Aim at head or chest?

[jojo200517]

rondog:
People that advise headshots are just being macho. "Two to the chest, one to the head" is BS, that's not self defense, that's an assassination. What if you miss, which is very likely? YOU still own that bullet, where's it going to end up?

I can agree with part of what you say, it is sort of a macho sounding statement I guess, and I agree that you absolutely own the bullet, whether it misses or over-penetrates or whatever.

But it is not BS or an assassination. It is called a Mozambique Drill, or failure drill. It isn't designed to be 3 quick shots with the last one to the head so much as 2 quick shots center of mass and a more aimed shot at the head if the target is still advancing or still a threat. The shots to the chest will most likely slow down the person from the blunt force even on body armor and allow a more aimed shot at the head in theory.

All that being said as others said above this is all well and good either way if you are presented straight on but what if the attacker is standing sideways to you and lunging with a knife or whatever from 10 feet.

Assuming the attacker isn't on some type of mind altering substance and can feel pain well any shot that hits anywhere is gonna hurt like heck and cause them to have a bad day in most cases. Sure an underpowered round of any size bounced off the skull might not stop someone but I reckon thats the kinda thing that wouldn't tickle in a good way.

At the same time however a subject with an altered state of mind, and street pharmaceuticals that could lessen or prevent the perception of pain, is going to be much more dangerous. Skipping one off the old noggin won't have much effect, neither will putting 10 poorly placed ones in the center body cavity only to have them bleed out an hour later at the hospital, after they have killed you by stabbing or strangled you to death or something.

The first thing you have to do is make sure the shots hit the target, misses don't generally do crap good. Then the hits have to be effective. Placement is critical, energy imparted into the target is also very critical. Ever consider you might have to stop someone from the side or mostly at the side angle. That center of mass profile got much narrower but thats only half of your worry. If you are still going for it what are you going to need to penetrate? Sure the rib cage is there but what about the arm and or shoulder? Unless your dealing with a morbidly obese attacker its going to be a longer trip for the projectile thru the body cavity to the organs along the centerline from the side.

 

[basicblur]

A deputy friend of mine always says when they ask him why he fired 10 rounds his answer will always be "I fired until it stopped firing".

I think a much better answer ('specially in court) was offered up by Massad Ayoob?
In a court case someone was asked by the lawyer"Why did you shoot my client 7 times?"
The reply was "6 times proved to be insufficient, and 8 would have been excessive."

Kinda says it all, doesn't it? The person's reply on the stand points out that he shot him the exact number of times required - nothing more, nothing less.

Your deputy friend's response might lead to something along the lines of "in other words, if you'd had more rounds in the mag, you would have just kept shooting my client!?"

I know...semantics...but semantics is usually what the law is all about.

 

[mljdeckard]

Bobson, I won't disagree with you at all. A verbal command as you draw and fire is good IF the situation allows it, but it would be foolish to put a verbal warning in FRONT OF the priority to save your life.

Without reading four pages of posts, I think that in the vast majority of circumstances, it is best to shoot center of mass. As many times as you can. The head is not a great target when you are fighting for your life. It moves, it isn't solid, (meaning, a bullet that hits it won't always penetrate fully because the target gives behind its force,) it has odd angles and cavities in the bones, which often make bullets forget where they were supposed to go,and it's small. When you are jacked up on adrenaline, ans sometimes you have tunnel vision, trying to hit the head will feel like trying to hit a pea. Center of mass is difficult enough when you are on the two-way range. Statistically, the head is not a great place to shoot.

However, I won't call failure drills foolish. If you repeatedly hit center of mass, and the attacker is still coming, you need to do something different, right? But I do regard it as a backup plan. Something you should practice and know how to do, even if the chances of you using it are small.

 

[M2 Carbine]

Practicing a little 2 & 1 Monday. The head is definitely harder to hit.

Aim for the biggest thing you see.
Most shooters would be hard pressed to hit a moving person's body anywhere, much less their head.


It's not easy to reliably hit the head even with this simple rocking target.

 

[AOK]

"Aim for the biggest thing you see. Most shooters would be hard pressed to hit a moving person's body anywhere, much less their head."

I agree with the above quote by 2 Carbine. The target may not be the only thing moving, you may be as well. I've come to be a fan of Dave Spaulding's 3 S's when it comes to determining if something is legitimate enough for me to likely use in a self defense situation.

1. Is it Simple?
2. Does is make Sense?
3. Is it Street proven?

Based on my beliefs and experiences it would not be simple at all. In addition, how many self defense situations have you read where victims have successfully place two to the chest and one to the head? I haven't heard of any. If there are cases they would be VERY few. Based on those to answers I'd say head shots do not make sense at all unless the body is behind cover and the head is the largest thing exposed.

 

[Kleanbore]

Aim at head or chest?

Suppose someone is about to kill/hurt you, you pulled out a handgun and yell "freeze", your finger on trigger ready to fire, should you aim at his head or chest if he is about 10 feet away?

I think if you aim at his head, he can quickly move his head away from your aim and charge you, while move chest maybe not as easy, action beats reaction... what would you think?

