2 to the chest, 1 to the groin...

[Erik]

Failure drills come in one of two varieties, shifting your fire up or down. Don't over think it.

[cambeul41]

If someone is coming in my front or back door, a head shot is going to be in line with a front or back neighbor's living-room. A shot to the pelvis, if it misses, is most likely going into turf.

My home defense first shots are going to be aimed at the pelvis.

Interesting idea...

So, how about one with the baseball bat to the chest,

I do keep a short staff by the front door, but there is no room to swing a bat. I would be limited to thrusts and "butt strokes."

In Michigan, one may shoot as the BG is in the process of breaking in. I intend to shoot before they have complete access.

[Nnobby45]

You want to tell me where I said that? I think I was clear enough.

What you were saying is that when protecting one's loved ones, one should act in accordance with your personal morality---even though one would otherwise be acting within the law.

Your statement was a condemnation and severe admonishment of those who see things differently---especially when it comes to having the proper mindset necessary to win the fight and protect themselves and loved ones.

Yes, I'm for retreating and avoiding the problem--just not voluntarily placing myself in the context of being a criminal's intellectual and physical inferior (in his eyes) to meet standards as strict as yours. So strict that even the justice system doesn't impose them.

I imagine that being in a potentially lethal situation would be problematic enough without someone, at the bureaucratic level, placing the added burden of retreat, begging, and "everything possible" (by bureaucrat standards) upon an already highly stressed victim. Don't you?

[JayCee]

You guys are a bunch of bad dudes! No “BG” is going to stand a chance against y’all. Do you think it might even be fun to see what your beloved 357/40/45 would do to a “BG”? Personally, I don’t even want to contemplate where I would shoot another human being if I was forced to do so. And I suspect that if any of you do have the supreme misfortune of having to defend yourself with lethal force, you won’t stand there coolly and surgically aiming your shots as if you were James Bond. So what exactly is the point of this thread? If you want to shoot “BGs”, as WildAlaska said, go join the Army.

[therewolf]

If ya don't want to find out, don't roust me.

I probably won't want to waste my range ammo on some BG's mangy @$$.

He'll probably wish he got shot, if I don't teach him a lesson he'll never

remember.

I don't do tired, cranky, and just got woke up well.

[Glenn Bartley]

Try vertical tracking next time you are at a range where you can use the technique. You start firing from the level the gun clears the holster and as long as the threat is there you continue firing as the pistol moves up to the center of mass and maybe even to the head. Then back to the chest for several shots and down to the pelvic girdle so long as the threat persists. This of course if you have that much bad guy to shoot at and if the threrat still presents itself. Of course, I would hope if you had time to get off as many shots as that would be, you would be moving and seeking cover and maybe be behind it pronto.

[Ryder]

Fracturing the pelvic bone is touted as a way to stop someone from advancing by collapsing their skeletal support structure. It does do that. What it won't do is prevent return fire. That's probably not a good thing

[gearhounds]

Shoot, find cover, return fire on a now much more static target.

[Ryder]

I doubt many carry pistols can be relied on to destroy a pelvic bone.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by huntinaz

So if you think a low center mass shot is worthless, are only head shots effective then because that's the only place you can cause "massive CNS damage?" Why bother with 2 to the chest then? I acknowledged in my original post that a high CNS shot is the most effective way of stopping somebody right now. But I don't think that is necessarily the first place you should aim. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I'm saying in general, a low center mass shot is a good spot to hit somebody.

This thread reminds me why I don;t spend any time in this part of the site. You opened up this thread asking for opinions, and then every opinion that doesn't agree with your new-found wisdom you argue with.
That's a great way to stifle discussion, but not a good way to learn anything.

[Bernieb90]

Dr. Fackler has written the following discussion on shots to the pelvis:


Quote:
Fackler ML: "Shots to the Pelvic Area ". Wound Ballistics Review. 4(1):13; 1999.

