PDA

View Full Version : Aiming for the Pelvis



jslaker
05-10-2011, 04:34 PM
Topic of conversation elsewhere has me interested in opinions here.

In a discussion of an incident involving an attacker with a rather large bladed weapon, a couple of gentlemen were rather adamant the the correct course of action is to target the attacker's pelvis with the intention of immobilizing them. From a biomechanical perspective, it makes sense -- break the hip and they're unable to continue charging you. As an added bonus, you stand a decent chance of severing the femoral artery which will cause a fair amount of blood loss.

That said, I'm not sure that I agree this is a particularly realistic expectation. Under the stress of being charged by a maniac with a knife, I'm not sure that I would even think to shoot at anything other than the biggest target available. Even if I did, at the range and timescales involved, I'm not sure I see the sense in deviating from putting as many rounds as I can onto the highest probability target that I have available; the load-bearing area of the pelvis has a diameter of around half that of COM.

The argument seems to center around "but what if the shots to center mass don't stop them in their tracks?" Personally, given the opportunity to transition to a lower probability target and working under the assumption that I possess the burly nerves of steel to reliably make such a shot while someone is trying to render me into chop suey,* I'd be highly inclined to start shooting for the CNS. In reality, I'm going to lean toward poking as many holes as I can in the torso and praying to god that the bad guy goes down before he takes me with him.

Interested in everyone else's thoughts on this.



*Note: This assumption is likely false.

JodyH
05-10-2011, 05:09 PM
A handgun will not break the pelvis. With a handgun you'd have to hit the actual joint which is about the size of a baseball or smaller.
I'm a pretty good shot and there's no way I'm going to rely on hitting a fast moving baseball sized target when the penalty for missing is getting carved up with a big knife.
Not to mention humans tend to have threat fixation under stress and it's highly unlikely you'll be able to look anywhere but at the weapon/COM/face of your attacker while he's charging you.
The more natural progression from COM shots would be head shots rather than pelvic shots. Not only is the head a bigger target than the hip joint it's also a much better "fight stopper".
The pelvis shot is an extension of the old shoot 'em in the kneecap or shoot the knife out of their hand bullshit.
Shoot the center of the largest available target repeatedly to stop the threat.

part-time shooter
05-10-2011, 07:26 PM
From what I've read/watched demonstrated the only time you'll possibly be shooting at the pelvis is from bad breath range during the draw from the #2 position. It's not aimed fire at that range and you're only looking for as many hits as possible at that range no matter where they hit. I've never actually practiced to do this, something I should likely take into consideration.

I can't imagine having the presence of mind to choose my target while being charged by a knife wielding crack head or even confronted by one. I'm going to shoot at the first thing my front site covers as fast as I can and keep shooting until the gun runs dry or the threat is gone, once I decide it's a real threat and react to it. I'm much more worried about that part of the equation than choosing to make a pelvis or head shot.

Wheeler
05-10-2011, 08:36 PM
Perhaps the proponents of taking a pelvis shot should watch this video. The real action starts at about the 7:24 mark.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eexGDSsJn9c&feature=player_embedded

I consider myself pretty fast on the draw, I've ran several different variations of the Tueller drill, including getting charged by a cart with lopsided wheels and two 24 year olds pulling the rope at a run; and have always come out on the plus side of the drill. If this guy had charged me I would have gotten sliced. On the flip side, I don't think I would have gotten as close as these guys did.

jslaker
05-10-2011, 09:08 PM
Perhaps the proponents of taking a pelvis shot should watch this video. The real action starts at about the 7:24 mark.

Believe it or not, that's the exact video that sparked the entire discussion. These guys were rather insistent that the cops should have been aiming for the pelvic region in this case.

Odin Bravo One
05-10-2011, 09:23 PM
Aiming for the pelvis is not going to help when you set yourself up for failure with bad tactics, horrible positioning (i.e., the Polish Ambush), and lack of resolve and/or ability.

JodyH
05-10-2011, 09:26 PM
That video was a mindset and tactics failure, not a shot placement issue.

TGS
05-10-2011, 09:31 PM
The protocol they used was about 88 shades of fucked up to the point that shooting at the hips vice CoM is probably one of the more minute, bottom of the list things to be discussed.

Wheeler
05-10-2011, 10:16 PM
That video was a mindset and tactics failure, not a shot placement issue.

I wholly concur with that. Looked like a bunch of monkeys that had found themselves a football.

They were holding their AK's like they were magic wands, the gaucho in the yellow jumpsuit was holding that Bowie like he knew how to use it. Even after they started shooting, a friend of mine pointed out that they were firing single shots in an effort to get him to stop, but didn't seem to be interested in putting him down.

Shooting at a static target at 21 feet while someone runs by and taps your shoulder is a little different than having some guy with a 12" blade coming after you with the intent, means, and will to do you great bodily harm.

gtmtnbiker98
05-11-2011, 07:37 AM
Tactics and training aside, in 99% of cases, you won't be able to employ "perfect" tactics. Arriving at various scenes, you can't retain the 21' rule and there is so much going on at certain calls and various bystanders, situations as depicted in the YouTube vid is not uncommon and you can only hope for the best.

