anatomy when the threat presented is no longer a threat. That could be a single round placed into a less than ideal location, or multiple rounds put into the "text book" perfect location. Fact is, we don't know what will happen until after it has happened, and we can go back and examine what was what.

[Frank B]

It seems to me, that the supposed hit zone on the most targets is placed to low.

[DeltaKilo]

Intersting observations. Certainly a good deal of time, energy, and effort are put forth by the various scientific personalities to the study of anatomy and ballistics. Of course, we should thank them and appreciate their efforts and resulting information which we can hopefully use to increase our awareness and knowledge when it comes to bullet selection and changes to our training philosophy and mindset to give us every possible advantage in a lethal force encounter.

But we also need to keep in mind that what happens under controlled testing conditions is not an accurate representation of what happens when bullets start hitting flesh and bone. Bullets do weird and unexpected things when they hit people. And people tend to do weird and unexpected things when hit by bullets.

I, as many people do, continue to monitor new bullet designs and continue to study terminal ballistics and ammunition performance, but tend to spend more time on getting lots and lots of rounds into the parts of the anatomy that house the important parts of the pulminary, cardiovascular, and nervous systems than I do focusing on whether or not the previous shot was an inch high, or two inches low. I will know my rounds were effective in hitting important parts of an adversary's anatomy when the threat presented is no longer a threat. That could be a single round placed into a less than ideal location, or multiple rounds put into the "text book" perfect location. Fact is, we don't know what will happen until after it has happened, and we can go back and examine what was what.

Sean, while it is certainly true that testing only gives us a highly controlled ideal of what will happen, testing gives us the ability to tell what particular rounds will do in a controlled manner, that in turn gives us an excellent idea of what to expect in the field. Much like any other testing, while it doesn't necessarily cover everything and give us a guarantee, it gives us a reasonable level of expectation from which we can work.

As I pointed out in my post, practicing for shooting in to an effective location is a good thing. As you point out, we DON"T know what will happen until put to the test, and getting as many rounds on target as possible is the primary goal. With that said, however, practicing and training, along with an understanding of gross anatomy and where your rounds will be most effective, are also valuable in that through repetition and training, the mind will bias towards areas of more critical value.

In pointing out where hits do the most damage, and a basic understanding of critical structures and areas to aim, this hopefully gives an advantage overall in assisting a shooter in hitting those zones and making them aware of areas that will likely decrease the time of the engagement.

[Odin Bravo One]

I agree %100 that the faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.

[SLG]

I can't speak for Sean, but it seems to me that he is pointing out that more shooting (in practice and on hostiles) and less study, is what most of us need to worry about. Wazoo bullets are great, and I appreciate them, but I'll take an unflappable guy who practices a lot- shooting 9mm hardball- as my backup, over a less skillful, more excitable guy shooting the latest and greatest. That's not quite an apples to apples comparison, but I assume you get my drift.

[TCinVA]

Absolutely. Ammo selection is not insignificant, but in the grand scheme the ability to put bullets where they need to be under extreme stress is of greater importance by many orders of magnitude. Many a bad guy has met his doom at the hands of a well trained individual using sub-optimal ammunition.


It seems to me, that the supposed hit zone on the most targets is placed to low.

Agreed. The A zones in targets are often placed in the center of the target, which isn't where you want to shoot a person at if you are interested in making them knock off their obnoxious behavior.

[ToddG]

As I read DeltaKilo's post, it was much less about what bullet to shoot and much more about what body part to shoot at.

[turbolag23]

As I read DeltaKilo's post, it was much less about what bullet to shoot and much more about what body part to shoot at.

thats what i got out of it. that and theres a lot of bone protecting the organs that will drop you faster.

[DeltaKilo]

I admit I reacted a bit harshly to Sean's post, and i've talked to him privately about that.

That being said, my intention with the post was not to start a "use this bullet" or "use that caliber" in any way. My intention was to point out through anatomical diagrams and discussion, areas that contain more vital structures and thus present better chances of fast incapacitation.

I personally have no horse in the race of what ammunition you choose, and mentioned ammunition and testing merely as a preface to suggest that bullets that deal well with hard barriers stand a better chance of addressing and penetrating bone, thus reaching these vital structures that present more damaging opportunities than standard "center of mass".

