COM vs. Abdomen Targeting

[JustThisGuy]

I read a wonderful article on Terminal Ballistics written by a former LEO who now works in a morgue. He writes about first-hand witnessing of many, many gun shot deaths and the evidence those leave as to caliber, placement and bullet type.

It's a very interesting read. http://www.gunthorp.com/Terminal%20B...a%20morgue.htm

He covers bullet caliber and type better than most that I have read (he likes heavy big bullets after seeing many one-shot kills with .40/.45s while smaller calibers 9mm/.380 often require many hits to stop the BG.)

One of the points I thought about after reading this is the argument for/against Center of Mass vs. Abdomen Targeting.

For COM:
- Lots of important organs
- Easier to hit than head, spine, etc.

Against COM:
- Must reliably penetrate bones to ensure stopping power
- BR Vests
- Shot misses can go through walls, etc. or beyond to innocent bystanders.

For Abdomen:
- No ribcage; penetration assured if hit
- Very painful area when hit from below ribcage to groin
- Most stable area (less movement than upper body or head)
- Downward firing angle may reduce possibility for unintended targets if BG is missed.

Against Abdomen:
- Heart or head is always better if you can hit it

I'm wondering if anyone has seen any evidence either way on Abdomen hits or can offer opinions.

[JimPage]

I'm sure you realize the difference between mortal and stopping wounds, but your post of the LEO's comments is mixing of the two. I think they should be separate data points, but a morgue worker wouldn't know how/when the corpse stopped the attack -- or whether it was attacking at all.

Having said that, I think you have to assume that in such a situation one will be not at his best performance levels. Because of that I advocate COM shots. If that doesn't stop him because of armor then go for the head or groin. Just my 2 cents.

[Vt.birdhunter]

For Abdomen:
- No ribcage; penetration assured if hit
- Very painful area when hit from below ribcage to groin
- Most stable area (less movement than upper body or head)
- Downward firing angle may reduce possibility for unintended targets if BG is missed.

I must admit, some interesting points raised.

I just cant get over the simple fact that abdominal wounds are more likely to take more time to incapacitate a BG that COM wounds.

[BfloBill]

I'm sure that in a SD situation (since we are not living in fantasy land) our accuracy will drop, for that reason alone I will always go COM. It also sounds to me like you are mixing up Center Of Mass with shooting for the heart/chest. Unless I've been misinterpreting it all this time center of mass IS your upper abdomen.

[JimPage]

BfloBill:

You're right about where center of mass is. But I think that you would find that the center of mass is like a bullseye with hits sprinkled around it. As the serousness of the situation increases, the group size increases and I assume that will include the thorax/heart/belly.

[BfloBill]

That's exactly my point. Anything that goes a little high or low is still in an area where the threat can be neutralized. A shot at the abdomen that goes low may be as useless as a head shot that goes high.

I realize you may get lucky and catch a hip or groin shot, but there are already enough variables to worry about. Either way it sounds like we are arguing the same point.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

There are two ways you physically force a target to stop doing something threatening with a firearm:

1. You drop blood pressure to the brain until the brain doesn't function
2. You directly damage the central nervous system

The reason the upper thoracic cavity is targeted is because that's where the targets are. Looking at your pros:

1. What good is penetration unless you penetrate what you need to hit?
2. Pain relies on psychological deterrence, which varies from person to person depending on their state of mind.
3. Yes, it is a stable area full of intestines - see #1 above
4. Situationally dependent, it may reduce or may increase depending on many random factors.

[mete]

The upper thoracic cavity [ above the COM] is the best for stopping. Lots of critical stuff up there .That's been known for many years but many haven't gotten past the COM theory.

[cambeul41]

It would be hard to carry on with a shattered pelvis.

For my home defense, a missed COM shot at a goblin coming in the front or back door is likely to strike a neighbor's house. A missed pelvis shot is more likely to strike turf.

In that one situation at least, I have decided to shoot for the pelvis if feasible

[Brasscatcher84]

I remember reading an article by Massad Ayoob in which he states that he usually keeps his sidearm trained on the groin of the suspect. He mentions the fact that it is an extreme psychological factor, and that a bullet shattering the pelvic girdle is going to immediately and severely hamper mobility and probably put the BG on the ground.