We can train on the square range all you want, practice your speed draws and hit out to 50-yards but until you are actually in the situation, all you can say is WTF!

ToddG
05-11-2011, 08:32 AM
gt -- You have to admit that in the specific situation shown in that video, the officers clearly made a poor choice to approach when there was literally the entire outdoors available. If you had no less-lethal option through which to disable, would you keep approaching an clearly agitated knife-wielding EDP?

As for pelvic shots, I've never met a single person who's been in a gunfight who claimed his victory occurred as a result of landing incapacitating wounds to the pelvic bone.

DocGKR
05-11-2011, 09:16 AM
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 he 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.

BigT
05-11-2011, 02:34 PM
While only a single incident the only time I've seen someone take a pelvic shot the result what fuck off shiny movie style impressive. Single round of 9mm ball struck the flat bone from the rear just low left of the sacro illiac (please excuse my spelling) scans show the bullet blew a thumb or so sized hole in the pelvis.

Shoottee hit the ground so fast she couldn't get her arms out to break her fall in time. Don't think it was a pschological reaction as she wasn't aware she had been shot. She felt a blow and went down. For the rest of the fight she was out of action.

Two years later my wife is still suffering the results of that one round.

IIRC Jim Cirillio Kelly McCann are/were bigs fans of the pelvic shot.

CAW
05-13-2011, 11:46 PM
My first post, but reading this I felt the need to respond.

I've been shot in the pelvis region 3 times. It's no fun, no doubt about it, but I would not make it a point to aim at that area unless it was the best shot I had. I would always go high center of chest if that is available. That is your overall best chance at incapacitation in my opinion.

In a real gunfight you never know what you have to shoot at. You can't make rules. All gunfights don't happen in the wide open for one. Vehicles provide great cover against handgun rounds. My first shot I could actually use sights on was an ankle at one point. I missed! I ended the fight with multiple shots to the high thigh because that is the best shot that was available to me. I was shooting from under a vehicle and it was a split chance to end an aggressive and adrenalin souped fast moving crazy F'n A-hole. Sorry for the language, but seriously! You saw the guy in the video wielding the knife! I shot as high as possible and to the biggest target. If I had not landed the shots, I may not be here today. That is how a gunfight goes down.

Anything can happen in a gunfight, anything. Besides the first point blank shot at my face that I literally dodged, if the bullet paths penetrating through my body had been millimeters in difference, I may not be here. I had one bullet (.38 out of a .357 snub) that traveled from just in front of my left hip bone through my bladder and off my right hip bone and came back to rest directly between my femoral artery and femoral nerve. How lucky is that? Thanks to the excellent surgeons by the way! I will NEVER forget the feeling at impact or the pains that followed. Pelvic shots don't feel good, I can testify to that. To continue on, I next took a .357 shot to my right hip bone that glanced upwards and took my ureter off where it connected to my kidney. This shot completely made me lose ability to stand. All this happened very fast! My holstered gun also took a round to the slide. I hit the ground and as I was pulling my gun out I took another round (.22) to my upper right ass that went through the central region of my pelvic region. At this point I am still not worrying about any of it. I am only worried about stopping the attack and staying alive. Some people might slow down to think about it or panic and freeze, but the only thing that will stop me is a pure CNS hit. Seriously, that is how I roll ;) From this point in the fight I am in control. It’s the only way I will have it.

Anyways, yes pelvic shots disable. I was temporarily disabled from the waist down. In pain, yes for sure. Was I unable to work my legs? Yes. Out of the fight? NO WAY. Grateful for life? YES.

I am fine today. I go through nerve related pain sometimes. It was unexplainable the first few months. I actually wanted to hack my foot off. My flexibility year’s later is still almost nothing from the waist down. It took me a year to be able to push off my right foot. Nerves grow at the speed of fingernails. All is good now though. I hear the other guy is worse off.

Aim for the biggest target and fight until there is no more fight. Then keep fighting until you die because it’s never over until it’s really over. I’m talking whether that is th enext moment or you are 90 years old on your death bed..

Please don’t PLAN on shooting people in the hips, legs, or other dumb places when your life is on the line. If that is your best opportunity then, yeah take advantage of it. It might be your last opportunity in life. Otherwise, I say go with the high center of the chest if it is an option.

irishshooter
05-14-2011, 07:52 AM
Aim for the biggest target and fight until there is no more fight.......Please don’t PLAN on shooting people in the hips, legs, or other dumb places when your life is on the line. If that is your best opportunity then, yeah take advantage of it. It might be your last opportunity in life. Otherwise, I say go with the high center of the chest if it is an option.