What I propose, and was trying to get across, is that when shooting for training purposes, practicing to shoot for areas that are far more vital and present this greater chance of fast incapacitation is greatly beneficial to the shooter because with a combination of practice and having an informed idea of what does the most damage and where, we can develop the skills and muscle memory to A) Make more accurate shots, and B) place those shots in areas that contain vital structures which will actually effectively end the fight quickly.

I agree entirely with Sean, though it may not appear such in my initial knee-jerk "who the hell is that guy/I don't care who he thinks he is" reaction, that far too much concern is placed on WHAT ammunition, Far too little on HOW MUCH Ammunition and WHERE I shoot, and testing can only give us a very gross idea of ammunition's behavior under ideal circumstances and are not generally realistic as far as being an accurate indicator of what happens in the real world.

So, go out, shoot, shoot a lot, and I hope if you guys take anything away from this thread, I hope you take away a better understanding of Human Anatomy and where vital organs are placed in the body, and thus armed, can adjust your training to address those areas with prejudice and it translates into faster pacification of threats.

[SLG]

I thought the pictures were pretty neat, and I certainly agree that knowing where to shoot is "vitally" important, in case you have a choice in the matter. Ideally, all of our enemies would use weaver, since its about the closest thing to a broadside standing shot a guy could ask for. Then again, maybe bullseye would be better...

[DeltaKilo]

I thought the pictures were pretty neat, and I certainly agree that knowing where to shoot is "vitally" important, in case you have a choice in the matter. Ideally, all of our enemies would use weaver, since its about the closest thing to a broadside standing shot a guy could ask for. Then again, maybe bullseye would be better...

There is that. I've been trying to pick up some more diagrams showing sidelong views and the like. Mostly, since we have no way to prepare adequately for exactly how people will present themselves to you in a real fight, all we can do is have a vague understanding of what's where and then just shoot until you're out of bullets or he's out of blood, one way or the other.

[YVK]

I have a slightly different take on this, based on a personal experience - and I admit that I am not a trauma surgeon. However, I've been involved in evaluation of a reasonable number of patients with GSW to the chest. It should be noted that in medicine observations of a single practitioner are considered to be an anecdotal evidence, so take it as it is.
It didn't seem to me that there was any degree of certainty that handgun bullet would continue its intended path after coming into a contact with a bone. I have no statistics on that so don't ask me a p value. What I saw was that some of them crushed and penetrated bone and went straight, some got deflected - sometimes with protective effect, and sometimes with detrimental. I can easily see a shot placed right into a center of a body getting deflected by a sternum, while bullet placed left of COM changing its path off of a rib and hitting LV.

[Jay Cunningham]

It seems to me, that the supposed hit zone on the most targets is placed to low.

Here are a couple of pics of the Vickers Shooting Method targets - note the COM circle is smaller in diameter and raised higher than the standard IDPA.

http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll200/Thekatar/vsm_target.jpg

another version of the VSM target made from a stencil:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5128/5276125894_430a6c5991_z.jpg

[DeltaKilo]

I have a slightly different take on this, based on a personal experience - and I admit that I am not a trauma surgeon. However, I've been involved in evaluation of a reasonable number of patients with GSW to the chest. It should be noted that in medicine observations of a single practitioner are considered to be an anecdotal evidence, so take it as it is.
It didn't seem to me that there was any degree of certainty that handgun bullet would continue its intended path after coming into a contact with a bone. I have no statistics on that so don't ask me a p value. What I saw was that some of them crushed and penetrated bone and went straight, some got deflected - sometimes with protective effect, and sometimes with detrimental. I can easily see a shot placed right into a center of a body getting deflected by a sternum, while bullet placed left of COM changing its path off of a rib and hitting LV.

Very good observations. All of my stuff is based on study, so real world appraisals help.

[DeltaKilo]

Here are a couple of pics of the Vickers Shooting Method targets - note the COM circle is smaller in diameter and raised higher than the standard IDPA.

another version of the VSM target made from a stencil:

Neat. Must get some.

[YVK]

Neat. Must get some.

In a context of this thread, get something else. Trainers use targets that work for their intended curricula and specific drills they run. While it is great that LAV's target places COM in its more realistic place, and Todd's 3x5 card is a good equivalent of ocular window, those are high contrast, attention-attracting targets that tell you exactly where to hit; you just need to hit them. They don't challenge you figuring out on your own where that COM is. There is a number of more realistic low-contrast targets that don't give you clues you won't be getting in real life.

