Thoughts on shot placement and penetration

[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.



another version of the VSM target made from a stencil:

[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":



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.