Shot Placement, in the real world

[ATW525]

I would think aiming with a game controller and aiming with a pistol are two different skill sets. Can't make assumptions about one from the other.

+1

There's just not enough similiarity between using a game controller to move a crosshair around a screen and using a firearm. The latter is a much more natural movement, analogous to pointing your finger.

[tshadow6]

Put down the video game and go to the range for some real practice. True story- Hillsborough County deputy shoots bad guy twice in the chest with a .45. Bad guy drops knife, is taken to hospital, and makes full recovery to end up in jail. Tampa firefighter shoots carjacker once in the chest with a .380, bad guy is Dead On Arrival. Shoot what you're comfortable with, shot placement IS important.

[pickpocket]

Shot placement is also sometimes just luck, no matter what you're shooting (think Trooper Mark Coates). And I refuse to believe that the cop who put 2 .45 slugs into a guy's chest intended for his rounds to go somewhere different than the firefighter with the single .380 shot. It just doesn't stand to reason.

To use a sports analogy: Any given Sunday.

[Model520Fan]

And I refuse to believe that the cop who put 2 .45 slugs into a guy's chest intended for his rounds to go somewhere different than the firefighter with the single .380 shot. It just doesn't stand to reason.

I don't refuse to believe it or choose to believe it. I don't know. If I asked both of them what they intended, then I might have a start (at knowing).

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but it seems fairly clear that a .380 in the right place in the chest can kill a guy, and two .45's someplace else in the chest may not kill a guy. I understand that it is in fashion these days to shoot unarmored perps in the chest (some folks call that "center of mass," although it probably isn't). I'm not sure, but I think that most doctors would tell yiou that the odds are a lot better of stopping a guy with a heart shot of some sort or another than some unspecified chest shot. Spine shots are probably even better. The real question is whether you can do it under the conditions which will probably exist. This may have been what you were telling us - that it is a crap shoot, and that neither guy knew where in the chest he was going to hit. If neither knew, then I guess it was just luck. If some people quietly achieve effective defensive marksmanship without broadcasting it, that might be something to strive for.

In the end, I choose the largest-caliber cartridge with sufficient penetration that I can handle and carry. Depending on the circumstances, that might be .36, .43 or .45.

YMMV.

520

[contender6030]

Don't remember where or when I was told this but I was told to start at the crotch and zip his zipper all the way to the neck. Not sure if this is the best defense shooting method but it has always stuck in my mind.

[pickpocket]

I'm not sure what you're getting at

Sorry - that wasn't a jab at you at all. And you're spot on with what I was trying to say. To some extent, it IS a crap shoot. Yes, round type and shot placement have much to do with shot effectiveness, but I've seen enough to know that the dumbest luck has just as much effect on the outcome in many cases.

I'm not advocating anything or arguing against anything, just stating that shot placement isn't the ONLY thing to remember. An accidentally well-placed .22 will still kill you just as dead as a surely placed .45 head-shot. Then again, maybe the guy walks away from two .45 slugs in the chest. You just never know.

[Half-Price Assassin]

i know this thread may have seemed silly at first, but the point of it was to let people know that "shot placement", is not something you can fully count on. i think it is crazy to assume that when your in a life and death situation, your going to be able to put your shots in certain places on your targets body. i was using this certain video game as an example. true, video game controlers are easier to aim with then a real 2.5lbs gun (or heavier with rifles). but to those that have played them, they can understand, where i am coming from. very few computer game nuts (people that play double digit hours a day), can sucessfully get headshots all the time when playing online, or against the computer. now in the game there is no real threat, if you die you just respawn (or come back to life), so the "fear factor", shouldnt be there. but to automatically assume you can get a "headshot" (bad term, i mean make your bullets go EXACTLY where you want them to), in a REAL life or death situation is crazy. people are not machines they will crap their (fill in the blank), in one way or another. its just human nature.

i guess what made me think of this was that i use to be one of those "shotplacement" guys. but after thinking about it, and realizing that if i cant do it 100% of the time in a video game, on my 24" t.v. (where the controller has no recoil, loud blast, or 8lbs trigger pull), then what makes me think i can do it in real life? so i started to think maybe i need to change what i carry to something larger then 9mm. i know that .40 is not a huge improvement but if the situation arises and all i can get on my target is a gut shot, arm shot, or non-vital area, i want to make sure it hurts alittle more so nothing happens to me or my loved ones.

i guess thats really the point i was trying to make.

thanks for all your replies (and keep them coming)!

