Shoot at the pelvis to stop an attack?

[stonewall50]

Originally Posted by DMK

I just finished reading Combat Shooting with Massad Ayoob (free read on Kindle if you have Amazon Prime BTW). It's a great read and I highly recommend it, along with Deadly Force - Understanding Your Right to Self Defense, another free Prime Reader book.



An interesting point in that book though; Ayoob makes a case for shooting at the pelvic girdle if possible, instead of upper chest in a self defense situation. His rational is that a fractured pelvic girdle will cause an attacker to immediately collapse under their own weight, where even with a heart shot, an attacker might have enough blood in their brain to continue an attack for a few seconds (such as in a Tueller Drill situation).



He backed up his advice with commentary from medical experts and even talked of a police officer who was shot in the heart with a .357, killed her attacker and amazingly survived the gun shot. He also talked about criminals who were shot in the head and continued to fight. One attacker took 10 rounds from a officer at contact distance including head shots before he dropped from a pelvic shot. (He talks at length about the problems with head shots as well)



I have never heard anyone but Ayoob make this recommendation. Have any of you heard of this in your training or research?

I had this SAME thought the other day.

I spoke with my girlfriend about the idea too. She got her degree in anthropology and is now doing physical therapy school. So she is "familiar" with biomechanics to say the least lol. The CONCEPT is VERY sound. BUT...it is also about as logical as shooting for the knee (that is my addition). The target is actually quite small. What you actually NEED to hit is very limited and if you DONT hit it...you likely did nothing other than piss the target off. Maybe you caused a slow painful death after weeks in government funded hospital care.

Aiming for the head makes more sense, as does the center mass of the target. For sure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Danoobie]

IMO, the pelvis shot does two effective things:

1.-Recoil and muzzle rise allow for more chances of a
vital hit at CBM, neck and head.

2.-Word gets out that we are shooting BGs in the jewels.
This may cause a drop in violent crime, overall.

[OldMarksman]

IMO, the pelvis shot does two effective things:

1.-Recoil and muzzle rise allow for more chances of a
vital hit at CBM, neck and head.

That would indicate very poor shooting.

2.-Word gets out that we are shooting BGs in the jewels.
This may cause a drop in violent crime, overall.

That's absurd.

[Lohman446]

Thinking about non-fatal aftermath. It would seem to me that if you are hit in the chest and survive the long term repercussions are not as damaging as being hit in the pelvis and surviving.

Not a doctor.

Not sure if its important to the conversation

[zincwarrior]

I don't see how the pelvis argument works. The supposition is a pistol is going to go through the abdomen and then break one of the hardest bone groups in the human body, but leaving them able to shoot you?

Whats the point of that?

[Don Fischer]

Some years ago I separated my pelvis in a horse wreak. Your pelvis get's separated and I guarantee you, you will cease to move. I had to have a couple guy's lift me off the horse! Problem I would have with simply stopping the attack is the perp could end up suing you cause he was only kidding and you loose everything even if you win. If I were to shoot the pelvis first there would be a couple more shot's and the perp would die. A dead man can't sue you but his family might!

I drove interstate truck's for a lot of years and have made a lot of trip's in less than nice places. Had a cop in NYC tell me that if I had to shoot someone just leave him lay and leave. Said they would find him and there would be a whole lot less paper work than if we called. Think about it, best if there's as few less to sue you as possible!

[Double Naught Spy]

I don't see how the pelvis argument works. The supposition is a pistol is going to go through the abdomen and then break one of the hardest bone groups in the human body, but leaving them able to shoot you?

Whats the point of that?

Only small portions of the pelvis are cortical (hard) bone and most of that is in the pubis and ishium, and then around the acetabulum for the ilium. The illium, which is your largest bone of the pelvis, is full of spongy bone. It is not part of your skeletal support system as much as it is about muscle support for the abdomen and back. By comparison, the pubis and ischium are quite small. The acetabulum is quite small.

You can, and people have had broken ilia and still been able to walk around. Moreover, projectiles will sometimes just punch nice holes through the ilium without actually fracturing it into pieces.

Some years ago I separated my pelvis in a horse wreak. Your pelvis get's separated and I guarantee you, you will cease to move.

The pelvis includes two innominates. Each is made up of 3 bones (ilium, ishcium, and pubis). The two innominates are joined at the pubis at the front at the pubic symphysis and via the sacrum in the rear. There is a lot that can be broken on the pelvis without it being incapacitating. It just depends on where the break is and how severe.