this. like any area of the body its what is hit within that region that makes the difference whether it be the chest, pelvis, abdomen, etc.....we all know numerous scenarios where multiple rounds to the chest failed to incapacitate because timers not switches were impacted. regarding the video.....f'ing soup sandwich. carrying a rifle like a briefcase to confront a suspect and then trying to go hands on vs a butcher knife?WTF? as said this wasnt a shot placement issue this was a clear example of a tactical disaster. BTW i think the reason that only a few shots were taken was because of the giant chance for cross fire with their tactical "circle of death" staging. bogus

Slavex
05-14-2011, 08:30 AM
That video was a dictionary example of clusterfuck. Knives scare me more than guns, I've seen so many bad knife wounds, and scars that last a lifetime that I would always consider a knife to be a deadly weapon and respond in kind. Pelvic shots are in vogue, training wise, up here right now, and its annoying to hear "experts" claim how awesome that shot is.

jslaker
05-14-2011, 09:35 AM
FWIW, I agree with everyone saying that shot placement was the least of the officers' problems in that video. It was just what spawned the topic after a couple of people very strongly insisted that the "best course of action" in a scenario where an attacker with a knife needs to be stopped is to go for the pelvis and "instant incapacitation."

Thanks to everyone here for being my confirmation bias and going along with my belief that the sane thing to do is put as many rounds as possible on the highest probability target available as fast as possible. :p


Aim for the biggest target and fight until there is no more fight. Then keep fighting until you die because it’s never over until it’s really over. I’m talking whether that is th enext moment or you are 90 years old on your death bed..

Please don’t PLAN on shooting people in the hips, legs, or other dumb places when your life is on the line. If that is your best opportunity then, yeah take advantage of it. It might be your last opportunity in life. Otherwise, I say go with the high center of the chest if it is an option.

Thanks for sharing your experience. Lots of good info in this post.


Knives scare me more than guns

People look at me strange when I say this, but I agree 100%.

With a gun, I'm acutely aware of how inaccurate most untrained shooters are. Things like cover and movement may potentially work to my advantage depending on the scenario. I certainly don't want to be on the wrong end of a gun, but I feel like there's at least some margin of error if I were.

With knives, if your attacker is close enough to use one, you are getting hurt. Period. And most likely badly. There's just no coming out of a knife fight a winner even if you win.

Slavex
05-14-2011, 10:28 AM
I remember very distinctly the first knife fighting class I ever took with Remy Presas back in the late 80's. the amount of chalk he left on me in just a few seconds scared the hell out of me. Years ago when I first got to work with Sims I was again reminded how much a knife just plain sucks to go up against. Guns up close seem to be easier to deal with, it still sucks, and I by no means think they are easy to deal with, but the knife, no matter what you do, you end up cut. If someone has a knife and I'm armed with a gun, I am going to be moving back and away as fast as I can whilst dropping as many shots onto the badguy as possible.

fuse
05-14-2011, 05:32 PM
I'd like to know the backstory of that video, and the fates of those involved.

Wheeler
05-14-2011, 08:33 PM
I'd like to know the backstory of that video, and the fates of those involved.

ditto.

I read a statistic several years ago that stated that wounds from service caliber pistols were more survivable than stab wounds from a 3 1/2" knife. I don't remember details like number of hits vs strikes or anything like that. It just always stuck with me that if someone came after me with a knife, I needed to create distance and stay away from the blade.

JodyH
05-14-2011, 08:55 PM
The winner of a knife fight is the guy who takes the longest to bleed out.

jlw
05-14-2011, 09:17 PM
The pelvic girdle shot has some validity. It is a shot that goes to an area with lots of blood flow and one that can immobilize.

However, if you are good enough to hit the pelvic girdle on a dynamic target you are also good enough to put a shot into the cranial vault. A pelvic girdle shot may immobilize, but it won't put the lights out.

The pelvic girdle shot is A tool to have in the bag but necessarily THE tool to have. Perhaps is most relevant application would be in a CQB situation in which the head shot is just not doable for some reason.

ToddG
05-15-2011, 12:48 PM
I've been shot in the pelvis region 3 times.

Seriously, you need to start dating a better class of girl.

In all seriousness, glad your incidents played out in your favor and welcome to the forum!

CAW
05-15-2011, 01:13 PM
Seriously, you need to start dating a better class of girl.

In all seriousness, glad your incidents played out in your favor and welcome to the forum!

lmao! I never thought about it that way! Too funny!

No, really it's just the way it played out. Funny how things go. The third shot probably would have been somewhere else, but luckily he was probably focusing on my weapon as I pulled it.

Frank B
05-15-2011, 01:18 PM
In my book the pelvis shot have it´s place, if the shoots are fired at a point blank range.

JodyH
05-15-2011, 05:59 PM
The other problem with specifically targeting the pelvis is it does nothing to immobilize a trigger finger.
A SOP should cover all situations, not if he has a knife I'll shoot the pelvis, if he has a gun I'll shoot the brain, if he has a stick I'll...
My SOP is the heart then the head or the center of the largest available target until the heart or head becomes visible.
The only time the pelvic region is my primary target is in retention shooting at bad breath distance.

