Aim for the navel -- ?

Status
Not open for further replies.

honkeoki

Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2004
Messages
152
Location
Hollywood, FL
Let me preface this by saying that I'm a mediocre shot at best :banghead: and I tend to aim for the largest part of a target.

I am reading Shooting to Live by Fairbairn and Sykes, circa 1942. Page 78 of my .pdf (page 78 of the Paladin edition) states:

A hit in the abdominal region almost invariably causes a man to drop anything he has in his hands and to touch his stomach convulsively.​

If this were reported from more recent sources I'd guess that it's Hollywood at work -- we've all seen the Westerns where gut-shot gunslingers drop their revolvers and grab their solar plexuses before tottering over to one side. But considering the source (and time) I'm wondering if this is somehow physiologically true.

If accurate, this observation would seem to add credence to the zipper method, or the "shoot low" school. This would at least buy time if not actually stop the assailant. Most of us train for COM shooting, or for putting the initial shot into the thoracic triangle. Perhaps we should shoot for the navel first and the upwards, for the thoracic triangle?

Thoughts? Experiences?
 
Shoot for the naval??? I've heard of the zipper method before as well.

A hit in the abdominal region almost invariably causes a man to drop anything he has in his hands and to touch his stomach convulsively.

A shot to chest region almost invariably causes a man to drop anything he has in hands and DIE.

It is physiologically true that if you shoot a person anywhere it will hurt unless their sympathetic nervous sytem is being overridden by other chemicals such as drugs or even adrenaline in some cases. This might result in dropping carried items and maybe even touching the area where the pain is coming from. The upper abdomen just below the chest is the only area where an immdiate kill shot can be scored. The inferior venacave is there, where all the blood collects from the venous sytem to return to the heart. Massive bleeding would occur followed by death swiftly after.

If the person is amped up on drugs or large doses of adrenaline a gut shot might not even phase them. When the sypathetic nervous sytem is stimulated the blood flow is diverted from the digestive system and other non-vital systems, such as the urinary system. Thus when some people are scared, they lose the ability to control the bladder muscles causing them to piss their pants. With a decrease in blood flow the nervous system in those regions stimuli from pain caused by a gunshot may not be felt immediately.

This would at least buy time if not actually stop the assailant.

What? Buy time? for what? To pop in a smoke or think up of some cool one liner to say to the assailant before you actually finish him off?

If you are in a life or death situation, the only situation where you would be shooting someone, any shot not aimed at ending the threat immediately is wasted ammo, increases your chance of death, and is just a rediculous waste of time. You want to buy time? How about shooting him center mass. After he is dead you'll have all the time in the world. To make it home to hug your family, to mow the lawn, and to tell the antis how carrying a gun saved your life and maybe more.

Perhaps we should shoot for the navel first and the upwards, for the thoracic triangle?

How about aming center mass first and end the fight. Your first shot at the abdomen can cause the target to move out of allignment. Your follow up shots then have the chance to miss the vital organs in the chest cavity. You then have a greater chance of ending up in a box as food for worms. Those bugs sure love their cadaver helper.
 
Just Shoot, but make sure you hit the right target. Whether using the Weaver or Isosceles Stance, you are going to hit the Torso, anywhere from the Throat to the Pubic area, it just depends on how you are grasping your handgun. Hint, you will do it right automatically if you practise the proper way ALL the time. Adrenaline and drugs do mystifying things, there is no scenerio written in stone.
 
The bladder is a knockdown as a general rule. You are going to connect to bone in the pelvis and lower sacrum area:

True, but you then might have to find cover, because you knocked the guy down, but not necessarily out of the fight and he might be able return fire from the prone. If you hit one of his iliac arteries he won't be alive much longer, but still might be able to score hits on you before then.

And again why knock him down when you can knock him dead?
 
And again why knock him down when you can knock him dead?

Cause we are supposed to "shoot to stop" not shoot to kill. If you are in a SD situation and tell the officer "I had to kill him" you are in for a world of legal hurt. Instead to say "I only wanted him to stop"
 
And again why knock him down when you can knock him dead?

Knock him dead with what? Your Star Trek phazer set to 'kill'?

We're talking 21st century handguns with kinetic energy projectiles here, not science fiction. Handguns are notoriously poor at killing- but they can work at discouraging an assailant, under the best of conditions. 'Good guys' are supposed to be worried about STOPPING and not killing. Shoot to stop and that's it.