[ToddG]

Here are a couple of pics of the Vickers Shooting Method targets - note the COM circle is smaller in diameter and raised higher than the standard IDPA.

Ditto my targets. I raised the circle higher than on the IALEFI "Q":

http://pistol-training.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/targets-from-tk.jpg

ETA: Responding to YVK's last comment, that's very valid to a point. However, what I've learned -- and I believe another of other trainers/shooters would agree -- is that if you get used to shooting center of the body (like an old B27) or high COM (like on the Vickers and PTC targets), those are the areas you'll aim for. If anything, most targets have significantly less distinct aiming points for head shots, since a head shot generally involves aiming for the ocular area and the eyes tend to stand out pretty significantly from the face.

At the Rangemaster Tactical Conference last year, we were presented with 3D targets using steel plates in anatomically correct zones. To disable the target, you had to knock it down by hitting the plate you couldn't see. Even though I hadn't shot against 3D or anatomical/photographic targets in quite a while, I was able to knock all the targets down easily (and win the match, yea me) because I'm habituated to high-COM body shots.

[YVK]

True, Todd.
The best "realistic" target I've seen was a home-brew by LMS; blown up photos of one of their instructors with invisible [from distance] circles over ocular/brainstem areas and COM. Most people didn't have issue finding a correct point of aim for CNS shots; COM shots went low for most students until the second half of training day - so it doesn't take long to adjust.
An interesting observation is that one of targets presented an oblique view of a "perp" from his back. While I am not going to even hazard a guess when we'll need to shoot somebody in the back of their head, almost nobody had a clue where to aim.

[DeltaKilo]

In my 150,000 rounds on trigger, either rifle or pistol, I tend to use a simple black sillhouette and have memorized as best I can where high COM is. When I am instructing classes here, I tend to teach students to aim high COM, and skip the headshot except for certain drills. Yes, this may be a fallacy, but I have yet to see any distinct proof that a headshot is likely to be hit under stress in a bad situation, compared to aiming for high center of mass and putting as many shots as possible on target. We do run drills to do two to the torso and one to the head, and I'll have them do slow aimed shots, but on moving targets or targets that turn to face and then turn away, I find that the majority of shooters, even good ones, have trouble making the head shot due to smaller area vs. rushed response.

In my experience, the times i have been in "that" situation, I had quite a bit going through my mind, the least of which was evaluating the target for opportunities to make perfect shots. I merely aimed by instinct and concentrated on not jerking the trigger, while trying to remember fundamentals of getting to cover/shooting from cover.

[ToddG]

Since this is still germane to shot placement, and with the caveat that I have never shot anyone:

I spent a good chunk of time last year talking to folks about head shots, including DocGKR and nyeti from M4C/LF. They were in agreement that just about any shot to the head with a police caliber handgun, regardless of whether it did significant damage or penetrated to the brain, had a very high likelihood (almost a certainty) of dropping the target to the ground for at least a short dazed period.

Furthermore, I find very few shooters (and fewer trainers) who put significant emphasis on hitting low probability targets at speed. From my own experience and that of students, I've seen a dramatic increase in confidence and probability when it comes to making those kinds of shots under stress when it becomes part of serious practice. I don't just mean doing some Mozambiques on the range, I mean drilling low-prob shots under time pressure again and again.

Having said all that, I'm in agreement that a bunch of fast hits high-COM beats the hell out of one perfect ocular shot if the ocular shot takes so long that it lets the other guy put a bunch of fast high-COM hits on you. In fact, I even do a demo in classes of that exact situation: how many hits can I get in an 8" circle in the same time it takes me to make one really good eyeball-zone hit?

[DeltaKilo]

Since this is still germane to shot placement, and with the caveat that I have never shot anyone:

I spent a good chunk of time last year talking to folks about head shots, including DocGKR and nyeti from M4C/LF. They were in agreement that just about any shot to the head with a police caliber handgun, regardless of whether it did significant damage or penetrated to the brain, had a very high likelihood (almost a certainty) of dropping the target to the ground for at least a short dazed period.

Furthermore, I find very few shooters (and fewer trainers) who put significant emphasis on hitting low probability targets at speed. From my own experience and that of students, I've seen a dramatic increase in confidence and probability when it comes to making those kinds of shots under stress when it becomes part of serious practice. I don't just mean doing some Mozambiques on the range, I mean drilling low-prob shots under time pressure again and again.

