PA course is highly questionable if it emphasizes "head shots" for "failures." Stupid idea. No doubt this originates from the Mozambique Drill. This drill is not based on documented practical experience or any evidence, but on an anecdotal story popularized by Jeff Cooper. It's based on flawed reasoning that if the most practical shot to make fails to stop the target, the shooter should then attempt a more difficult shot with a higher chance of failure. I am not claiming there is no justification for shots to the head. There are numerous justifications. There is, however, no justification for flawed reasoning, and this appears to codify flawed reasoning.
I do not think head shots are based on flawed reasoning nor do I find them to be a “stupid idea.” If someone has a bulletproof (I understand nothing is truly “bulletproof,” but I’ll use it because it’s common vernacular) vest and center of mass shots do not stop the threat, then the argument follows that another shot to an unprotected area (for instance, the head) will stop (not just wound or off-balance) the threat. The idea is not grounded in the difficulty of the shot, but the likelihood of the shot to stop the threat. One could argue that the flawed logic is repeating an action that was already proven ineffective (for example, continuing to fire center of mass shot to someone wearing a bulletproof vest).
Like nearly everything, it depends on the situation (the distance of the shot, the actions of the shooter, whether one knows that the threat is wearing armor, etc.). One’s head is about 1/3-1/2 the width of the chest. Therefore, the shot, in theory, would be 2x or more difficult as a center of mass shot. However, it is nearly certain that the shot will be fatal and instantly stop the threat. If the threat is not facing you, but is turned to his/her side, then the head is about the same size as the chest area and one could argue that a head shot in this instance is of the same difficult as a center of mass shot (fired at the side), but has a substantially higher chance of instantly stopping the threat.
It becomes a calculation/judgement call by the officer on whether taking an easier, but possibly non-stopping shot(s) is better or whether taking a more difficult, but likely a stopping shot, is feasible. This will depend on the situation and the officer’s skills.
As for your claim that the Mozambique drill is “not based on documented practical experience or
any evidence, but on an anecdotal story popularized by Jeff Cooper,” I’m curious as to what kind of evidence might be available to support or refute the merits of the Mozambique drill. Cooper’s story is based on the “practical experience” of Mike Rousseau. There are other practical experiences of how shots to the chest failed to stop threats and it wasn’t until many more chest shots were fired or a head shot rendered that the threat stopped. For example, Army Rangers and Delta soldiers found chest shot ineffective against Somali militiamen high on khat and other drugs. During the Battle of Fallujah, Marines with M-16A4s equipped with ACOGs inflicted headshots on insurgents, causing observers to question whether Marines were executing insurgents or just capable of making headshots; the later was proven to be the case. I provide these examples as a way to show that 1) the generally easier center of mass shots are not necessarily effective at immediately stopping the threat and 2) to show that taking headshots (even in combat) is possible. Therefore, the Mozambique drill and other similar failure drills have a place.
