2 to the Body, 1 to the Head OR 3 shots to Center Mass?

[buzz_knox]

I am more comfortable with my ability to hit COM, or at least in the torso area, than I am the head, so that is where I will aim.

I was in the same boat until this weekend, when I did Stage 2 handgun with Louis Awerbuck. Suddenly, head shots became a far easier proposition, even on the move.

[Dwight55]

At least in central Ohio, . . . a head shot is perhaps SOP for LEO's when there is a situation requiring it.

Example: dude came in a nightclub with Beretta 9mm, muscled his way onto the stage, shot and killed the drummer and lead guitarist. Was trying to do some kind of hostage thing and if I remember correctly, . . . had pumped a few other rounds out for effect.

LEO arrived, took out his 870 with 00 buck, . . . shot bg in the face at something like 15 feet. Of course, . . . end of situation. Last I heard, the LEO was given a clean bill over it, . . . and I take that as tacit approval to use a head shot (at least in Columbus, Ohio) should the situation warrant it.

Just don't carry your CCW near the mayor, . . . he is an unapologetic lunatic when someone mentions firearms to him. He makes Sarah Brady look like an NRA vice president.

May God bless,
Dwight

[otasan]

His article in the Aug 2005 edition of Combat Handguns discusses this issue. He recommends two center chest shots, assess reaction, and then apply the head shot. It is an interesting read.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The question was whether a head shot would look bad in court, not whether all us tactical superstars can make them.

I think, to rope the thread in, the answer is that the initial concern is unfounded and a misconception of the term shooting to stop. It does not mean shooting to immobilize while minimizing harm.

That was the point. Head shots on moving folks are difficult to make. Unless you hit the right part of the noggin, they can be ineffective but that wasn't the question.

[Para Bellum]

...ask your opponent when he personally will stop attacking you.

[stephen426]

Law enforcement have their badge and their training on their side. Unless there are witnesses or video evidence, winning a police brutality and any case against the state for that matter is not easy. There are some obvious cases where excessive force is use but the attorneys will say that the person was struggling while the the officer was trying to make an arrest and injured themself in the process.

The following is my opinion so please don't treat this as fact. If you are talking about civilians, I feel a head shot is more likely to bring about civil lawsuits from the deceased's family, even if the state rules the shooting justifiable. When you have to have a closed casket funeral because you popped some guy in the mellon (who I am sure deserved it), his family will make you out to be a cold blooded killer and sue you because his is not able to bring home the bacon he robbed someone of. Head shots require more skill and allows their attorney to paint you as a "gun nut" who was just itching to shoot someone. They will try to say that lethal force was not necessary and that you wrongfully killed their family member. Most importantly, they will want YOU to PAY FOR IT!!! Never mind that the deceased never knew who his daddy really was. His momma was so busy smoking that crack pipe and tuning so many tricks that even she ain't sure who the daddy is. The kid was probably beat several times a day and made to sell himself on the street so he could bring home some more drug money. The minute you ended his miserable existance though, you will see how much his family "loved" him and what a positive member of society he was... HIV positive is more likely. No matter, he will bring home the bacon one way or another... dead or alive and it will be your bacon they are after.

Enough ranting about this. Sorry if I got a little carried away. Shoot until the threat no longer exists. If that means one between the eyes, so be it. I just think a stupid jury and an scumbag attorney may end up feeling sorry for these poor people who lost their kid to some gun nut that was just looking to kill someone.

[smince]

I've been one to subscribe to shooting COM, and if that doesn't stop the threat, do the Pelvic Shot. A moving head is a small target compared to the rest of the body.

But, in the words of one of my shooting partners: "Always fire at least two warning shots to the chest before shooting them somewhere else."

[Mannlicher]

too many folks here worry WAY too much about what a jury might think or do. The ONLY thought that should be in your pea picking brain at 'crunch time', is stopping the guy trying to ice you. Whatever it takes, thats what ya gotta do. You can hire a damn attorney later to handle the fall out. Geez!

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Sigh - what silly people are out there. I've said my piece before for the rationales. Do what you want.

Oh - the folks who are against head shots for 'legal beagle' reasons, might you let us know your level of tactical training and did you share your doctrine with your instructor?