Leave us every one let go right now of the idea that it is our responsibility to kill rather than stop in defensive shooting, or I will most assuredly lock this thread, and any other in which such thinking is espoused.

lpl/nc
 
We're talking 21st century handguns with kinetic energy projectiles here, not science fiction. Handguns are notoriously poor at killing- but they can work at discouraging an assailant, under the best of conditions. 'Good guys' are supposed to be worried about STOPPING and not killing. Shoot to stop and that's it.

The above statement is very important. The action is to stop the person and not kill.

When in a court room the proper term is, I was shooting at the the person to "stop" them, not "kill" them.

Another thing is this, when hit in the area of a fold of the body as the pelvis is. Escape is not really easy. Your looking at a less lethal, location but the walking or running of the person is hampered. So you have someone who will be captured easier.:)

Most people who are in law enforcement would rather stop than kill. That is important to understand.
 
Shoot wherever you can hit, but hits in the abdominal region will most likely effect a psychological stop only, if at all (at least in any time frame less than 10 minutes). An upper chest shot, on the other hand, has about the same chance of a psychological stop, and adds in the chance of a physiological stop as well.

The "zipper method" is based on a couple ER doctors' opinions of what people tended to be in "the worst shape," and "the hardest to treat" when they got there. Now, if you want to basically torture both the bad guy and your local doctors, while having a lower chance of actually killing them (and a lower chance of rapid incapacitation as well), go for it. But if you want to maximize your chances of actually stopping a bad guy, aim for the upper heart or brain.

The digestive system is extremely delicate and hard to surgically repair, and contains a ton of bacteria that, although fine where they are, can cause very nasty, potentially lethal infections if they spread elsewhere (like through a hole). But unless you hit the liver, the major arteries and veins going to and from the legs, or the spine, you're not going to cause a physiological incapacitation.
 
RyanM,

I'm not sure where you got "The "zipper method" is based on a couple ER doctors' opinions of what people tended to be in "the worst shape," and "the hardest to treat" when they got there." , can you give us some documentation on this, specifically that doctors even knew what the zipper actually was?

I train others in the "zipper". It's birth is from EU/ED [ elbow up/elbow down ] which describes the Fairbairn/Sykes WW2 half hip shooting postion, which puts the gun about level with the naval area of an opponent for the first shot, the elbow locked into your side and just above or at the belt line which is then followed with a rapid succession of shots as the arm is extended/pushed toward the assailant therby raising the level of the barrel and subsequent shots until the last shot is into the neck/head area.

The first shot of EU/ED is the fastest shot from the holster. The elbow is raised until the gun clears the holster and then mashed into the side of the hip/waist, the forearm leveled at that time and the gun fired as soon as the elbow touches your side and locked into that position.

In training, the students are instructed to fire as soon as the elbow touches the side of your body, like there is a button there that the elbow touches and the gun fires without hesitation.

The A hit in the abdominal region almost invariably causes a man to drop anything he has in his hands and to touch his stomach convulsively. from the referenced book is nothing more than reporting of the results Fairbairn/Sykes saw on the streets from the officers who were trained to use and fired thusly on opponents. Actual documentation, not hypothesis' nor conjecture, but facts in evidence.

So, with EU/ED we have the fastest shot from the holster [ Bill Jordan and Jelly Bryce also used this skill or a slight variation of it to good effect and again well documented on the streets ], to the region/level of the naval/belly due to the height of the barrel using this technique, and the resultant observations of people who dropped what they were holding in the vast majority of these shootouts [ these 600 some odd shootings were well documented as well ].

The zipper is just a continuation of the first skill set of EU/ED and the continued firing from that position while the gun/fist is punched out toward the opponent, thereby raising the barrel height in relation to the ground automatically.

The zipper also has the advantage of putting multiple rounds into multiple organs [ accepting the bullet weight and caliber is sufficient to get deep enough into these organs ] without hesitation. The effectiveness of the zipper is due to it's getting several organs bleeding immediately, which drops ones blood pressure faster than several rds into one neat group on one organ.

The zipper's simplicity is in the fact it would be devastating to the opponent hit COM and "stitched" up the middle from the gut to the neck/head posthaste as soon as the gun cleared leather and the barrel pointed at the opponent.