WDW
05-18-2011, 02:16 AM
Right before I got out of the Marine Corps, they changed their motto from "2 to the chest, 1 to the head" to "2 to chest, the rest in the groin". Now I will be the first to admit that the basic Marine Corps firearms training regimen is a joke. It consists of immobile known distance ranges with untimed stages of slow fire. It is pretty much worthless in a real life situation. Their reasoning was that the pelvis was a fairly large target full of all sorts of "goodies". You have the pelvis, the hip and sockets, internal/external illiac arteries that run into and form the femoral arteries, the genitalia...Personally, I feel that the groin is a great way to incapacitate a threat. However, you would have to do some pretty extensive training in order to draw your natural focus away from the the area thethreat is going to come from and that is usually the area consisting of "center mass". It could cost precious time and focus to transition form center mass to the groin unless you had specifically trained to do so. Also, if the threat is moving, the groin area is also going to be moving and present a much smaller target than the relatively immobile torso.

rudy99
05-18-2011, 09:19 AM
I find it interesting that Redback One's pistol standards (http://www.facebook.com/note.php?saved&&note_id=223140164362931&id=201698463173768) call for some shots to be in the pelvis.

TGS
05-18-2011, 10:49 AM
Right before I got out of the Marine Corps, they changed their motto from "2 to the chest, 1 to the head" to "2 to chest, the rest in the groin". Now I will be the first to admit that the basic Marine Corps firearms training regimen is a joke. It consists of immobile known distance ranges with untimed stages of slow fire. It is pretty much worthless in a real life situation. Their reasoning was that the pelvis was a fairly large target full of all sorts of "goodies". You have the pelvis, the hip and sockets, internal/external illiac arteries that run into and form the femoral arteries, the genitalia...Personally, I feel that the groin is a great way to incapacitate a threat. However, you would have to do some pretty extensive training in order to draw your natural focus away from the the area thethreat is going to come from and that is usually the area consisting of "center mass". It could cost precious time and focus to transition form center mass to the groin unless you had specifically trained to do so. Also, if the threat is moving, the groin area is also going to be moving and present a much smaller target than the relatively immobile torso.

KD, immoble targets and slow fire sounds like you're talking about Table 1. That isn't meant to be a modern combat marksmanship range anyway. There's a reason it's basic......it's about the basics, the extremely simple fundamentals. You can't just throw someone who's never even held a rifle into a 360* live fire room-clearing range and expect that to go well.

Table 2, 3 and 4 are building blocks as well. They're not the end all, be all, either. There's way more to combat marksmanship training than Table 1. Now if you're talking about pistols.......hahahha, yeah, it doesn't really do much besides teach trigger press and front sight, but last time I talked to anyone at WTBN here in Quantico they were running some sort of beta-"Pistol 2" where you were actually required to draw from a holster, move, ect.

I only joined a few years ago in 2007 and pelvic shots were already part of the game. It doesn't help much when they now count table 2 as a scored event, so people game it. You get the same amount of points for a pelvic shot as you do the T-box(that's right folks, the head doesn't count, just the T box drawn out in chalk and MUCH smaller than a 3x5" card), so people are going to obviously shoot for the pelvis in order to bump them up to expert. Speaking of, if you see anyone without expert these days, they REALLY suck because it's pretty much a free gimme with table 2 scores factored in......

JodyH
05-18-2011, 04:58 PM
Their reasoning was that the pelvis was a fairly large target full of all sorts of "goodies". You have the pelvis, the hip and sockets, internal/external illiac arteries that run into and form the femoral arteries, the genitalia...Personally, I feel that the groin is a great way to incapacitate a threat.
There's a huge difference between shooting someone in the pelvic region with a rifle and doing the same with a handgun.
The rifle will tear shit up, the handgun will poke little holes.
When discussing handgun shots to the pelvic area "incapacitate" is the wrong word to use, "immobilize" would be a more accurate term.

Chuck Haggard
05-19-2011, 04:45 AM
I sit right on the fence on this one.

I have no doubt that Dr. Fackler's opinion is valid, however...

Doc Williams, of Tactical Anatomy, teaches that total area available to hit between the areas of the pelvis that can be broken with pistol shots to achieve dysfunction, and the area available for "head" shots is almost exactly the same.
I have noted in FoF that hitting the pelvis area while both parties are on the move can be much easier than hitting the head.

I also note Jim Cirillo's and the stakeout squad guys observed that shooting bad guys in the ass resulted in a knock down almost every single time, whether the pelvis was broken or not, even with puny .38 special RNL.

If I have high center mass available I'll go for that area first, but if the bad guy was wearing armor then I don't think going for the pelvis is a bad option.

I am assuming service caliber handguns and/or rifles here. Pocket pistols would likely be useless in this regard.

CAW
05-19-2011, 11:24 AM
It's rare to penetrate pelvic bone or skull with handgun rounds. Rifle rounds though? No problem. I would pretty much guarantee it. That's the biggest difference between rifle and handgun rounds in my opinion.