“I welcome the chance to refute the belief that the pelvic area is a reasonable target during a gunfight. I can find no evidence or valid rationale for intentionally targeting the pelvic area in a gunfight. The reasons against, however, are many. They include:

-- From the belt line to the top of the head, the areas most likely to rapidly incapacitate the person hit are concentrated in or near the midline. In the pelvis, however, the blood vessels are located to each side, having diverged from the midline, as the aorta and inferior vena cava divide at about the level of the navel. Additionally, the target that, when struck, is the most likely to cause rapid and reliable incapacitation, the spinal cord located in the midline of the abdomen, thorax and neck), ends well above the navel and is not a target in the pelvis.
-- The pelvic branches of the aorta and inferior vena cava are more difficult to hit than their parent vessels -- they are smaller targets, and they diverge laterally from the midline (getting farther from it as they descend). Even if hit, each carry far less blood than the larger vessels from which they originated. Thus, even if one of these branches in the pelvis is hit, incapacitation from blood loss must necessarily be slower than from a major vessel hit higher up in the torso.
-- Other than soft tissue structures not essential to continuing the gunfight (loops of bowel, bladder) the most likely thing to be struck by shots to the pelvis would be bone. The ilium is a large flat bone that forms most of the back wall of the pelvis. The problem is that handgun bullets that hit it would not break the bone but only make a small hole in passing through it: this would do nothing to destroy bony support of the pelvic girdle. The pelvic girdle is essentially a circle: to disrupt its structure significantly would require breaking it in two places. Only a shot that disrupted the neck or upper portion of the shaft of the femur would be likely to disrupt bony support enough to cause the person hit to fall. This is a small and highly unlikely target: the aim point to hit it would be a mystery to those without medical training — and to most of those with medical training.

The “theory” stated in the question postulates that “certain autonomic responses the body undergoes during periods of stress” causes officers to shoot low, and that apparently this is good in a gunfight because such shots cause “severe disability.” I hope that the points presented above debunk the second part of the theory. As for the “autonomic responses” that cause officers to shoot low, I am unaware of anything in the anatomy or physiology of the autonomic nervous system that would even suggest such an occurrence. Most laymen do not understand the function of the autonomic nervous system. It is simply a system whose main function is to fine tune the glands and smooth muscles (those in the walls of organs and blood vessels) of the body. During times of stress such as perceived impending danger, the autonomic nervous system diverts blood from the intestines and digestive organs to the skeletal muscles — in the so-called “fight or flight” response. The effects of this response are constantly exaggerated by laymen who lack an adequate understanding of it — most notably by gun writ-ers eager to impress their readers. Interestingly, the human body can get along quite well without major parts of the autonomic nervous system. During my professional life as a surgeon, myself and colleagues removed parts of thousands of vagus nerves (mostly in treating peptic ulcer disease) -- thus depriving the patient of the major part of the parasympathetic half of the autonomic nervous system. We also removed many ganglia from the sympathetic half of the auto-nomic nervous system, in treating such things as profusely excess sweating and various problems caused by spasm of the arteries. I am unaware of any evidence that these operations produced any significant effect on the future capacity of these patients to react appropriately in times of impending danger.

Unfortunately, the pelvis shot fallacy is common. This fallacy, along with other misinformation, is promoted constantly by at least one gun writer who is widely published in the popular gun press. Because of this, I regularly debunk this fallacy by including some of the above rationale in my presentations to law enforcement firearm instructor groups.”

[Nnobby45]

Unfortunately, the pelvis shot fallacy is common. This fallacy, along with other misinformation, is promoted constantly by at least one gun writer who is widely published in the popular gun press. Because of this, I regularly debunk this fallacy by including some of the above rationale in my presentations to law enforcement firearm instructor groups.”

The esteemed doctor discusses that matter as if some advocate the pelvic area as a preferred target as opposed to more vital areas.

So what if removing the vagus nerve had little effect on the future physical ability of certain patients. The question is whether a bullet would undermine the skeletal structure and cause collapse, should the pelvis need to become the target in an emergency when other vitals might not be available---like being protected by a vest. Seems to be some support for the practice, but I'd like to see some data involvong actual shootings.

While Dr. Fackler is certainly an expert on wound ballistics from the living and dead, and on medical proceedures performed on the living--- to what extent is he an expert on how fast any of his subjects were incapacitated and not capable of fighting back? Yes, I know, some would be obvious.

And finally, why do we have to look at the pelvis as some kind of magic formula to ending gunfights? Why not consider it a legitimate target if it presents itself, and just one option---even if it isn't the best one. Or is it?

[Glenn Bartley]

Here is one of the reasons that head and pelvic girdle and even upper thigh shots are taken:

http://www.secondchance.com/products/deepcover.asp(sorry, I will not copy the pic to here and violate copyright)

Do you see why you might need to shoot other than center of mass. You probably would not see it if in a gun battle with a guy wearing the same because it would likely be concealed. So if you fire shots to the chest and get them dead center, well let's just say you can remove the word dead from that phrase because it probably is not going to happen, especially if the armor plate is inside its pocket. So what next - shot(s) to the head or to the pelvis? The head is one of the most difficult body parts to hit - even on a stationary human target - but it is a legitimate target if chest shots don't do it.