[shaggy]

If you've got legal justification to defend yourself with deadly force it doesn't matter whether you put three into the chest or two into the mellon. Hell, if you are legally justified in using deadly force to defend yourself, you could whip out old Ma Deuce and reduce the BG to a fine red mist. As long as you don't stand over the BG and put one into him while he's laying on the ground incapacitated or shoot him while he's running away (but these both go to the issue of justification). Remember the word "deadly" in the term "deadly force"? You're not going to face criminal charges because you intended to kill the BG with shots to the head as opposed to trying to incapacitate him with shots to CoM if you were otherwise justified. Both have the potential to be ineffective, and both have the potential to incapacitate or kill the assailant. Absent some other facts or circumstances any civil proceeding initated by the assailant is going to go the same way. Anyone care to cite a successful civil suit by an assailant (or his estate) where the victim was cleared of criminal charges based upon the justification of self-defense?

If you need to shoot, just make sure you've got legal justification then shoot as you've trained - whether that be two to the chest and one to the head or three to the head, etc. The instant they no longer present a threat for which you would be legally justified in shooting, STOP.

[918sgt]

Hey, is it your fault he ducked while you were shooting CM?

[Para Bellum]

...ask your opponent when he personally will stop attacking you.

sorry for that rude post, I was in a bad mood. Now I'm calm and had a piece of cake.

1.) In my country (Austria) gun incidents are rare although we have a very high number of legal private arms. A jewler shot a burgler in the head about a year ago. He wasn't even tried. The DA dropped the case. I repeat: The jewler shot him in the head, no COM, he went right for the brain.
The jewler was waiting in a back room of his shop because his steel rolling shutters were damaged the night beofre. His insurance told him he has to guard the shop until the rolling shutters were fixed or they won't pay in case he was hit. So he did it himself and slept in the back of his shop ready with his gun. Three burglars came back. He shot one right in the head. The others decided not to enjoy the view and left peacfully but rather FAST.

2.) I'd shoot COM until the threat drops or I realize that COM doesn't work (vest!) then I'd go pelvic or head, whatever my fear, adrenalin, skill and distance would make me do.

Stay safe and sound.

[LAK]

otasan

Chuck Taylor Chimes in on This One
His article in the Aug 2005 edition of Combat Handguns discusses this issue. He recommends two center chest shots, assess reaction, and then apply the head shot. It is an interesting read

That's the one I erroneously earlier as being penned by Clint Smith. Had a dig through the local rag rack today and found it again.

I think his notion that to simply "keep shooting COM 'til they drop" encourages spray and pray might have much merit. As opposed to two quick COM, and if there is no immediate effect, slowing down a tenth and aiming for the nose/eyeline.

[Erik]

Head or chest, lethal force is lethal force.

You are either justified in its use or not.

Justified? Shoot head or chest as many times as required as prudence dictates.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

At the NTI , we were face with several targets that were reactive and would drop dependent on the incidence of the hit.

I think the Tyler, TX shooting indicates that in today's world, shooting into COM until they drop is NOT a plan.

[OBIWAN]

I would humbly suggest that any definitive plan like 2com/1h is the wrong way to train.

I am more a proponent of the NSR...or shooting them till they are no longer a threat, while aiming at the COM of whatever is showing...even if it is only their Butt (can I say butt? )

I worry that building the 2+1 muscle memory may leave you floundering where;

The BG does not present his whole body, let alone his head

The 3 shots are not enough (only a good centered hit to the head is anywhere near a sure thing)

Just like people that always train to double tap, I have a picture of them standing there thinking...."he should be dead...what now" as the BG empties his pistol into them.

The head shot, when available, is always a good idea when COM is not working...for whatever reason....

I just don't approve of having a "standard" response

[XavierBreath]

Every situation is unique, and for a civilian, tactics in movement and not getting killed play a more important role than getting hits on the BG. The standard for me is 2 COM and assess. This is because I am moving towards cover. A head shot decreases your effective target area by at least 75%. Whether your accuracy likewise decreases will depend on how you train. One thing is almost certain, neither you nor your BG will be standing still. If you do not train with this in mind, a head shot is risky indeed. My range for a fairly certain moving head shot is 10 feet. If 2 COM hits gets me home safe, then it's all I need. If I must try a head shot, it will be because the threat is still there, and closing quickly.

[CastleBravo]

You have to be alive to worry about the court case later.

Do whatever has the best odds of keeping you alive in the situation you are in. If you've got a good headshot in a situation where somebody is trying to kill or maim you, take it; don't choose a course of action less likely to keep you alive because of amateur-hour legalistic jerking off you did in your head on a gun forum.

[k9lwt]

2 com, as many to the head as it takes to stop. If he's still coming after two to the chest, he's already got issues.

[LAK]

OBIWAN

I am more a proponent of the NSR...or shooting them till they are no longer a threat, while aiming at the COM of whatever is showing

The opposing theory holds that after the first strike or two the reaction of the nervous system dulls the sensitivity to the rest, and failing a CNS strike the antagonist might be a threat longer than if a deliberate attempt is made for a CNS hit in the head.