[Skyguy]

i know this thread may have seemed silly at first, but the point of it was to let people know that "shot placement", is not something you can fully count on.
i think it is crazy to assume that when your in a life and death situation, your going to be able to put your shots in certain places on your targets body.

That's why I get such a kick out of the guys who...in a shootout...think they will hit com, hit a threat while on a full run, hit a threat in the dark, run a zipper, shoot upside down, blah, blah, blah.......

Here's a small dose of reality for the over-confident and the uninitiated:

"Tactical Realities:

Shot placement is an important, and often cited, consideration regarding the suitability of weapons and ammunition. However, considerations of caliber are equally important and cannot be ignored. For example, a bullet through the central nervous system with any caliber of ammunition is likely to be immediately incapacitating.
Even a .22 rimfire penetrating the brain will cause immediate incapacitation in most cases. Obviously, this does not mean the law enforcement agency should issue .22 rimfires and train for head shots as the primary target. The realities of shooting incidents prohibit such a solution.
Few, if any, shooting incidents will present the officer with an opportunity to take a careful, precisely aimed shot at the subject’s head.

Rather, shootings are characterized by their sudden, unexpected occurrence; by rapid and unpredictable movement of both officer and adversary; by limited and partial target opportunities; by poor light and unforeseen obstacles; and by the life or death stress of sudden, close, personal violence.

Training is quite properly oriented towards "center of mass" shooting. That is to say, the officer is trained to shoot at the center of whatever is presented for a target. Proper shot placement is a hit in the center of that part of the adversary which is presented, regardless of anatomy or angle."

Reference: http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.ht

Read it. Nothing's changed over time......except some folks' unrealistic confidence levels. :)
.

[threegun]

Skyguy,

They are extremely accurate! Just place the dot and you'll hit that spot.

You speak as though lasers are the save all end all. Yes lasers are accurate and will hit that "spot" IF THE DOT IS STILL ON THE "SPOT" AFTER YOU DROP THE HAMMER BY PULLING THE TRIGGER only the single most difficult aspect of shooting accurately. To suggest that by simply putting a laser on your gun will make you hit is wrong. You still must learn trigger control. If you practice at all on your trigger control.....point shooting is easy to learn. It won't give the badguy a place to aim either.

[Rainbow Six]

i know that .40 is not a huge improvement but if the situation arises and all i can get on my target is a gut shot, arm shot, or non-vital area, i want to make sure it hurts alittle more so nothing happens to me or my loved ones.

You honestly think the human body and tissue can distinguish between a 9mm and a .40 cal projectile? That's laughable. There is no way in heck that you will convince me that a .40 hit "hurts more", either pain wise or by damaging a significant* amount more tissue, than an identically placed 9mm hit. No way...

*= Significant meaning enough difference to make a better stop.

[ddelange]

Rainbow Six,
You may want to read Erik's sticky about silly/inappropriate posts before posting again in TandT. Just an FYI in case you haven't read it yet.

That said: shot placement and caliber selection are always going to be debated because the truth is the differences in wounding ability between the main handgun fighting calibers (9mm to .45 ACP) are minimal. If premium JHP ammo is used, a 9mm (I have stats for Rem GS 124gr +P) will penetrate 13" and expand to .61" The best .45 ammo (this is all according to the FBI ballistics test results) will expand to .70" and penetrate up to 18" So, the difference is .09" more expansion and 5" extra penetration for the .45. That small difference in expansion might allow the bigger bullet to nick an artery and cause massive blood loss that a 9mm might miss. Likewise, the extra penetration might allow the .45 to enter and exit an arm, enter the torso, penetrate a rib and damage a vital organ that will begin to cause massive blood loss. It might. . .