[moose_nukelz]

I am not worried about trying to put someone down with one shot in a SD/HD situation. I have a full magazine in the gun plus a reload and will use as many as I need to stop the threat. If that is one then great, but if it takes four or five then that is what he/they are going to get. As long as my rounds are having a positive effect then I consider that a success.

[Mello2u]

To be fair you have to add:

- BR Vests
- Shot misses can go through walls, etc. or beyond to innocent bystanders.

To the list of:

Against Abdomen:
- Heart or head is always better if you can hit it

Additionally, pain would or would not be an issue to the same extent in both instances of being shot in the thorax or the abdomen. Some people feel it some do not; and some who do feel it continue to fight.

If you consider what are the mechanisms of incapacitation upon which you can rely, it comes down to three.
1) a central nervous system hit which is so devastating that it stop aggression.
2) Hitting a support bone such as the femur which will drop the threat. Might not stop the fight.
3) Massive blood loss due to destroyed vascular tissue. This is most readily accomplished by hitting center of mass and penetrating through the body destroying tissue and causing hemorrhaging.



This third mechanism is by far the largest target volume. When using defensive tactics this is the preferred target to ensure hits and to stop the threat. However, one trade-off compared to a central nervous system hit which is likely to immediately stop the threat; the COM hits may take several seconds to stop the threat. This is balanced by the much larger volume that a COM represents compared to either of the other two mechanisms of stopping a threat.

As always, this is another set of factors which represent compromises you should consider when choosing how you may defend yourself using deadly force. Just as a handgun is a tool which is a compromise of size, weight, and power; the tactics you use are the results of (hopefully) informed decisions where you weigh the pluses and minuses to arrive at a workable plan to increase your likelihood of winning a gun fight.

Bones, including ribs depending upon the angle on incidence, can deflect bullets from their path. There are instances of people shot with a 230gr FMJ .45ACP where a rib deflected the bullets so that it never penetrated the ribcage, but traveled under the skin and exited out the other side. This giving the superficial appearance of a through and through thorax shot.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

It would hard to carry on with a shattered pelvis

It would be harder still to shatter the pelvis (in two places no less) with a handgun. The whole reason this discussion started is because the OP was concerned about a handgun bullet deflecting off a ribcage. Now we are talking about "shattering" a large, weight-bearing bone with the same round that may glance off a rib? In a previous thread on this subject, I posted an account of a soldier who was shot in the pelvis with 7.62x54R and kept on fighting (and moving).

Even those instructors who teach aiming for the pelvis, teach it as an alternate target to the thoracic cavity, not a primary target.

Edited to add links to previous threads:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=416452
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=450786

[mavracer]

COM vs. Abdomen Targeting

for a psycological stop pain and discomfort may be enough and it won't matter. Problem with that is that decision is not yours and you have no control what so ever on Mr BGs deciding how much pain is enough to stop him.

[secret_agent_man]

I read a wonderful article on Terminal Ballistics written by a former LEO who now works in a morgue

It was quickly obvious when that poop was first posted on the internet that deadmeat2 was a troll, and the entire thing an elaborate fabrication.

Shortly thereafter, this particular body of work began to be widely cited as an authoritative source of information concerning ballistics.

You want to suck on that teat, go ahead. But it's crap.

[threegun]

A shot at the abdomen that goes low may be as useless as a head shot that goes high.

A miss low and into the pelvic girdle is far from useless. Many including myself target this area if COM is not effective and the head shot is not practical.

There are two ways you physically force a target to stop doing something threatening with a firearm:

1. You drop blood pressure to the brain until the brain doesn't function
2. You directly damage the central nervous system

IMO there are three ways to physically force a stop. The two you mentioned and a hit to the upper spinal cord from the nipples to the head. Instant paralysis of all extremities.

[Mello2u]

secret_agent_man

It was quickly obvious when that poop was first posted on the internet that deadmeat2 was a troll, and the entire thing an elaborate fabrication.

Shortly thereafter, this particular body of work began to be widely cited as an authoritative source of information concerning ballistics.

You want to suck on that teat, go ahead. But it's crap.

I followed the link in the OP. That post by Deadmeat2 runs more than 26,000 words. I did not find it interesting enough to read all of it. It is an "ok" read; but is it authoritative? I would not use it as a source upon which to decide about what to shoot or where.