The pelvic region has a ton of nerves and a network of blood freeways. That is the danger and that is where I think it is destructive for the most part. I know first hand it is a serious place to be shot, but I still would opt for somewhere higher on the body if it's available. A little higher and you get vitals like the liver for instance.

A shot to the pelvic region doesn't guarantee incapacitation in any time soon. Not even in the Femoral artery in which I shot somebody in. Even though in that case he was very incapacitated on the spot. The sounds he made at impact were something that I would have never thought a grown man could ever make. He dropped instantly and was out of the fight. Still though, even that I respect the area as a fight stopper, I think there are better places to shoot someone not only because they are bigger and easier targets to hit but will work more often to truly completely incapacitate an individual.

I used to play paintball at the highest level. I've experienced beating the best teams such as Ironmen for instance. Actually in paintball there is only one individual guy I have ever come across that I didn’t know I could take no matter what and he was on IronMen. We used to have some tough fights against each other. More so from my side though because my teams were never as good and that meant the longer the fight went on, the more I was up against. Which to say the least in paintball includes a ton of cheating. It's pathetic really, but it's ruled by the industry and players that play like that. Anyways, where I wanted to go with this is that hitting a person anywhere on the body is easy with a shoulder fired paint gun from my experience. The chest the easiest without doubt though. It is the largest area that is stable between joints. You can pretty much lock on to that area if it's available and "light it up".

TGS
05-19-2011, 11:30 AM
It's rare to penetrate pelvic bone or skull with handgun rounds.

In regards to the skull, outside of FMJ sub-service calibers, this is news to me. Do you have any references to share?

CAW
05-19-2011, 12:31 PM
In regards to the skull, outside of FMJ sub-service calibers, this is news to me. Do you have any references to share?

I thought it was pretty much common knowledge these days. I don't mean that in a rude manner either.

The skull is the hardest part of our structure. It's made to withstand impact to protect our brain. The rounded shape greatly aids in glancing dangerous blows away from destroying what is most vital to us. Handgun rounds tend to not have enough power/velocity to penetrate through. They are more likely to glance off. This is why you shoot for the eyes and not the forehead.

As far as references: I know a coroner. I have acquaintances that have been shot in the head. I have heard stories of people shot in the head. I have read multiple times of people shot in the head. I also know of someone that had been shot there in the heat of an adrenalin crazed battle and didn't even know about it. I'm sure there is further info in regards to research on this matter on either this site or in the terminal ballistics section at m4carbine.

I'm not saying it can't happen. I'm just saying it's not reliable. I also think hitting someone in the head with a handgun round still can't be thought of as weak shot. It will most likely disrupt them either psychologically or physically. Luckily I’ve never been shot there, but I know from my experience with more than a few serious blows to the head I have gotten back up ready to go. I know there are others that aren’t easily put down as well. Most people I am guessing would give up or think they are dead at that point though. It might just piss off some though.


You also have the chance of fragmentation of the bone even if the round doesn't penetrate through. This would be more common.

TGS
05-19-2011, 02:33 PM
I thought it was pretty much common knowledge these days. I don't mean that in a rude manner either.

The skull is the hardest part of our structure. It's made to withstand impact to protect our brain. The rounded shape greatly aids in glancing dangerous blows away from destroying what is most vital to us. Handgun rounds tend to not have enough power/velocity to penetrate through. They are more likely to glance off. This is why you shoot for the eyes and not the forehead.

As far as references: I know a coroner. I have acquaintances that have been shot in the head. I have heard stories of people shot in the head. I have read multiple times of people shot in the head. I also know of someone that had been shot there in the heat of an adrenalin crazed battle and didn't even know about it. I'm sure there is further info in regards to research on this matter on either this site or in the terminal ballistics section at m4carbine.

I'm not saying it can't happen. I'm just saying it's not reliable. I also think hitting someone in the head with a handgun round still can't be thought of as weak shot. It will most likely disrupt them either psychologically or physically. Luckily I’ve never been shot there, but I know from my experience with more than a few serious blows to the head I have gotten back up ready to go. I know there are others that aren’t easily put down as well. Most people I am guessing would give up or think they are dead at that point though. It might just piss off some though.


You also have the chance of fragmentation of the bone even if the round doesn't penetrate through. This would be more common.

I understand the ocular cavity being the best hit but in my terminal ballistics classes with the USMC I was taught it's the best choice for service caliber handgun rounds and rifles as it gives the projectile a path of travel as close to the medulla oblongata as possible(when facing the target head on).

I've never heard an authority state that a hollow point service caliber handgun round will not reliably penetrate a skull, only sub-service calibers such as .32 ACP or .380, for instance, where a hit to the ocular cavity is most beneficial simply for the purpose of reliably penetrating the skull. Since a 9mm 147gr+p HST will easily penetrate 1/8th steel plates(may have been thicker, can't remember) I thought it would reliably penetrate a human skull outside of the temple or ocular cavity.