So, I'm a proud .45 owner? Unfortunately no. I can't shoot it accurately at paper targets, let alone moving targets in low light under stressfull situations. So, years ago I bought a Glock .40. Why? Because my naive self thought that if the FBI issues it, it must be the best for me too. Again, wrong answer. With the amount of time I could devote to range time, private marksmanship training, and tactical handgun courses, I couldn't overcome the flinch I had developed because of the recoil. I finally gave in and shot my trainers Glock 17. Oh my gosh; after a little practice I was one holing paper targets at 15 feet, and later hitting moving targets COM consistently. I first thought: I can't carry the wimpy nine minimeter; everyone says it doesn't have enough "stopping power" or "knock down" power.

Well, after some serious research in terminal ballistics I discovered that the relatively small advantage that the .45 has was not worth it if I couldn't hit the target COM. If you can do it, more power for you. I can also hit the target and fire a follow up shot much quicker and accurately than with the larger calibers.

Final note: these are only my experiences and observations. Delta Boys carry highly customized 1911's. Do they know something I don't? No, but they sure shoot and train infinitely more than I do. So, I choose based on my shot placement and speed with 9mm, knowing that if necessary I would be accurately sending a bullet (toward a BG) that has been doing the job worldwide for years.

[Skyguy]

ddelange,

Delta Boys carry highly customized 1911's. Do they know something I don't? No, but they sure shoot and train infinitely more than I do.

Actually, many people including the Delta Boys have the strength to handle a .45 and they have eliminated the flinch factor which makes a .45 as easy to handle as a 9mm.
If you can do that, shot placement and speedy followups become relatively easy.

Most trainers recommend that one carry the largest caliber handgun that one can handle effectively.

In a shootout........Bigger 'is' better!
.

[Rainbow Six]

Rainbow Six,
You may want to read Erik's sticky about silly/inappropriate posts before posting again in TandT. Just an FYI in case you haven't read it yet.

Sticky reviewed. I hadn't seen it before so thanks. Even so, I really don't think my post was out of line. I edited it in the interest of avoiding putting the Staff off unnecessarily, but I really don't think I violated the rules set forth in that thread. I respect the Staff and the rules though, so I'll restrict myself a bit more to avoid crossing the line they have drawn. I'm not one to push the rules when I know what they are.

[pickpocket]

everyone says it doesn't have enough "stopping power" or "knock down" power.

Both of these concepts have been debunked...there are no such things as "stopping" or "knock-down" power. Hopefully your research uncovered that as well.

There has been significant research in this area, and the old ways of thinking have been challenged - especially in terms of "transfer of energy" and the temporary cavity misconceptions.

[stratus]

Halfprice - sounds like an awesome game. Metal Gear Solid 2 and 3, as well as the remake of the original, have similar systems regarding shot placement, though it is perhaps less in-depth.

[ddelange]

Both of these concepts have been debunked...there are no such things as "stopping" or "knock-down" power. Hopefully your research uncovered that as well.

Absolutely, that's why I feel comfortable with a 9mm handgun that I can hit targets COM in a variety of situations: moving, low light, simulated stress, etc. The decrease in accuracy and speed, FOR ME, is not worth carrying a bigger caliber. And, while I know that most documented gunfights involve 2 or less shots fired, I still feel better with 17 +1 in My G17; it might not be rational, but if my mind feels more at ease with more bullets in my handgun it can only help my marksmanship and performance if ever forced to fire in self defense.

[U.S.SFC_RET]

A pistol is a pistol and a rifle is a rifle. Pistols are not as effective and are second rate to a rifle. You should master the pistol you use then you should master a few more pistols. IMHO it takes a hell of a longer time to master a pistol than a rifle, too many variables to consider. One thing is right on the money, shot placement has gotta be 95% of pistol shooting. Too much of the shooting public have a false confidence that a pistol is going to pull them out of a bind for home defence when they should use a lever action or a shotgun.

[Skyguy]

A central nervous system shot; a shot to the brain or upper spinal cord region will drop someone in their tracks. Hard to hit, but it works.

The most significant killing/wounding asset of a bullet is 'penetration'.

"Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much discussed "shock" of bullet impact is a fable and "knock down" power is a myth.

The critical element is penetration. The bullet must pass through the large, blood bearing organs and be of sufficient diameter to promote rapid bleeding. Penetration less than 12 inches is too little, and, in the words of two of the participants in the 1987 Wound Ballistics Workshop, "too little penetration will get you killed."