The pelvis, as opposed to what doctor Fackler has to say is also a legitimate target and maybe better than the head. It is an easier target to hit than the head. Doubt it then using an upturned thumb, held out at arms length, as a sight, watch a person just walking and hold on his head for several seconds. Then do likewise but sight in on the pelvis. WARNING - DANGER ALERT - WARNING - DO NOT TRY THIS USING A GUN OF ANY SORT, NOT A REAL ONE NOT A TOY ONE NOR ANYTHING THAT COULD BE MISTAKEN FOR A GUN AND DO NOT MAKE YOUR HAND LOOK LIKE A GUN BY POINTING YOUR INDEX FINGER OUT WHILE DOING THIS. ONLY DO THIS WHILE HOLDING YOUR CLOSED FIST OUT AT ARMS LENGTH WITH THE THUMB IN THE THUMBS UP POSITION. Do this with several people for the pelvis and several others for the head. Make sure when sighting, you do not move your thumb or your head - stay immobile - keep stationary. Remember you are wanting to see which body area on the other person remains sighted in for the most time - or in other words which one moves more and which less - you are not trying to see if you can hold on target but how much each area of the target is moving to see which would be easier to hold on. Now, try the same on several people who are just standing there on a street corner. Which part moves more, the head or the pelvis. If it is the head that seems to have moved less - you have either done something wrong or sighted in on folks with neck braces or fused vertebrae. Don’t do this all at once. Someone may call the cops about the weirdo on the street who is giving everyone the thumbs up signal. I have done it, looking out the window, while sitting in a café enjoying a coffee, while stopped at a traffic light from inside my car and so forth. I do it unobtrusively and if anyone notices I just stop and continue at some other place and time. Note, don’t bother doing this with images on a TV screen as the camera often moves with the actors and that totally negates the experiment.

If you shoot at the head - for the sake of discussion lets use right between the eyes as an aiming point - then miss - where does the shot go? You have only a few inches up and to either side and beyond that the shot goes wild. You have a lot of body to hit below the head. On the other hand, if you shoot at the pelvis/groin area, aiming center of it, you have somewhat more left to right target than on a head shot and you have target above and below the pelvic area - the torso above the pelvis where it is not protected by the vest or belt and the legs below (and in the case of a male, the family jewels). Now, someone please explain to me, how is it that what we were told of what Dr. Fackler says makes any sense. Remember, we have already eliminated the reasoning of Dr. Fackler, who essentially said to shoot center mass, because our guy is wearing body armor that has been effective by making our torso shots essentially ineffective.

You see, the possibly very medically knowledgeable doctor speaks only to anatomy and the effects of a bullet on the body. He totally leaves out the whole idea that an opponent could be wearing body armor, heavy layered clothing over the chest, be bobbing and swaying making the head a much more difficult target to hit opposed to the pelvis, and on and on. He is suffering from a case of 'tunnel vision' maybe because he is so stuck up in his own ego in as much as he believes he knows best, as to fail to realize that yes there are other considerations besides which area is the best to hit for best effect when shooting at a naked man who is absolutely stationary. He is looking at it from the clinical point of view, from the safety and security of an operating room or morgue or lab, not from a practical viewpoint of actually being in a gunfight. He has examined people and dead bodies after the fact of them having been shot badly enough for them to get to him. How many bad guys do you think he has examined that had been wearing body armor when they were shot and then got away because the shots were effectively stopped by the armor and because the good guy who was shooting back only kept aiming center mass? For anyone to say that pelvic shots are never reasonable just does not have a clue as to what can happen in a real shooting situation.

All the best,
Glenn B

[Glenn Bartley]

The one con, as I see it, is that the absolute best way to somebody advancing is a brain/high CNS shot. You hit that and the response is indeed immediate. I'm a hunter and I have seen this first hand.