Hopefully DocGKR will be around and comment.

As to the strength of the forehead, I've experienced it personally. I'd post a picture of my bare skull in the upper forehead exposed for 9cm after the bleeding stopped, but I can't as I'm not a paying member. It would have been pretty cool if I could have gotten a picture of the "28 Days Later" like blood bath I left on the ground too. I can't believe I'm still alive, not only from blood loss but the sheer impact my forehead took.

CAW
05-19-2011, 03:20 PM
The noggin is tough for sure!

I don't really have more to say about it. I'm interested in being enlightened further though. I'm always up for learning more about terminal ballistics. I do hope DocGKR comments or other comments are made. There are a lot of factors that go into a head shot that can make a difference. How close, how powerful, caliber, type of ammo, angle at impact, where on the skull, etc.. Right now from my understanding it doesn't seem like a high chance for a common combat pistol round to penetrate the skull in a gunfight.

NickDrak
05-20-2011, 02:42 AM
A well placed shot to the pelvis with a rifle round may very well stop someone intent on killing you and/or your loved ones in his tracks, but it won't stop them from trying to kill you while they are lying on the floor with a broken pelvis.

Chuck Haggard
05-21-2011, 02:55 PM
In my observation, unless there are issues with a very angled hit, all of the service calibers penetrate skulls rather well, particularly with JHP bullets due to the edge of the hollow point digging into the bone on impact.

TCinVA
05-21-2011, 06:50 PM
The area above the eyes on the skull is essentially an armored plate. It's not at all unheard of for a round to hit that curved armored plate and skim around it or stop altogether rather than penetrate into the gooey bits behind it. As an example, there's a picture out there of some cromagnon (sloping forehead, etc) domestic violence perpetrator who picked a fight with a SWAT team and took a round from an MP5 right above the eyebrows. A few stitches and he was well enough to have his mugshot taken in his hospital gown. The exact geometry seems, as TPD mentions, to be an important factor.

It's happened frequently enough to bring about the advice about the ocular window. As an interesting aside to that knowledge, I'll say that I was present when someone once asked LAV about head shots and he said that in his experience even non-fatal head shots were usually sufficient to make somebody at least stop for a little bit. I suppose taking a bullet to the grape does have a way of making one ponder their choices in life.

Kyle Reese
05-21-2011, 07:03 PM
WRT to aiming for the pelvis:

Situation / firing position of the shooter will dictate target area. Obviously it's not a torso /CNS shot, but multiple hits to the pelvis from a 5.56x45mm, 7.62x39mm, 7x62x51mm etc are more desirable than not firing on a legitimate target. As others have said, this most likely will not stop them from trying to kill you, it will just....limit their mobility (if the lower spine is severed, etc)

I'm no tactical guru, and don't play one on TV. :cool:

ToddG
05-21-2011, 08:51 PM
It's happened frequently enough to bring about the advice about the ocular window. As an interesting aside to that knowledge, I'll say that I was present when someone once asked LAV about head shots and he said that in his experience even non-fatal head shots were usually sufficient to make somebody at least stop for a little bit. I suppose taking a bullet to the grape does have a way of making one ponder their choices in life.

Speaking with DocGKR about this very issue last year, he made a similar comment regarding the effectiveness of non-fatal head shots.


more desirable than not firing on a legitimate target.

There is a huge difference between "I am shooting at the pelvis because it is my highest probability target" and "I am shooting at the pelvis because it is the most anatomically vulnerable area." Shooting at it because it's what you can hit is good. Shooting at it because you think it is a knockout blow is probably working off an unrealistic expectation...

BigT
05-22-2011, 02:12 AM
I don't see the pelvis as a primary aiming point. I know some teach it as a primary point of aim for opponents armed with a contact weapon , and that doesn't make sense to me.

I do see it as a viable option in the event of a failure to stop. Bad guys wearing body armour are a common occurence here so if the initial burst to the upper chest doesn't put him down I'm no going to keep plowing rounds into him hoping to defeat the armour as some instructors teach. Especially as rifle rated armour is very commonly found here.

Head shots are great but a lower probability shot. With him moving and me moving it becomes a challenging exercise in marksmanship. Training for a burst to the pelvic shot as an option gives me the possability of breaking the bony structure or ventilating the blood vessels down there or at the very least making holes in an unarmoured part of him. While these may not be immediately incapacitating them may at the very least make further shots to the melon easier.

We accept that a single shot to the chest may have no immediate effect. Which is why we drill multiple shots and failure to stop drills. But a lot of the discussion of pelvic shots seems to suggest that only a single shot will be fired.

So to clarify my opinion head shots are bullet for bullet better than pretty much anything else but if our shots to the upper chest aren't having an immediate effect the pelvic shot may offer a higher probability marksmanship situation.

My ZAR0.02

NickDrak
05-22-2011, 04:23 AM
On humanoid targets, I have always trained to primarily target the high chest/throat area directly above the clavicle with multiple rounds. Im curious what the consensus here is on targeting this specific area. Lots of vital vessels and arteries leading to the brain, as well as the spine, throat/windpipe. Typically above where most body armor coverage ends. It is also as stationary as traditional "center mass".

