Best distance for head shots

[223man]

Hello everyone, my name is John I am a long time reader first time poster. So, I read something some where along time ago (I think it may have been a training video or some such thing). That had a "at what distance should you try for the head shot." Now I do not remember exactly how that was worded but you get the idea. So I have my own idea about when this would be or rather what distance this would be. My thinking is a maximum range of 5 yards. Reasons are because first and foremost at that range the attacker is basically right on you and you need to stop him right now. Second reason is the head is kinda small and has lots of movement to it. So you should have more of a chance to hit it than when they are at a greater distance. What do you guys think?

Thank you.

[Dropkick]

I think that it depends.

[Kyle Reese]

I think you should look into taking a handgun course from a reputable firm/trainer so you can experience first hand how difficult making precision shots at ____ distance can be with a handgun while stressed, fatigued, etc.

Not intended to be snarky, OP.

[rsa-otc]

As dropkick says IT DEPENDS on:

Your skill set
Are you moving
Is your attacker moving
Is the head the only available target
and so on.

As FredM has said you should take a course with a respected trainer so you may have a basis o make your decision at the time of the attack. Not something you can decide ahead of time with certainty.

[Sparks2112]

Think the furthest I would try one would be about 6 inches unless I was shooting at a stationary target that was unaware of my presence and had a clear backstop behind it.

[DocGKR]

I know of at least one CA LE agency that extensively trained to target the CNS whenever possible in lethal force encounters at ranges out to about 10 yds--they were very successful in their OIS incidents when using this technique...

[ToddG]

Add me to the list of folks who say "it depends."

Distance, movement, lighting, intermediate barriers, surrounding objects, and immediacy/speed are all factors that get weighed against your skill, mental state, and physical condition.

It goes without saying, people who put time and effort into making low% shots under difficult circumstances will have more skill and confidence to pull off such a shot when it counts.

Sometimes the fastest way to get fast is to go faster.
Todd Louis Green, pistol-training.com (http://pistol-training.com)
Train hard & stay safe!
"Speed is the essence of war." Sun Tzu

[223man]

Thanks guys for your inputs and also for not killing me on my first post,lol.

[Sparks2112]

Thanks guys for your inputs and also for not killing me on my first post,lol.

Oh we aren't that bad usually.

[YVK]

Distance, movement, lighting, intermediate barriers, surrounding objects, and immediacy/speed are all factors that get weighed against your skill, mental state, and physical condition.

It goes without saying, people who put time and effort into making low% shots under difficult circumstances will have more skill and confidence to pull off such a shot when it counts.

It would be interesting to objectify this anyway. Many, if not most, of p-f.com members practice hitting reduced sized targets at speed pretty regularly. I am sure, or at least I hope, that most here know how fast (or slow) to go to get a near-100% hit rate on 3x5 at 7-8 yards.
DocGKR alluded to an LE unit making CNS shots what sounds like a ROE within a certain distance. I've heard of a number of other units, LE and MIL both in- and outside of US, doing same. I'd be very curious to know what speed/ accuracy standards are required to be met in training to accept such ROE, especially given liabilities of missing intended targets in OIS.

[Alaskapopo]

Hello everyone, my name is John I am a long time reader first time poster. So, I read something some where along time ago (I think it may have been a training video or some such thing). That had a "at what distance should you try for the head shot." Now I do not remember exactly how that was worded but you get the idea. So I have my own idea about when this would be or rather what distance this would be. My thinking is a maximum range of 5 yards. Reasons are because first and foremost at that range the attacker is basically right on you and you need to stop him right now. Second reason is the head is kinda small and has lots of movement to it. So you should have more of a chance to hit it than when they are at a greater distance. What do you guys think?

Thank you.

