Best distance for head shots

[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.

[Al T.]

Yet another "Pure Gold" thread.

[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 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.