The zipper is not shooting for the naval area. It's a skill that starts with another more important skill that gets the gun on threat with the least amount of movement from the defender from the holster to muzzzle leveled and on threat [ translates to speed of shots on threat ].

and this But unless you hit the liver, the major arteries and veins going to and from the legs, or the spine, you're not going to cause a physiological incapacitation. is not actually true, and misleads in it's suggestion. Physiological stops can also be caused by a rapid loss of BP, which can be caused by getting multiple organs bleeding at the same time. Rapid loss of BP is physiological and does not require hits to arteries or veins, though the organs are a good bet as they are larger and therefore more likely to be hit.

Ever seen someone lose BP rapidly for any reason? They fall down and are pretty much incapable of clear thinking, the brain starved for oxygen rich blood. It's not instant incapacitation, but get someone to lose enough pressure quickly and watch how quickly they are not only a threat, but are close to death if the resultant shock from the loss of that BP is not controlled immediately.

honkeoki:

F/S were not suggesting to aim for the naval in their writings. They simply reported what happened when the troops/police they trained used the EU/ED they taught and what happened when those shots went into that area of the opponent. It's an important observation from real world gun battles, and you are well advised to learn all you can from those two gentlemen in their writings.

Brownie
 
Cause we are supposed to "shoot to stop" not shoot to kill.

That sounds awefully close to shoot to wound to me. Shooting to wound or stop would get you into more legal trouble than shooting to kill.

If you shoot to kill it is because you were afraid for your life and if you didn't kill him he would kill you.

Shooting to stop means I was kinda scared, but I think I didn't necesarily have to use LETHAL force. Therefore, I only shot him to knock him down.

Knock him dead with what? Your Star Trek phazer set to 'kill'?

That's as rediculous as you telling people to turn their 21st century pistols with kinetic energy projectiles which are designed to kill to STUN.

Handguns are notoriously poor at killing

I guarantee that a couple of .45 hydroshock rounds to the chest would be notorious good at killing.

'Good guys' are supposed to be worried about STOPPING and not killing.

Good, bad, I am just a man who wants to live to see my family grow up strong and right. If someone is planning on harming me then they are going to get fed a healthy diet of lead. If I wanted to knock em down I'd use a bat.

It seems you are saying I should aim for a smaller target of the attacker's body to knock him down so that I don't accidentaly kill the bad guy. Which increases my chance for missed shots, which since I only have 7 increases my chance of death dramaticly, because if I don't kill him he WILL kill me. All of my training says if you are in a situation where your life is in danger, shoot to kill.

Leave us every one let go right now of the idea that it is our responsibility to kill rather than stop in defensive shooting, or I will most assuredly lock this thread, and any other in which such thinking is espoused.

I thought this forum was discuss situations related to self defense and firearm topics. A forum where we could have differences of opinion and still express them. Maybe I was wrong.

In my opinion if you shoot for any other reason, but to kill someone before they kill you, you should leave your weapon holstered.
 
can you give us some documentation on this, specifically that doctors even knew what the zipper actually was?

I haven't heard it described the way you did, until just now.

What I'd heard before, on this forum, was people advocating shooting for the pants zipper region, and slowly working your way up to the navel with multiple shots in between, regardless of the actual shooting technique used. They said that ER docs had stated that people shot multiple times around the belt buckle region tended to be in the worst condition, and the hardest to treat. It may be that groin-to-navel was only a couple people's definition of the "zipper," and everyone else meant navel-to-head, but weren't as specific as those people.

Personally, I prefer a higher retention position with the off hand high, to protect the head, as in some schools of modern Iso. That would put the first round into the chest.
 
That sounds awefully close to shoot to wound to me. Shooting to wound or stop seems like it would get you more legal trouble than shooting to kill.

Thats incorrect. I suggest you search this and other forums, and perhaps consult an atty or two to determine whether you should be shooting to stop or shooting to kill.

In essence, you defend yourself with lethal force, if necessary, with the idea to stop their agression toward you, no more or less. If the results of using lethal force happen to be the perp expires, that is something beyond your control and intererst.

You don't carry a gun [ or any other lethal force weapon ] to kill people, you carry a gun to defend yourself from others who may attempt to cause you great bodily harm or death by some means they choose to use.

Death may be a result of your use of the firearm in defense of your person, but it is not your intent to kill anyone in defending yourself. As to making statements on a public forum which anyone can read, and which could be used against you to prove premeditation and willingness to "kill" prior to your possiblyt someday having to use lethal force, tread lightly sir. You obviously need to step back, research the laws governing self defense and the use of force before making any further incriminating statements which could come back one day and bite you on the arse hard in a court of law.