It really does depend. 1 on your skill, 2. what the target is doing. Is it a hostage shot or is he wearing body armor and your first rounds had no effect. On the range I can make head shots out to 25 yards with ease however in real life I would not want to take one past 10 yards cut that in half if it was a hostage situation. .
Pat

[223man]

It would be interesting to objectify this anyway. Many, if not most, of p-f.com members practice hitting reduced sized targets at speed pretty regularly. I am sure, or at least I hope, that most here know how fast (or slow) to go to get a near-100% hit rate on 3x5 at 7-8 yards.
DocGKR alluded to an LE unit making CNS shots what sounds like a ROE within a certain distance. I've heard of a number of other units, LE and MIL both in- and outside of US, doing same. I'd be very curious to know what speed/ accuracy standards are required to be met in training to accept such ROE, especially given liabilities of missing intended targets in OIS.


And this is also what kinda brought on the question also. And of course just thinking of ways to improve over all. So maybe with a lot of practice this can be another tool in the tool box.

[Kyle Reese]

And this is also what kinda brought on the question also. And of course just thinking of ways to improve over all. So maybe with a lot of practice this can be another tool in the tool box.

The best way to improve _____ is to do ______ alot, under competent supervison. Take a class.

[JHC]

I know of at least one CA LE agency that extensively trained to target the CNS whenever possible in lethal force encounters at ranges out to about 10 yds--they were very successful in their OIS incidents when using this technique...

A little "aim small miss small" action there!

[Dagga Boy]

It would be interesting to objectify this anyway. Many, if not most, of p-f.com members practice hitting reduced sized targets at speed pretty regularly. I am sure, or at least I hope, that most here know how fast (or slow) to go to get a near-100% hit rate on 3x5 at 7-8 yards.
DocGKR alluded to an LE unit making CNS shots what sounds like a ROE within a certain distance. I've heard of a number of other units, LE and MIL both in- and outside of US, doing same. I'd be very curious to know what speed/ accuracy standards are required to be met in training to accept such ROE, especially given liabilities of missing intended targets in OIS.


25 yards-2 body 4 seconds 3x
15 yards-2 body 3 seconds 3x
10 yards-2 body 1 head-3.5 seconds 2x
7 yards-2 body 1 head-3 seconds 2x
5 yards-2 body 1 head 2.5 seconds 2x
3 yards 2 body 1 head 2 seconds. 2x

10 yards to 3 yards on the move-6 body 1 head. 2x

All from the low ready. Add about a second for a draw from the holster. Any round totally off the target is an auto DQ (100% hits). Full points on the qualification is in an area of about a 3.5 card in a T. Body size is about an 8x11. This is also usually shot in gear/uniform. We also did this in low light, single hand, in gas masks, etc. I can make this course hard enough that it is basically impossible to max, so it is a simple course that can be made harder as needed. This was the first half of the LAPD SWAT qual.

[GJM]

Nyeti, define head -- big difference between a 3x5 and whole IPSC head box.

[DocGKR]

GJM--Nyeti stated a 3x5 size in the post above.

[Dagga Boy]

I would make a "T" out of 3x5 cards if I had them, but that was essentially the standard size used for for full point value. You got full points for in the cards, half out of the cards, but in the head, and DQ'd for out.

[GJM]

GJM--Nyeti stated a 3x5 size in the post above.

Thanks for the clarification, I missed it in the "fine print."

[Dagga Boy]

I was often ridiculed for my simplistic approach to having my people do the same course all the time. When we look at guys who are shooting because they have to to and not because they want to, things are a little different. My people had a very simple procedure for dealing with lethal threats........rounds to the body and then start looking for the head shot. They were not allowed to use non-visually verified shooting outside of contact distance (retention shooting), and they learned to shoot a "pace" that was realistic and it was hardwired into their system a pace and accuracy standard. When faced with lethal force situations, they simply did exactly what they were wired for without really thinking about it. Ken Hackathorn's statement that you need to be in autopilot during these events is right on the money. Lots of folks use more intensive and complex standards, which is great, but we found that simple and realistic working standards worked well as a problem solving solution.