Deadmeat2 a Troll? I don't know. I'm not going to register for the forum where he posted to see whether Deadmeat2 has posted anything more or the responses to his posts.

[mavracer]

IMO there are three ways to physically force a stop. The two you mentioned and a hit to the upper spinal cord from the nipples to the head. Instant paralysis of all extremities.

Umm the spinal cord is part of the CNS.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Mello2u: It is an "ok" read; but is it authoritative?

Highly questionable at best. First, the man contends that he "sees" 3000 autopsies per year in his morgue in Atlanta. The total number of homicides of all kinds in Atlanta the year of the posting was 85.

Second, his statement "One of the benefits of working in a morgue is that I get to see what works and what doesn't" is nonsensical. If he works in a morgue, one presumes that he "gets to see" dead people. What does he mean by "what works and what doesn't"? Does he have any idea at all which of his alleged viewings involved an effective stop and which did not?

Third, the number of variables in the physiology and psychology of firearms effectiveness is so large that it is extremely doubtful that there are enough real data from which to draw any reliable conclusions.

Such data would have to extend far beyond what the busiest person in a morgue would be able to see and would have to include recorded observations of which shots of each caliber entering at each point of entry wound and penetrating and hitting what part of the anatomy in what order resulted in what immediate effects on each individual who had been shot.

Too many unknowns and too few equations, I'm afraid.

[armsmaster270]

I can speak of only one instance, He stopped doing the dangerous thing he was doing right now..




Recoverd slug Federal 38+P+ 110grJHP

[Archer 9505]

Some of the active duty guys that I have worked with say that they have started aiming for the pelvic girdle to "put down" insurgents. Who am I to disagree? It makes sense to me. There are a lot of large blood vessels, arteries, major nerves plus heavy load bearing skeletal structures in the pelvic girdle. A home defense load of 00 or #1 buck at the belt buckle would be devastating.

[JustThisGuy]

Thanks for all the replies. This has been a very interesting and enlightening discussion.

I don't know whether DM2 is a troll or not, but the many posts and his replies spawned a lot of interesting discussion both on the original thread and on this one. Interestingly, through all those pages of words nobody on the original thread questioned his credentials. I'm not saying anything about whether he is legit or not, just that nobody on his thread questioned that.

As to the efficacy of abdomen shots, he does not advocate that; it's just something I was thinking about. I have talked to a couple of Rangers who target abdomens in close quarter combat when innocents are in the vicinity.

In an urban environment with neighbors close by it makes sense to try to minimize possible unintended casualties as well as optimizing take-down effect. Also the effect of having a gun pointed at the jewels is apparently disturbing to most BGs, though I haven't tried that personally.

I appreciate all the good input. I love TFL for its members thoughtfulness, professionalism, common sense and politeness. Kudos to TFL's moderators for keeping TFL the greatest gun forum on the internet.

[MikeNice81]

I've had to draw twice. Both times I was aiming dead betwwen the nipples. Well my closest guess to where that would be. You basically are aiming at the heart and lungs. Besides the brain and spine those are the best targets. They are also easier to hit.

The abdomen is good if you can place a shot in the stomach or liver. Other wise chances are you aren't hitting anything "vital." If you aren't hitting anything vital the other guy can do a lot of damage. Just look at Platt in Miami. That guy should have stopped from the pain. He didn't. Your bad guy might be just as determined.

[Don P]

Deadmeat2 a Troll? I don't know. I'm not going to register for the forum where he posted to see whether Deadmeat2 has posted anything more or the responses to his posts.

Can't say for sure if he is a troll or not and on the same note can't state whether he is former LE working a morgue.

He did state he was going to stop posting due to in his words folks arguing about the good old caliber wars.

It was quickly obvious when that poop was first posted on the internet that deadmeat2 was a troll, and the entire thing an elaborate fabrication.

Shortly thereafter, this particular body of work began to be widely cited as an authoritative source of information concerning ballistics.

You want to suck on that teat, go ahead. But it's crap.

Any proof to the above quote other than your word/opinion/thoughts?

[Mike Irwin]

Another "against" reason for not going for the abdomen...

Lack of vital structures/organs means rapid incapacitation is by no means assured.