And this does make sense. Anyone - or most people - that have ever suffered a serious traumatic injury will often note the lack of excruciating pain during the actual event that caused the injury due to shock.

I worry that building the 2+1 muscle memory may leave you floundering where ..... etc ... I just don't approve of having a "standard" response

I agree, and I think that people like Clint Smith would as well. But for the single attacker at close quarters one must at least have a starting point.

If we look at averages, we can say something like (for the sake of arguement) 3 shots, 3 seconds, at 3 yards. We can say that a certain number of antagonists are going to give up at various stages, but lets begin with the ones that give up after receiving one solid hit in the upper torso.

What about the ones that take a whole magazine or cylinder full (or more) and are still on their feet? In these encounters, if the engagement begins at "X-yards and closing fast", something much more decisive is called for.

I think the Mozambique drill has perhaps been viewed as a sort of programmed response but I do not think that is how it is professionally taught by those who advocate it. Clint Smith for example notes that one difficulty in learning and effectively employing this is that a conscious transition is called for between the second and third shot in order to make a more carefully placed shot on a smaller target. This transition involves (I believe as he describes it) slowing down about a tenth of a second and taking just that fraction more care in placing the shot. And so far we have only described the mechanics of the shooting.

This ties in with the complete process; in which the first two COM are the "programmed response" part one, a fractional momentary evaluation part two, and the first attempt at the head shot part three. And so on; it does not stop there by any means either.

[dtom72]

In the debate about head or body, I see Law Enforcement brought in. I also saw a person talking about worrying about liability "way too much".

#1: Law Enforcement officers are held to a much higher standard than any civilian. The "rigorous" training they are put throught places them in a position to better decide what to do in cituations. In order to minimize liability, officers are taught center mass, not to kill, but to stop the threat. Also, center mass is a much easier mass concept to teach. NOW, if you get into SWAT tactics, they are a much elevated and specialized training. There is where you can effectively teach and pull off a 2 to 1 shot.

#2: Even as a civilian, you still need to worry about law suits...unless you are like me and can't afford to pay attention. Besides, there are anti-gun DA's out there that have no problems trying to after a percieved gun fanatic taking matters into his own hands by blowing away some poor soul who can be rehabilitated.

#3: DAMNED what you are taught. My understanding from an officer....accomplished armorer....and competition shooter is.....shoot him in the hips. NO ONE can get to you if he mechanically cannot walk...on PCP or not. Stand up in court with that one.

"Yes, sir, I felt as if he was going to kill me...he had a knife. I didn't want to kill him, so I shot him in the hip so he wouldn't die. I just couldn't live with killing him. He is just a poor misunderstood guy. Can I give him a hug?"

[CyberSEAL]

Obviously this depends on the scenario. If I'm accosted at close range by 3 armed men, then I'm looking at 3 quick headshots. If it's 2 men at a more medium range, one headshot for BG #1 and a two to the chest of BG #2.

[Para Bellum]

from what I have heared and read the only reliable way to stop an attacker (especially drugged ones) is to shoot the brain stem.

I have read reports from soldiers who hit Iraqis three times with rifle rounds and the Iraqis kept shooting back.

So I assume that with any gun, a sure stop can only be achieved by a hit in the brain stem...

[frog29]

It really depends on the situation. In the SEAL Teams a lot of our standard work-up protocals are with Mogadishu drills (2 to the chest 1 to the head) but it would be dependant upon the situation. I would not worry about court legalities. If it is the way you shoot to defend your life then it is what you do.

I mentioned above it depends on the situation...over in Iraq and Afghanistan (Ive been both) - neither one ever puts you in a scenario that follows exactly how you planned it. To sum it up - if you have to drop someone...put as many shots as you need to into any area of the body that you need to. Ive seen shoulder shots take a guy down and Ive seen COM shots do nothing more than stun a guy. Head is uaully a good fail safe though (the purpose of the drills)

[boogeyman]

i have to say that all i know on this is what i have learned in college concerning the anatomy of humans. analyze the situation a.s.a.p. and make the best shot(s) you can possibly make cause that is probably going to be your only chance.

to answer the question though, i would have to assume from purely a anatomical standpoint that the 2CM and 1H would have a much higher probability of disturbing the cns(central nervous system) and subsequently downing the assailant. obvious reasons being how much difference could an extra shot make to an already damaged cns that is already reacting from the first two shots. if he/she is still charging/standing/shooting etc. after the first two, put that front sight up just a tad and take the head shot.