From a civil liability outlook, rapidly ending fights with very low round counts worked well and we had no issues. Problems tend to come into play with large round counts where what is "excessive" becomes the main factor. In almost all cases, the shooting is justified on the criminal side. Where the issue comes to play in the civil arena tends to be when a good shooting becomes "excessive". The more rounds fired, the more issues can be brought into play.

[YVK]

Nyeti, that's a great insight, thank you. You just wrote my next practice plan.

This stuff seem to have a great potential for the p-f.c drill of the week..

[DocGKR]

Sure does!

[Dagga Boy]

Nyeti, that's a great insight, thank you. You just wrote my next practice plan.

This stuff seem to have a great potential for the p-f.c drill of the week..

I didn't write a thing. You can thank the guys at LAPD SWAT (Mudgett, Helms, and Reitz) who developed this stuff from what they brought back from Gunsite and the adaptation of the Modern Technique and tweaking based on street application during some very busy times.
Most of what we do is really not new. What is funny is how many folks ridicule people as archaic idiots for shooting from a Weaver based stance, yet these guys have had huge successes in the field with it. A good example was at Scott Reitz's retirement party. I was talking to Scott, Larry Mudgett, and John Helms. I had just had a internet debate that week when I talked about the benefits of a Weaver based stance for low-light work. A poster said that nobody ever used Harries for real, so it was a mute argument :(. The funny thing was that all four of us standing there together had all successfully shot suspects and ended a crisis from Harries (in the case of Helms and Mudgett, it was during one of the most difficult hostage rescue resolutions ever encountered in L/E).

[TCinVA]

Thanks for that writeup, Nyeti. Now that my range has gone full-bore Nazi on me and won't let us draw, I'll be running through those standards.

[Dagga Boy]

Additionally......If you really want to learn how to work the hostage and difficult head problem, ITTS should be a destination. They have very specific target systems built for this. The targets and hostages move unexpectedly, you actually stand and negotiate and communicate with a human while trying to deal with the problem, and it is far more difficult than the "I can hit a 3x5 at mach 2". They also do some drills that duplicate the speed at which you must track a sight to engage a fast moving bad guy in the head. Trying to "time" a shot on a head while "talking" and thinking is far harder than engagement of a one dimensional at speed. Most people can't effectively communicate and shoot at the same time. It is learned, and all part of this process.

In regards to the OP's original discussion, the key will be what the target is doing. One of the L/E agencies that Doc is talking about is probably mine because I would regularly debrief DocGKR on many of our shootings to get his take on the ballistics side. In two of the cases of on demand head shots in the field, they were evenly split with stationary, and involving movement between the officer and the suspect. This is a big consideration.

Another issue is number of shots to fire. The biggest reason I do not shoot the FAST regularly is it goes against our training in which we are trying to build hardwired habits. I understand the FAST is designed as a technical skill test and not a tactical response, so nobody needs to get mad....I get it, and it is not a dig, just a personal decision. We teach single sighted and assessed shots only to the head-period. The reason is that in every case in which the shot connected (even those that didn't kill the suspect or get full cranial penetration) dropped the suspect like a marionette with the strings cut. Firing two, or more, shots to the head can easily result in a miss of the second shot if the first was successful (which should be a priority goal). This is not acceptable in use of lethal force in the United States. For military members and those working with less restrictive ROE's, full auto on the face with an MP-7 is a good thing:cool:.

[Al T.]

Yet another "Pure Gold" thread.

:cool:

[ToddG]

Just as an aside, since nyeti brought it up: If the order or location of the targets on the F.A.S.T. causes one concern for whatever reason, turn the target upside down or put the 3x5 next to the 8". For years, SLG and I shot it with the card next to the circle simply because our range setup made that more appropriate at times. The idea is to test a low% draw and follow-up; it's simply coincidence that most targets place that type zone in the head.