Having said all that, I'm in agreement that a bunch of fast hits high-COM beats the hell out of one perfect ocular shot if the ocular shot takes so long that it lets the other guy put a bunch of fast high-COM hits on you. In fact, I even do a demo in classes of that exact situation: how many hits can I get in an 8" circle in the same time it takes me to make one really good eyeball-zone hit?

I agree, practice increases confidence. My big thing is that, I'd rather have folks who don't have a lot of trigger time or experience with firearms not having to worry about it, and introduce it to more advanced students as a requirement in speed drills than to have granny and her little pearl-handled .357 try to make repeated headshots quickly. (yes, i had a blue-hair with a .357. Was a blast watching that little 90-pound old lady level off and fire that thing...)

That may be me and the types of students I get, but I find very few who can make it through a weekend of lots of shooting getting past making good solid hits in the HCOM in a quick fashion, much less make headshots in anything reasonable for self defense.

[dookie1481]

Is there a certain proportion of time/ammo you suggest working on head shots?

I read about that cop in Chicago who won something like 7 gunfights; he said that he spent a lot of time on the range working on head shots and he said that is likely the reason that he was so successful (I am paraphrasing someone else'e report of this, FWIW)

S/F

Jay

[DeltaKilo]

Is there a certain proportion of time/ammo you suggest working on head shots?

I read about that cop in Chicago who won something like 7 gunfights; he said that he spent a lot of time on the range working on head shots and he said that is likely the reason that he was so successful (I am paraphrasing someone else'e report of this, FWIW)

S/F

Jay

I would say that if you're working on it, practicing at least half your time at the range at making quick headshots and snap shots until you get fast, and work on it with various types of targets, target angles, and force yourself to move and introduce more stress into the routine. Like any workout, the more you put into it, the more you get out of it.

I try to put about 100-200 rounds down range every time I go to the range, and i try to get to the range at least 3-4 times a week. I also try to use poppers and position targets at odd angles or set up IDPA-esque scenarios to shoot. I also try to shoot iDPA whenever I can.

Now that i'm back home on the farm, I'm working on getting a friend with a bulldozer to push up a nice berm at the back so I can do rifle and pistol without leaving the house, make it easier to practice without driving down to the range. Then I can leave the range for classes.

[ToddG]

That may be me and the types of students I get

You're focused on your audience, which is exactly the right thing to do. I don't get new shooters in class (at least, I'm not supposed to) so as a rule we're starting from a point where working on low-prob shots is more achievable.


Is there a certain proportion of time/ammo you suggest working on head shots?

There's no easy answer to that. As DK pointed out, depending on skill level, you may be far better off focusing the majority of your time on "easy" (high probability) shots.

I also wouldn't focus on head shots so much as I'd focus on the ability to hit low-probability targets at speed. That means small targets of various shapes, or obscured targets, or distant targets, or some combination of all the above. You want your capability to be "making tough shots when it counts," not just hitting one particular target at one particular distance under one particular circumstance.

[DeltaKilo]

You're focused on your audience, which is exactly the right thing to do. I don't get new shooters in class (at least, I'm not supposed to) so as a rule we're starting from a point where working on low-prob shots is more achievable.



There's no easy answer to that. As DK pointed out, depending on skill level, you may be far better off focusing the majority of your time on "easy" (high probability) shots.

I also wouldn't focus on head shots so much as I'd focus on the ability to hit low-probability targets at speed. That means small targets of various shapes, or obscured targets, or distant targets, or some combination of all the above. You want your capability to be "making tough shots when it counts," not just hitting one particular target at one particular distance under one particular circumstance.

Think I need to come and take your class and brush the rust off. ;) :D

[dookie1481]

Makes sense, thanks guys.

[David Marlow]

Center mass placement is based on the military idea that any hit on an enemy is a good one, and center mass simply gives the highest probability of a hit of some sort.

I have read before that a good way to imagine the ideal engagement area is to think of an imaginary triangle with the base that goes from nipple to nipple and the top point ending just under the chin. Granted, this is assuming you have full frontal exposure. I would like to get some 3-D targets with heart, spine, and brain placements in about the right areas.