Brownie
 
Remember reading (cant cite) that Wild Bill Hickock thought well of the gut shot as a man-stopper, and the .36 Navy had ballistics similar to a .380ACP.
Re: shooting to stop vs. to kill- you shoot to stop the assailant from harming you with the unavoidable probability of killing him. You shoot to live, not to kill. Shooting to wound can be used against you in that it indicates that in your own mind you didn't consider lethal force to be justified.
 
I've always understood the "aim for the navel" concept to be the result of miltary rifles which were generally calibrated with a tangent zero of 200 or 300 meters. Even those with a zero of 100 meters were often sighted in at 300. The M-39 Finns for example. So if you aim for the navel, the bullet is bound to hit him somewhere important even if it's coming in high. Aim for the head or upper chest and it may zip over him. There's also the problem of determining how far away he is, and with iron sights there's a tendency to overestimate range so again it makes sense to aim for the gut because he's probably closer than you think. In the unlikely event of a low shot, it will still have a good chance of hitting legs or groin and bringing him down. If all your boys on the line are trying to hit the squareheads in the eye, they'll just be hitting blue sky. So you keep it simple and teach them to aim for his belly button. In any event, with a full powered rifle bullet the difference may be fairly academic. I'd never suggest aiming for the gut with a handgun.

As far as the physical reaction, the chest or head hit is liable to be far more effective, esp. with a handgun. I've known cases where a suspect shot in the gut by an LEO still managed to survive and even attack the officer. IIRC one of the former Black Panthers did that in a famous case. The gut contains few vital organs and even if you break the pelvis he can still use his arms and hands to shoot you.
 
Never said "shoot to wound" By george if someone is coming at me I'd probally empty my gun trying to get them to stop the aggression. I'm not into killing anyone but if the outcome of me trying to stop you from hurting me or mine is your death then I guess that's the only way you would stop. Does that make any sense? By saying "shoot to stop" I did NOT in any way mean "shoot in the leg or something like that" I will be aiming for COM but only in a way to stop the aggression towards me.
 
That may be, but back in the 19th century a gut shot was a long slow death sentence, and most people knew it. There's no such psychological side benefit now. If you shoot some crackhead in the gut he's not going to pick out a coffin and start writing letters to loved ones.

And remember--GUTS ARE A LOT BIGGER NOW. I remember a case a few years back from Fairbanks where a fellow got shot in the gut with a .357 Sig. The bullet hit him square but skirted around his fat layer, hitting nothing even remotely important. The guy didn't even bleed much.
 
I will be aiming for COM

I'm not sure how shooting COM is not considered shooting to kill.

You don't carry a gun [ or any other lethal force weapon ] to kill people,

Strange how they call it lethal force if it wasn't meant to kill people.

As to making statements on a public forum which anyone can read, and which could be used against you to prove premeditation and willingness to "kill" prior to your possiblyt someday having to use lethal force

Premeditation, because I new before hand that I would be attacked someday? How can you call a sudden and unforseeable attack on your person where you had to use lethal force to defend yourself premeditated?

Shooting COM and saying I'm shooting to stop rather than to kill seems to me to be a disingenuous way of saying the same thing.

Hickok did indeed advocate gut shots. When fast drawing from the hip, gut shots were more accurate and faster than shooting for the chest which required a bit more of a lean than a stomach shot.
 
You shoot to stop. Experts have repeatedly said that shooting to stop means shooting at the center of mass. Those hits have a good chance of being lethal, but that's beside the point. It's agreed that shooting center of mass is the best approach for getting a quick "stop".

Shooting to stop does NOT mean shooting to kill, but it also doesn't mean shooting to NOT kill. Lethality is irrelevant, you do what gets the best results in terms of stopping. Experts agree that means shooting center of mass.
 
As far as the physical reaction, the chest or head hit is liable to be far more effective, esp. with a handgun. I've known cases where a suspect shot in the gut by an LEO still managed to survive and even attack the officer. IIRC one of the former Black Panthers did that in a famous case. The gut contains few vital organs and even if you break the pelvis he can still use his arms and hands to shoot you.

That suddenly reminds me. Wasn't there a video posted awhile back of a police officer shooting a violent suspect in the stomach with a .45, after which the guy paces around, acting increasingly erratic while the officer tells him to sit down, and then attacks the officer again? Did a search, can't find it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top