Wheeler
05-22-2011, 08:21 AM
On humanoid targets, I have always trained to primarily target the high chest/throat area directly above the clavicle with multiple rounds. Im curious what the consensus here is on targeting this specific area. Lots of vital vessels and arteries leading to the brain, as well as the spine, throat/windpipe. Typically above where most body armor coverage ends. It is also as stationary as traditional "center mass".

All sorts of interesting things happen when you get a throat hit. People usually get distracted when their throat fills with blood and they can't breathe.

jslaker
05-22-2011, 10:49 AM
Speaking with DocGKR about this very issue last year, he made a similar comment regarding the effectiveness of non-fatal head shots.

It's almost like taking a 300-400ft-lb smack in the face is disorienting. :cool:

BigT
05-22-2011, 01:36 PM
It's almost like taking a 300-400ft-lb smack in the face is disorienting. :cool:



Doesn't that contradict the well accepted fact that people are often not aware of taking a gunshot wound?

Not being facetious , promise :)

DocGKR
05-23-2011, 01:00 AM
People are often not initially aware of hits to soft tissue; hits to bone usually engender a different response...

Chuck Haggard
05-23-2011, 02:25 AM
I'll throw in a couple of anecdotes to back up my point to not count on non-critical head shots;

Past Chief of mine is in a gunfight, hits bad guy three out of six, one into the forehead, one into the left cheek bone, one into the left arm. Neither if the head shots caused more than a flinch from the bad guy. The arm hit cut the brachial artery and eventually caused the bad guy to pass out from blood loss.

Recent street shooting, teenager outside of a club gets involved in an altercation, takes a .40 FMJ round to the back of the head, which initiates what I imagine is one of the history's fastest 100 yard dash.

In conversation Jim Cirillo told me that the guy he head shot three times during his first gunfight didn't even flinch from the first two hits, they just skated off. The third hit took the guy out due to being more perpendicular to the skull.


Not a gunshot, but I once watched a guy smash a cinder block into the forehead of another guy he was fighting, broke the block into pieces. While I believe this impact would be greater than that from a handgun bullet, the guy who was hit proceeded to beat the shit out of the guy who hit him.

BigT
05-23-2011, 02:49 AM
People are often not initially aware of hits to soft tissue; hits to bone usually engender a different response...


Not trying to be argumentative but wouldn't hits to the bone in the pelvis also have an effect? Or any other large boney structure?

BigT
05-23-2011, 03:04 AM
I'll throw in a couple of anecdotes to back up my point to not count on non-critical head shots;

Past Chief of mine is in a gunfight, hits bad guy three out of six, one into the forehead, one into the left cheek bone, one into the left arm. Neither if the head shots caused more than a flinch from the bad guy. The arm hit cut the brachial artery and eventually caused the bad guy to pass out from blood loss.

Recent street shooting, teenager outside of a club gets involved in an altercation, takes a .40 FMJ round to the back of the head, which initiates what I imagine is one of the history's fastest 100 yard dash.

In conversation Jim Cirillo told me that the guy he head shot three times during his first gunfight didn't even flinch from the first two hits, they just skated off. The third hit took the guy out due to being more perpendicular to the skull.


Not a gunshot, but I once watched a guy smash a cinder block into the forehead of another guy he was fighting, broke the block into pieces. While I believe this impact would be greater than that from a handgun bullet, the guy who was hit proceeded to beat the shit out of the guy who hit him.

Along those lines I'm aware of at least three similar stories

Badguys walks into a nightclub and starts shooting. Dude working security in the club engages bad guy and strikes him with a 45 Glaser centre mass. Unfortunately the bullet isnt immediately effective and the pistol suffers a stoppage after the single round. Bad guy shoots good guy once just below the knee. Good guy rushes bad guy and while disarming him takes a round which strikes him in the forehead, skids along the skull a couple of inches and exits. Good guy disarms badguy and shoots him twice in the face. Those shots were effective.

Good guy is carjacked by bad guys draws pistol and fires one .40 180gr Winchester Supreme SXT. Bullet strikes the bad guys forehead penetrates the skull and exits towards the top of the head. Bad guy runs approximately 400m before collapsing. He survived to stand trial and was forund guilty.

Teenage drug addict decides to end it all. Steals dad's .32ACP and fires a single shot under his chin IIRC bullets severs the optic nerve on one side and exits just in the hairline. On realising that he's not dead and that shooting himself wasnt much use he goes back to bed. Dad find him bleeding and rush him to hospital where he recovers.

First two incindence are based on the accounts given to me by the people involved. The third a close family member of the kid.

DocGKR
05-23-2011, 01:17 PM
BigT--I did not comment on the physiologic incapacitation potential of a hit to bone, just that people are usually more aware of a hit when it strikes bone vs. projectiles that hit soft tissue only.