As for multiple shots at a head target, regardless of the historical efficacy of cranial impacts I'd still rather build an ability to make quick follow-ups as needed regardless of whether they're needed due to a miss, inadequate hit, or whatever. Furthermore, the body cannot fall faster than gravity acts on it. I've certainly doubled (or tripled) plenty of head-sized targets that were dropping either before the first shot or because of it. Because non-CNS strikes to the head frequently result in very temporary incapacitation, extra shots that guarantee effect on the way down -- if they can be made surely and safely -- seem like a reasonable (and justifiable) response.

Which isn't meant to sound contrarian. I'm 100% in agreement that people shouldn't be taking head shots faster than they can guarantee hits given considerations of movement, bystanders, etc.

[breakingtime91]

First time poster as well and from my perspective (biased from personal experience) I shy away from head shots all together. That perspective is coming from two deployments to Afghanistan and teaching marines CQB techniques. In my experience most can put 3 body as fast as they can do one decent head shot at anything past 7yds and that I believe would end it all the same or at-least induce shock. Also that's just training not even with the adrenalin dump of a fire fight involved. just my 2 cents




E

[Mr_White]

Nyeti, that's a great insight, thank you. You just wrote my next practice plan.

This stuff seem to have a great potential for the p-f.c drill of the week..


Sure does!

Looking forward to it!

[Dagga Boy]

"Because non-CNS strikes to the head frequently result in very temporary incapacitation, extra shots that guarantee effect on the way down -- if they can be made surely and safely -- seem like a reasonable (and justifiable) response. "

The reason we do it this way is based on field experience. Our stuff mirrored LAPD's exactly in which solid head hits resulted in marionette with the strings cut type drops. May be different elsewhere, but that is what we found in our area. It's kind of like 147 gr. Subsonic 9mm........it only works in SoCal:cool: and not in cornfield labs and everyplace that reports their shootings to gun writers. Now, as far as shooting them more in the head on the way down....neat if you can pull it off. I've pulled multiple head shots on movers in force on force with Sims, but my take for a street shooting is very different as to if that is a wise move. So the threat is on its way to the ground and has ceased hostilities for the moment and you are going to do a just to be sure extra shot to the head.......as I have told people in the past, it can only take a single extra round on a good shoot to go from justifiable to excessive in the mind of a federal or local prosecutor. I am in the camp that feels you shouldn't shoot faster than you can evaluate, which is not a popular way to think or train.

As far as the FAST drill....I said in my post I know what the purpose is. My issue is that I have spent a lot of years get my brain wired to shoot to the body and track the gun in recoil to the head........and if it is still there, to take it. It a a natural progression of melding the training to apply to shooting humans in typical engagements. I simply work opposite of Todd and others in which I go for the big thing fast and slow my pace to hit the low percentage target if the higher percentage shot fails to have an effect. That just fits into a better training routine for me, others may want to do something different, and I have zero issues with it for others. I am not a very good shooter and don't have much grace or athletic talent, so I tend to concentrate on simple responses that are most likely to be a problem solver for my world. I get that it is simply a test. Thanks for the lateral suggestion, as I may try this.

[DocGKR]

That is exactly what DOW #38 (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?4920-Week-38-FTS) was all about...

[223man]

Thanks again everyone for the grate feed back. I went shooting yesterday with my brother and incorporated a few of the drills you guys had mentioned and a few others. To get a base line to see where I am at I shot the F.A.S.T. (12+ sec with 1 miss on the 3.5 and 1 miss on the circle). Most of my fundamentals are ok but I really found out how important good follow through is. So went through other drills really focusing on my basic fundamentals. Finishing up with the SWAT course posted by Nyeti, which I did fairly well with went over time by a second but all hits were good. And then did the F.A.S.T. again with 9.9 clean. Would have done a little better but mag did not drop and slide did not lock back. Also shooting the SWAT qual gave me a little more perspective on my original question, thanks for sharing Nyeti. So that is where I sit now.

Thank you.

[DocGKR]

Be sure to check out the DOW #47...