Aiming for the Pelvis

[jslaker]

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]

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]

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]

Perhaps the proponents of taking a pelvis shot should watch this video. The real action starts at about the 7:24 mark.



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]

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]

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]

That video was a mindset and tactics failure, not a shot placement issue.

[TGS]

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]

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]

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!