EVP
05-24-2011, 12:12 PM
I have a sister in-law that is a medical examiner for a big metro area. I have talked to her about this subject matter many times. The general consensus that I have gathered is that their is no definitive place that will incapacitate 100% of the time beside a direct hit to disrupt the central nervous system like the spinal cord . Getting that type of hit or an oportunnity to hit that area is usually low. This seems to be consistent with what I have found in my research of this topic from others with extensive experience and knowledge on this subject. We are fortunate to have access to the knowledge that DocGKR brings to the table.

There is always different cases that can go either way in showing that what might have worked in one instance proved not effective in another. With that being said, from what knowledge I have personally gathered from someone with firsthand experience is that I should go towards the areas that have a high probability for physical incapacitation. These are the areas that we know contain the vital organs and such.

If certain scenarios present themselves that prevent a hit with a higher probability of pyhsical incapacitation then by all means take what is given to you. But I don't think we should make those areas priority.


Just my 2 cents

jslaker
05-24-2011, 12:20 PM
The general consensus that I have gathered is that their is no definitive place that will incapacitate 100% of the time beside a direct hit to disrupt the central nervous system like the spinal cord .

This is exactly why my goal is to put as much lead into a target as I possibly can. I like my odds of being able to inflict enough brute trauma better than I do my chances of being skillful and composed enough to pull off the magic shot when it's on the line.

Chuck Haggard
05-26-2011, 06:11 AM
Jim Higginbotham is a big fan of basically an NSR to the high center mass, with the shooter aiming for the spine basically.

His theory, which seems rather valid, is that often at least one of the bullets from a burst will hit the spine, and all of the bullets placed into this area will at least hit some of the good stuff.

This requires the shooter to be good at getting hits at speed, and to be using bullets that penetrate enough to still have some smack left by the time they get to the spine.

The guys who took his class at the Tactical Conference will note that the 3D knockdown targets had a "spine" as part of the knockdown area, in fact several had nothing but the spine as a "vital" zone.


I would be of the opinion that should one find their opponent to be wearing armor that this approach applied to the pelvis area wouldn't be a bad choice of options.

mnealtx
05-27-2011, 11:40 AM
Jim Higginbotham is a big fan of basically an NSR to the high center mass, with the shooter aiming for the spine basically.

And what would an NSR be, for those of us that haven't taken class with Mr. Higginbotham?

Kyle Reese
05-27-2011, 01:02 PM
And what would an NSR be, for those of us that haven't taken class with Mr. Higginbotham?

Non Standard Response.

Essentially you are firing multiple rounds into the high thoraxic cavity and head.

vmi-mo
05-27-2011, 02:40 PM
Col Dabney, the CO for the Marines at Khe Sahn during the jungle war, had his men ball shoot the NVA to fuck with their heads and force them to conduct casevac aka give the good guys more time to shoot down dudes.

Just saying......



PJ

ToddG
05-27-2011, 04:05 PM
If I have to deal with so many BGs simultaneously that they can afford to dedicate manpower to evac the wounded, I pissed off the wrong bikers...

vmi-mo
05-27-2011, 05:07 PM
If I have to deal with so many BGs simultaneously that they can afford to dedicate manpower to evac the wounded, I pissed off the wrong bikers...

Beware of any asian biker gang...


PJ

WDW
05-27-2011, 05:56 PM
If I have to deal with so many BGs simultaneously that they can afford to dedicate manpower to evac the wounded, I pissed off the wrong bikers...
You might wanna start carrying around a 33 rounder w/the G17 from here on out, just in case:D

Wheeler
05-27-2011, 07:49 PM
You might wanna start carrying around a 33 rounder w/the G17 from here on out, just in case:D

I wanna see the AIWB for that rig :cool:

fuse
05-28-2011, 01:00 AM
If I have to deal with so many BGs simultaneously that they can afford to dedicate manpower to evac the wounded, I pissed off the wrong bikers...

Todd I've been meaning to talk to you about your gambling problem..

Chuck Haggard
05-29-2011, 02:12 PM
And what would an NSR be, for those of us that haven't taken class with Mr. Higginbotham?

Take off from old school Jeff Cooper terminology. Standard Response being two to the chest, the failure drill, which has a few names being, the follow up shot to the head.

Pat Rogers (I believe) coined the term non-standard response, with the shorthand of NSR, for hammering the bad guy's torso with 4-8 rounds as fast as possible, typically a battlefield response using a rifle but applies to pistols as well.

mnealtx
05-31-2011, 05:12 AM
Take off from old school Jeff Cooper terminology. Standard Response being two to the chest, the failure drill, which has a few names being, the follow up shot to the head.

Pat Rogers (I believe) coined the term non-standard response, with the shorthand of NSR, for hammering the bad guy's torso with 4-8 rounds as fast as possible, typically a battlefield response using a rifle but applies to pistols as well.


Non Standard Response.

Essentially you are firing multiple rounds into the high thoraxic cavity and head.

Thank you both.