One target I have used, years ago in the infantry, was a 3-D foam target that basically had a large square punched completely through the chest, creating an open area. There was a small hole going from the top of this cavity up through the top of the head. The target was secured to a wood frame by tying a string to the frame above, running the string through the head, and tying the other end to a balloon in the chest cavity. When you hit the balloon, it popped and the dummy slid down the string, scoring a kill. Obviously, this was a single-use target before having to be reset, but was a lot more fun than simple pop-up ivans and worked great during enter/clear a trench live fires.

[DeltaKilo]

Center mass placement is based on the military idea that any hit on an enemy is a good one, and center mass simply gives the highest probability of a hit of some sort.

I have read before that a good way to imagine the ideal engagement area is to think of an imaginary triangle with the base that goes from nipple to nipple and the top point ending just under the chin. Granted, this is assuming you have full frontal exposure. I would like to get some 3-D targets with heart, spine, and brain placements in about the right areas.

One target I have used, years ago in the infantry, was a 3-D foam target that basically had a large square punched completely through the chest, creating an open area. There was a small hole going from the top of this cavity up through the top of the head. The target was secured to a wood frame by tying a string to the frame above, running the string through the head, and tying the other end to a balloon in the chest cavity. When you hit the balloon, it popped and the dummy slid down the string, scoring a kill. Obviously, this was a single-use target before having to be reset, but was a lot more fun than simple pop-up ivans and worked great during enter/clear a trench live fires.

I've been considering how to make good 3D targets for use with students. Figured some kind of moulded material like Paper Machet or plaster of paris would work.

[David Marlow]

I thought about an easy version with boxes of different sizes hanging with the string and balloon, but that may be going a bit too far. I have also read about using different colored helium-filled balloons staked to the ground in a loose cluster with instructions to shoot certain colors without hitting any other colors. This is, from what I understand, useful for police marksmen in simultaing hostage situations because the wind keeps the balloons moving in random patterns.

Sorry, don't want to start a thread drift already. One of the things I love about this crowd, versus other forums I'm a member of, is most here seem to understand that we are trying to stop an assailant as quickly and effectively as possible and not necessarily kill, incapacitate, wound, or any other particular term. Obviously, the quickest way to stop an assailant is to completely incapacitate him or her with a bullet or fifty to the brain. This may or may not be possible depending on the situation.

Shooting high chest gives the best possible chance of striking heart, spine, lungs, and of course hitting the thicker part of the sternum. Hitting this part of the bone has a chance of creating multiple additional projectiles in the form on bone fragments. While not as quick as hitting the brain, the onset of hypovolemic shock will happen much faster in this artery-rich area than in the lower chest or upper abs.

I also think the idea of trying to take out the pelvis with a frontal shot as a failure to stop drill has pretty much been disregarded by most, hasn't it?

[DeltaKilo]

I thought about an easy version with boxes of different sizes hanging with the string and balloon, but that may be going a bit too far. I have also read about using different colored helium-filled balloons staked to the ground in a loose cluster with instructions to shoot certain colors without hitting any other colors. This is, from what I understand, useful for police marksmen in simultaing hostage situations because the wind keeps the balloons moving in random patterns.

Sorry, don't want to start a thread drift already. One of the things I love about this crowd, versus other forums I'm a member of, is most here seem to understand that we are trying to stop an assailant as quickly and effectively as possible and not necessarily kill, incapacitate, wound, or any other particular term. Obviously, the quickest way to stop an assailant is to completely incapacitate him or her with a bullet or fifty to the brain. This may or may not be possible depending on the situation.

Shooting high chest gives the best possible chance of striking heart, spine, lungs, and of course hitting the thicker part of the sternum. Hitting this part of the bone has a chance of creating multiple additional projectiles in the form on bone fragments. While not as quick as hitting the brain, the onset of hypovolemic shock will happen much faster in this artery-rich area than in the lower chest or upper abs.

I also think the idea of trying to take out the pelvis with a frontal shot as a failure to stop drill has pretty much been disregarded by most, hasn't it?

I'm reminded of an episode of southpark:

"Aw man, butters, you...you don't just shoot someone in the dick dude...not cool..."

[Chipster]

"I have read before that a good way to imagine the ideal engagement area is to think of an imaginary triangle with the base that goes from nipple to nipple and the top point ending just under the chin. Granted, this is assuming you have full frontal exposure."