About 2-3% of vaginal births result in pubic separation. It is painful and can cause it to be extremely difficult to walk or climb stairs, but they do it.
http://www.birthsource.com/scripts/a...?articleid=189

Also see...
http://www.moveforwardpt.com/symptom...9-247463af00bf

[MosinNOUGAT]

I would go for the knee (although a smaller target). There is too much chance of making a lethal hit by shooting for the pelvis.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Sigh - the thread is getting ridiculous. Can we please stop posts demonstrating ignorance.

The pelvis shot is not to avoid lethality. It is a failure to stop drill that attempt to reduce opponent mobility. Thus saying that you would avoid a pelvis shot as it might be lethal implies lack of knowledge of the use of lethal force.

I would suggest if one is actually able to carry a gun, one studies up a bit before posting such.

Second, we have been seeing folks blithely suggesting a knee shot and that they could easily do it and not miss.

That is horsepoop and again a sign of not understanding shooting dynamics under stress. Have posters of such tried excercises or competitions where one has to make small target shoots under stress and movement.

I suggest steel challenge and see if you always can make the small plates or various disciplines like IDPA or USPSA with steel poppers. They can be 4 inches across (larger than a knee) and see how reliably you can hit them on the move. I see plenty of misses.

Please, please study up before just blabbing. I also deleted some pure noise.

[johnwilliamson062]

I saw "The Accountant" the other day which had some very abnormal weapon use. One item of interest was the use of the pelvis shot. I can't remember seeing it used so clearly in a movie previously. Maybe someone in LA is reading here...

I'm not recommending the movie. Ben Afleck obviously has Bourne envy. The movie overall was lackluster.

I'm sure one of the members here has access to some coroner info on the effects of pelvic shots.

[TXAZ]

John Williamson noted:

I saw "The Accountant" the other day which had some very abnormal weapon use. One item of interest was the use of the pelvis shot.

And he shot a 6" canteloupe at a mile in one 1/3 MOA shot, out of a 1.5 MOA .50 BMG rifle. Yea, right. But it is a good movie.

(on the other hand, any body hit with a .50 BMG is going to result in very rapid exsanguination. )

[MosinNOUGAT]

suggesting a knee shot and that they could easily do it and not miss.

I didn't say it was easy. I said it was a smaller target, making the knee harder to hit (especially if the guy is running at you). It would be difficult, especially under stress with a shaky hand.

Again, it would work but it would be hard!

[zincwarrior]

The pelvis shot is not to avoid lethality. It is a failure to stop drill that attempt to reduce opponent mobility. Thus saying that you would avoid a pelvis shot as it might be lethal implies lack of knowledge of the use of lethal force.

You are attempting to reduce mobility, but (this assumes they are armed) you are not stopping the threat. Again I am trying to figure out, why?

I am not arguing for knee/hand or anything tacticool, but the bog standard upper torso / Mozambique (depending on circumstances). Apologies if you are arguing for that as well.

Again, my point is that I don't see how a pelvis shot, even if done correctly despite a high stress situation, does the job of "stopping the threat."

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The knee shot, as discussed before, is silly. So why bother to post it or defend it. Let's move on.

Pelvic shots are to interfere with mobility. The exact target to interfere with mobility is small if you research it and/or practice such. Interfering with mobility does not guarantee (not that any shot does but some better than others) that an opponent will not be able to return fire.

There are are reactive targets that will demonstrate to you the difficulty of the Mozambique head shot and the critical area shots in COM. Try them moving and at a distance. Then one can opine.

Again:

I would go for the knee (although a smaller target). There is too much chance of making a lethal hit by shooting for the pelvis.

I don't want to belabor this but the statement has two flaws:

1. A very difficult shot with a low probability of success
2. A very strong misunderstanding of the use of firearms and lethal force.

There are very good books and videos and courses to bring one up to speed on such issues. When one actually carries a gun, at least studying the first two (if courses are not possible) is a necessity.

[OldMarksman]

Mosin, Glenn nailed it.

[zincwarrior]

There are are reactive targets that will demonstrate to you the difficulty of the Mozambique head shot and the critical area shots in COM. Try them moving and at a distance. Then one can opine.

Agreed. Outside of special services units, engaging head shots at distance is indeed foolhardy (unless you have good glass of course, but thats a separate type of shot). At close CC pistol range, still difficult but can be done in emergency (I love Mozabiques in shooting competitions, I particularly love seated challenges with head shots). Again, center top torso is the easiest effective target usually, hence why they are focus for police and self defense training.

Now of course, when the Zombies come, you have to be ready.
If The Zombie Training Manual has taught me anything, its that my obscenely large scoped Marlin and 55,000 .22 rounds are going to win WWZ.