Given desirable and reliable penetration, the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound by increasing the size of hole made by the bullet. Any bullet which will not penetrate through vital organs from less than optimal angles is not acceptable. Of those that will penetrate, the edge is always with the bigger bullet."

Source: http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm
.

[Jack Malloy]

Yes, shot placement is vital.
But in the real world, when you are shooting at somebody and he is shooting back at you, your body is full of adrenalyne and it is not at all like what you experience on the range (Trust me on this).
Your heart races, your hand shakes, you are full of disbelief and anger at the same time.
Becuase of this, the idea that you are going to do precise, surgical shooting is bunkum.
Which is why I generally prefer a magnum or a big bore over a clip full of hornets. If my shot placement is off, I want to do as much physical damage to the other guy as possible to cease hostilities.

[Teufelhunden]

One of the things NOT reflected in a video game is the art of shooting, as opposed to the science. The mechanics of shooting such as shot placement and supposed commensurate damage can be replicated in a game, but human variables such as reverting to a motion learned by thousands of repetitions can not.

For example, my department has a driving simulator that is composed of the dash area of a Crown Victoria down the details such as the A/C even blowing. You have to turn the ignition to start the scenario, put it in gear and so forth. Feedback is given by three screens; one directly in front of the driver, and two offset to the sides to simulate peripheral vision. Everything would appear to be in place as it is in the real world. Even given all of these conditions, it's not unusual for deputies to fail to even be able to negotiate simple driving tasks (much less pursuits) because there is no physical feedback other than that which your eyes perceive. The speedometer might say 75mph, but failing to feel those forces on your body, deputies merrily attempt to take corners at such speed that would be difficult to negotiate at 35mph, with predictable results.

The same applies to shooting. Your body reacts the way it has been trained without conscious thought when you go into fight/flight mode. When in a position such as that of law enforcement where we have to suppress any flight reaction that might arise and force a fight response, if you are properly trained, things such as sight alignment, sight picture and a deliberate steady squeeze of the trigger to the rear will take care of themselves. If you suffer tunnel vision (which you likely will), you will probably recall seing a perfectly clear front sight superimposed on the target's center of mass.

These reactions depend on properly training yourself, and repeating the tasks of drawing, sighting and squeezing enough to ingrain them into muscle memory so that your body can draw on them when your baser instincts take control.

It's funny how the human body works sometimes.

-Teuf

[Samurai]

But, but, but!!! Some video game controllers have triggers on them!

Seriously, though. I'm a Nintendo 64 Goldeneye master, but on the range with my 1911, I can't seem to hit water if I fall out of a boat! I think playing video games teaches you how to sit in a chair and push buttons on a little remote control.

One thing about First-Person-Shooters that I would apply to real life though: When in a high-intensity anger-management counseling session with an armed assailant, shoot until they drop their weapon (or themselves). After that, you're just wasting ammo and causing yourself grief at the end of the game...

[Jack Malloy]

In our region there is a law enforcement simulator that goes around in the back of an 18 wheeler that has full size screens and multiple shoot, don'/t shoot scenarios. The machine is hooked up to a Glock 17 and a special device works the slide and resets the trigger through compressed air. If you hit the guy on the screen, the screen freezes up.
You will be amazed at how realistic it is, and how badly your shooting is, and how your pulse goes up.

The idea that video games have anything to do with a real shooting or for that matter even a real simulator is rediculous.

[ddelange]

The idea that video games have anything to do with a real shooting or for that matter even a real simulator is rediculous.

I agree about video games, but as to professional simulators, they can be quite effective in teaching officers/students complex shoot/don't shoot situations. I spend time every few months on a Rangemaster simulator at my Shooting Range, and I find it of tremendous benefit to train my brain in those important situations where split second decision making is required. After I'm done with the simulator, I spend an hour at the range to work on my marksmanship.

[Rainbow Six]

As "real" as the sims are, they're still nothing like a real life armed encounter. Not even close. They have some value for practicing judgement but do nothing for shooting skills or simulating the physical or mental aspects of a real shooting. Still just a "game" for all intents and purposes.