I asked an emergency room physician (since then several others) once where I should shoot someone if I had a choice and the time to decide and ^^^^THAT^^^^ is what he said. He told me the psychological damage would probably outweigh the physical but in a few minutes it would matter nill anyways. His reasons were that the upper chest is going to have a high likely hood of hitting either the lung or heart and that the neck is mostly tendons and once one of those goes, so does alot of your coordination, Of course, he also told me that emergency personnel would have a hard time saving such individual thus lowering the expense to the taxpayers (with a wink of course). So, unless the course dictates to me, I always shoot nipple to nipple to throat, if presented to me (targets of course, I have never shot anybody)

[DeltaKilo]

"I have read before that a good way to imagine the ideal engagement area is to think of an imaginary triangle with the base that goes from nipple to nipple and the top point ending just under the chin. Granted, this is assuming you have full frontal exposure."

I asked an emergency room physician (since then several others) once where I should shoot someone if I had a choice and the time to decide and ^^^^THAT^^^^ is what he said. He told me the psychological damage would probably outweigh the physical but in a few minutes it would matter nill anyways. His reasons were that the upper chest is going to have a high likely hood of hitting either the lung or heart and that the neck is mostly tendons and once one of those goes, so does alot of your coordination, Of course, he also told me that emergency personnel would have a hard time saving such individual thus lowering the expense to the taxpayers (with a wink of course). So, unless the course dictates to me, I always shoot nipple to nipple to throat, if presented to me (targets of course, I have never shot anybody)

That's what I got from a doc that prompted my original post topic.

[BWT]

I think being able to hit small targets quickly should only lend itself to shooting bigger targets quicker.

Helps teach focus, proper technique, etc and is much less forgiving. It drives the shooter to be a better shooter if you think about it.

That being said I shot pistols this last week for the first time in over 2-3 months.

Go ahead, bask in the glow of being in my presence. :p

I usually put the target out to about 12-15 yards, maybe 20.

I figure same principle applies, if you can't control it at close range, you'll only degrade the further you get out, and vice versa, if you can control it at long range, you'll dominate short range.

Is there something wrong with my logic, as a side note?

I don't want to train to be a target pistol shooter, but I also don't want to blast away at ranges where I'm catching the target on fire.

If I could do three things, it'd be switch to a different carry gun, get a PACT Timer, and start going to the gun range to practice at least once a month. Can't do that currently.

[David]

I'm probably wrong but the true test will be remembering all of these things when you're being shot at and possible even hit. The only shot that counts is the one which stops him and if that shot ends up being in is in his knee, weenie, teet, thigh or his chest who cares as long as it stops him. Landing any shots at a moving, shooting target who is trying just as hard to kill you is going to be challenging enough.

[David Armstrong]

First, on the 3D targets, Action Target makes a 3D target with cavities that you put balloons into that is pretty good. You can even vary the size of the balloons from big to small, set it so only a head shot will work, or only a pelvis hit, and so on.

As for shot placement, I'm more into the "shoot what is available as long as it is available" camp. Getting hits on target is hard enough for most folks, so find the big part and shoot the center is the standard default for me. For those that have the luxury of being able to figure out specific aiming points based on anatomy you have my blessings and respect, I've never been able to do it under stress of time.

[SteveK]

As a rule, I like at least 80% of my practice to be moving and shooting. Remember, gunfights are seldom static events. Drills such as the box, compass and figure-8 drills are good for promoting good shooting skills. Running these drills headshot only can be humbling but can refine your skill set. Trigger control, sight alignment and wobble zone control become essential.

[MikeO]

Center mass placement is based on the military idea that any hit on an enemy is a good one, and center mass simply gives the highest probability of a hit of some sort.

Yep. Not the best place to hit, but the best place to aim to hit something...

FWIW for jello junkies, way back in 94 IIRC, the RCMP tested by shooting through pig ribs embedded 2 inches into bare gel blocks at 3 and 50 meters. Long story short, it did not make a significant difference in penetration/expansion/bullet path in their test. Through pig ribs inches pen/exp:

158/38 LHP 14.6/.61 (5 in bbl S&W)

4 in bbl S&W

115/9 ST 9.6/.55
147/9 HS 12.6/.58
147/9 Rem GS 15.5/.65

165/40 HS 13.3/.52
155/40 GD 12.8/.70
180/40 GD 13.5/.66