[Don P]

Hit the nail right on the head, Glenn did. For all the knee shooters posting here, try head shots on IDPA and USPSA targets and for a bunch more fun try your skill set at the Texas Star being the five plates are bigger than the human knee and the are moving.

[MosinNOUGAT]

Ya it's sealed now. No more knee shots. However, if there was really a threat big enough for you to fire off a round, why not just stop the threat?

[Don Fischer]

Head shot's, knee shots? Why not jus shoot off the trigger finger. Tell you what, a couple good shots to the chest trump's a dozen missed shot at the knee!

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The star is a hoot. It will give you a feel for moving small targets. There are tricks to it that you can't use on a person unless they are an oncoming Olympic gymnast.

We are talking about stopping the threat. Please study up.

Stopping the threat usually entails COM then a failure to stop drill such as a Mozambique and then perhaps a pelvic shot.

Now if there is fight and the opponent is behind cover or concealment and a body part shows, it's suggested to shoot the center of the body part. For example, you see a leg sticking out (FOF, saw that - hit the fat part of the opponent's inner thigh) or under a car, shoot the legs and maybe count on the ricochet shot into the person (but this is all in the extreme).

I would once again strongly suggest that instead of posting random and disjointed thoughts that are easily answered with some study, one actually does research the use of force and normal tactical doctrines. Please take the hint.

[Danoobie]

Quote by Old Marksman
"That would indicate very poor shooting."

Yes you are correct, it would. So, on the surface,
you are right. But out of @130 million gun owners
in the US, how many, would you say, are
"good shots"? Bear in mind, these folks, all but
6 million of them, won't even pony up the dough for
an NRA membership. Much less range time, bullets, and
any sort of training. So what do we have out there, in
abundance?
Folks who bought a pistol and a box of ball ammo, and who
either figure they don't have to practice, for belly gun distance
shots, or who watched Mel or Arnold shoot a pistol in the movies,
and figure it's easy. Shooting is not their life, they haven't fired
a full mag, in many cases.

How about the ones under duress, stress, or simply shooting
single-handed? You are absolutely correct, IT IS very poor
shooting. And it's all too common.


As to the "absurd" remark, how do you explain criminals targeting
tourists, rental cars and out of state cars in Florida? Because now
Florida is a "shall issue" state, with strong gun defense law, BGs
are afraid to take on a potentially armed Floridian. Civilians
aren't required to follow police guidelines in defending themselves,
and they don't follow police procedures in shooting back, either.

I don't think it's too absurd that criminals fear being shot in the
crotch.


Let's take a closer look at the "small, only one target" pelvic
area, shall we? Well, let's see, I notice

1.The very sensitive, nerve loaded reproductive organs

2. The Femoral Arteries

3. The Hip Joints

4. The Femurs

5. The base of the spine

6. The Pubic Symphysis


Now, I'm no expert, but it seems like a VERY
target-rich area of sensitive body parts, to me.

As to size, it's approximately the same width as
armpit-to-armpit CBM.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

That is not the issue. Of course, people fear getting shot. However, this is the point, the organs you point out have a lower chance of actually disabling the opponent such that they cannot return fire to you.

That is quite different from being scared. That is why experts, like the doc who teaches anatomical principles in shooting, point out where to shoot to more likely stop the fight. Not being an expert physician and gun trainer, I took that course so I know what I am talking about.

I also think you need to study up on whether the use of lethal force is more loose for civilians than police in Florida. The standards are pretty universal. Please quote the law that makes it easy for you to shoot than a cop.

[Danoobie]

It's not ease, Glenn, with due respect, it's predictability.
Cops are predictable, private gun owners are not.
Do I need to post a link for "Fear of the Unknown",
here?

Do I need to post a link of criminals interviews stating that
while they didn't fear the cops, because they kept to a set
timetable, and always handled things in a predictable
manner, civilians pop up out of nowhere, at any time,
and not having the uniform police code to follow, could do
anything ?

I shouldn't have to, because you have had all the training here,
right? You should already KNOW this.

You want to talk about posting a link, I'd like to see a link of
statistics of people shot CBM, VS Pelvic area, where CBM was
statistically more effective. NO simulations, please. We're
talking real life, here, right?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

No, you didn't answer the question. You said:

Civilians
aren't required to follow police guidelines in defending themselves,
and they don't follow police procedures in shooting back, either.

What are those guidelines? Do you mean the laws concerning lethal force?

I would also like to see a legit study that criminals do not fear cops. Give us the link.

[OldMarksman]

Civilians aren't required to follow police guidelines in defending themselves,and they don't follow police procedures in shooting back, either.

I'm not sure what you are getting at, or what, if anything, it might have do with the discussion at hand.

Now, I'm no expert, ...

That is becoming increasingly obvious.