View Full Version : Anatomical Target Systems

July 28, 2009, 05:55 PM
Good Evening, All.

I have a question that I am sure someone within TFL may be able to answer regarding targets. Before I ask, I would like to offer an equivocation about myself. My current position as a “Contractor” is assigned to the Pentagon, but I do not represent the US Government in any official capacity. My job is to find answers to questions that are posed to me based upon my Munitions background. I have always found the amount of knowledge on this site astounding, so I decided to inquire you good folks. With that said:

As we discussed future needs of the Military at the office, the topic of gaining a realistic ( 3D) target system that would offer soldiers feedback based upon shot placement. The system would be used with varying small arms (5.56mm, 9mm, and maybe12 ga). The targets would be used primarily in a MOUT setting. The targets would have to be anatomical and provide feedback in regards to the effects of the bullet strikes (i.e. would the shot incapacitate or not). My experience with munitions is primarily logistics and though I have supported many, I was not a member of any SOF unit. So I have no idea of what targets they use in the "Kill Houses".

Does any member have knowledge of a target system that comes close to providing these capabilities? If so, please comment or PM me with additional information, so that I may bring this to the attention of the Division Chief at my office. Thank you in advance for your time and anticipated suggestions.


Tucker 1371
July 28, 2009, 06:07 PM
You mean something like this?


Not sure how they respond to hits in vital areas though.

July 28, 2009, 06:10 PM
I had to do a search on MOUT. I assume it means Military Operations in Urban Terrain.

The only experience I have with three dimensional targets that gave feedback when shot was at Gunsite. They had three dimensional head and torso (can't remember if they had arms) targets that were hung on an interior support. The 3D targets where hung on the support in such a way that a common balloon was used to hold the target in place. If the shot hit the balloon the target fell. The target material was some sort of rubber or plastic. It could take a few hundred hits before it was in need of replacement.

The target could be clothed or not as desire.

This really was a great teaching tool to show how shooting center of mass was not merely hitting the sternum. It depended on the position which you encountered the target. The target could be angled and you needed to imagine where the center of mass was inside of the target.

The feed back was instantaneous too. If you shot well the target went down.

July 28, 2009, 06:20 PM
GSUeagle, Thank you for the link. That is nearly what is sought from what I gathered from the conversation. I will look at the FAQ page to see what the limits of the system are.

Mello2u, I apologize for not spelling out MOUT before listing the acronym, but you hit it right on the head. Thank you too for the swift input. I will look at what you suggested also. You know how the GOV works, the more choices, the better.



July 28, 2009, 06:40 PM
After reviewing the DVC targets, they don't recommend center fire rifle rounds. Other than this shortfall, the target system looks promising, but does anyone know of a system that can handle center fire rifle rounds?

Trigger Finger
July 28, 2009, 06:59 PM
"My experience with munitions is primarily logistics and though I have supported many, I was not a member of any SOF unit. So I have no idea of what targets they use in the "Kill Houses"."

No disrespect intended but it's typical of the military, government and large law enforcement agencies and departments to request people with little or no experience to come up with improvements! Subject matter experts are members of all of these agencies and departments for a reason, seek out the ones on your department and talk to them personally, one on one.
By the way, what is your "munitions" background?

July 28, 2009, 07:31 PM
Trigger Finger, you have a valid point to a certain extent. The government does have a habit of soliciting advice from very odd places. The office that I work in happens to be the one responsible for developing munitions logistics policies. What happens is that we work closely with the folks that are responsible for operational policies. When we have a 3 star general ask a question that gets everyone's synapses firing, but produces no immediate answer; we each as professionals within our areas start to network to come up with a solution. Networking to find a solution even though I am not in the operations division is my way of perhaps ensuring that someone does address a need that has been expressed. I have heard that many times a need is expressed, but no one takes action to provide a solution. My munitions logistics experience is comprised of 6 years of active duty 55B (89B) Ammunition Specialist, 1 year of logistics with the State Department, 6 years of munitions (storage, item management & a little ordnance disposal) work in the Middle East, 1 year of munitions management in Bosnia and 1 year of munitions management in Germany. I am now assigned to my office at the Pentagon and don't know how long I will stick this out.

Every person should know their limitations and the target system was definitely outside of my purview, so I sought assistance.



Al Thompson
July 29, 2009, 08:34 PM
I've had to deal with a few of these requests myself. :) It's no fun either. :D

SR, years ago the NIJ had a computer model of a person with values assigned to the best places to hit. This was used in a highly unsuccessful study of ammunition effectiveness, but may have value for targets. I would think that a foam rubber manikin with an overlay would work. Have to get someone to build it for you.

PM me with a number and we can discuss it tomorrow.