This is not a given. First of all, the brain is protected by the skull. Hitting the head does not necessarily mean penetration. Many shots to the head have resulted in the bullet being deflected or simply stopped by the skull. Secondly, a bullet entering the brain does not necessarily mean incapacitation. This may not happen often but has been known to happen. One example: I worked in an hospital ER in NYC years ago, when a gunshot victim was brought into the ER. I was the square badge who had to keep an eye on him. Despite having been shot in the head with what they figured was a 38 to 45 caliber bullet, the man was awake for almost the whole time I was in the ER (at least almost all of an 8 hour shift). The x-rays showed the bullet had broken into two pieces, one went almost straight back into his brain lodging in either the frontal or parietal lobe, the other went down toward the cerebellum, lodging either in it or the temporal lobe. I saw his x-rays. I saw the wound in his forehead. This man was awake, alert, mobile, in severe pain, and begging for someone to do something to help him. They stabilized him and were waiting for a surgeon who would operate, he was expected to arrive in about 12 to 16 hours. I do not remember if he survived but can tell you that a shot to pretty much center mass of the brain, that then took two paths inside the brain, did not kill or immobilize him. There are other well recorded cases of severe brain trauma that did not immobilize or kill the victim.

Even if the head shot was a given for incapacitation, as I said in my previous post, the head is not an easy target to hit.

All the best,
Glenn B

[Glenn Bartley]

Folks who advocate such silliness know nothing about our justice system to go with their ignorance of morality and physiology

???Why not spell out just what you mean???

[smince]

Based on this discussion on another site (a few years ago), and from both LEO and Doc's who have operated on, witnessed, or did the actual shooting here is some info:

1. Anatomical - the pelvis is a ring structure. To make it unstable it must be broken in two places not just one. The pelvis is a large bone not easily broken by pistols. The spots where the pelvis may be broken by small arms are the two narrow spots that can be designated by the pocket line on a pair of jeans.

2. If it's the only shot you have, take it. A hole in the pelvic region of your opponent certainly beats no holes at all. Be prepared to make follow up shots, cause that shot isn't likely to do it alone. While a GSW to the pelvis is a bad thing. It isn't something likely to immediately stop your attacker from continuing to try to kill you, especially if you shot him with a pistol.

3. If you can hit a major vessel or a nerve then you may see some more immediate incapacitation, however, most of these structures are deep and well protected (the femoral artery is a bit deeper than you might think). The legs/thighs and buttocks are thick and dense and will often serve as further barriers. Remember, even bleeding out of a major pelvic artery can and will take some time. This is not reliable as an injury that will result in instant/quick incapacitation.

[Wildalaska]

???Why not spell out just what you mean???

Its not my job to think for folks.

WildyoushouldbeabletofigureouttheprosandconsofmystatementAlaska ™©2002-2011

[Stevie-Ray]

Then I guess you have rejected a tactical technique that can save your life, or alternatively, your psychic manhood needs some taming.

My manhood? You're the one sick of testosterone. soundslikeyouvegotplentyofestrogen

Or you have a lawyer on retainer

Got a good one, thanks.

Your CPL isnt for pride. Its to defend your life.

Exactly, and if I pull a gun to defend my life, I don't expect to preface it with cowering and begging and pleading for my life. If you have to do this in Alaska, I'm so glad I live in Michigan. Let me know how that works out for you. But then again, I guess you wouldn't be able to.

[Wildalaska]

Exactly, and if I pull a gun to defend my life, I don't expect to preface it with cowering and begging and pleading for my life.

So are you saying you would rather shoot than excersize every means to avoid a shoot?

WildihopeyoudontthinkimstupidenoughtoignoreallthescenarioswherethecoweringandbeggingisimpossibleAlaska ™©2002-2011

[Glenn Bartley]

WildAlaska,

Let me say it: Yes I would rather shoot in many situations of which I can think rather than try everything else to avoid shooting You see, by trying everything else, I give my attacker more time to kill me. You would have to be an absolute fool to actually do otherwise in some life threatening situations where the immediacy of the threat meant your time was up. In addition, you would quite possibly be extremely foolish and wind up dead by trying options other than deadly force to combat the threat of deadly force. If someone here does not see the practicality in that which I just wrote then that person or persons has very little going in the way of knowledge about criminals who have committed homicide or seriously injured people. If you do not see the morality in it (because you can bet your bottom dollar it is absolutely moral to defend yourself from the threat of death or bodily harm rather than to try EVERYTHING else and thus wind up dead because you were too worried about being moral) then it is your life to live and to lose. Please, do not expect everyone else to be like you and do not judge their morality based upon your own. Now please get off of your holier than thou high horse and talk the tactics that are the subject of this thread and stop it with your own personal brand of morality.

IambeginningtothinktheanswerquitepossiblycouldbeyesbaseduponyourpostsherebutIwouldhopeotherwise.

With all due respect,
Glenn B

[Capt. Charlie]

And, this one's a wrap.

I expected this to be a hot topic from the beginning, but I'd hoped the issue could be debated without things getting personal. So much for hoping.

Closed, for incivility and way too much chest thumping.