We've had some good discussion here.

Most of the posts have addressed a question that was not asked. That is the question of what to shoot at when engaged in a defensive situation. The best answer is either the largest target area that is presented to you or somewhere in the chest area.

The question that was asked was what to aim at after one has yelled "freeze" ("don't move" is probably a better choice of words), and presumably, after the intruder, or whatever he or she may be has complied.

That situation is most likely to arise when the defender encounters an intruder who has not presented a weapon. The answer to that one is likely not the same.

Suppose that one has a likely violent criminal actor stopped at gunpoint. If one is aiming either for the head or at the upper part of the torso, it is highly likely that one's view of the person's belt area (where a weapon may be hidden) is blocked, and that is not a good situation at all.

According to training that I have received, the best answer to that question is that one would be best served by aiming sufficiently low to maintain an adequate view, and not so low that the shot would not be effective. That is a tactical choice, but is probably provides a psychological advantage as a byproduct.

 

[firemanstrickland]

its been said enough but, shoot center mass. bigger target, nuff said

 

[Kleanbore]

The Question Emphasizes the Importance of Training

Posted by firemanstrickland: its been said enough but, shoot center mass. bigger target, nuff said

Except for one thing: that doesn't answer the question that was asked.

It is, however, a pretty good answer to the question of what to try to shoot at when one does shoot.

That, of course, depends whether "center mass" presents itself as a target or is behind cover.

It also depends upon the build of the attacker. As has been implied in prior posts, a higher chest shot is likely to be far more effective in stopping a violent attacker than a shot to the abdomen.

If one feels the need to ask the question, is it better to shoot at the head or the chest if the target is ten feet away, it is clear that, since that subject is covered in almost all relevant training, the questioner has not yet availed himself or herself of adequate training.

That shortcoming should really be addressed as soon as possible. There is a lot more to be learned than where to aim when shooting at an attacker. Spending some money on relevant training from a qualified instructor is likely to be far more beneficial than adding to the gun collection.

The answer to the question that was asked--where to aim when holding a gun on an intruder--is different.

To be frank, that question had never occurred to me until I attended a class given by one of the best known trainers in the country a couple of weeks ago.

 

[J.A.D.]

If it were me, and I were in a defensive situation, it would always be center mass. Even a flesh wound to the torso will get their attention long enough to get a better second shot off. By doing so, you can either stall the situation, or buy yourself enough time to set up a fatal shot if they are still dangerous to you. Headshots can make you look like you did it deliberately, and not as a result of being in a defensive posture. Though those situations are rare I think. Been talking to a lot of law enforcement lately due to a rise in crime in my area. Discussed defending my home a bit.

 

[rhodco]

The correct answer depends upon your skill level. Some of us could easily put one through the eye socket and into the brain at that distance. Lights out instantly. Others should not attempt it since bullets sometimes glance off the skull at an angle and fail to penetrate (Jim Cirillo's book on "Guns, Bullets, and Gunfights" goes into great detail on this with real life shooting experiences). Most experts will agree that the average person should get hits on center of mass first before switching to head shots if the perp won't go down and you still have time and ammo left.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by J.A.D.: If it were me, and I were in a defensive situation, it would always be center mass.

Again, that would be the answer if the question had been about shooting.

If it's about aiming at someone who is not presenting a weapon and who has stopped attacking, that can be a very poor tactic, and itcould prove fatal.

Even a flesh wound to the torso will get their attention long enough to get a better second shot off.

I wouldn't bet on that assumption.

By doing so, you can either stall the situation, or buy yourself enough time to set up a fatal shot if they are still dangerous to you.

NO! Your objective is NOT to "set up a fatal shot".

Headshots can make you look like you did it deliberately, and not as a result of being in a defensive posture. Though those situations are rare I think. Been talking to a lot of law enforcement lately due to a rise in crime in my area. Discussed defending my home a bit.

One more time, I strongly suggest getting some training. Search here on the S,T,&T forum.

 

[jojo200517]

Wow I guess I'm not the only one that didn't read the question right. So an intruder is discovered 10 feet away from me and I have my sidearm? My awnser is still pretty much the same, shoot at the part that presents the biggest target first then go for the head if that doesn't seem to work out.

I know the question says what to aim at not what to shoot at, but frankly I was also taught to never point a firearm at anything you don't intend to shoot. If I have no intention of shooting the suspect in the knee I'd have no reason to point my firearm there. I'm not going to wait around to see what some intruder has at 10 feet away, if I have my gun i'm going to use it.

Same as if I were carrying walking down the street someone walking by shoves my back yells give me ya money or i'll cut you, there getting carried off with somewhere around 10-12 bucks worth of high quality hollow points. I'm not waiting to see if they actually have the knife to cut me with. I would evaluate the threat to me as enough to respond with deadly force.

I guess what I'm trying to say is aim where you intend to shoot, but only if you know you have to.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by jojo200517: So an intruder is discovered 10 feet away from me and I have my sidearm? My awnser is still pretty much the same, shoot at the part that presents the biggest target first then go for the head if that doesn't seem to work out. ... I'm not going to wait around to see what some intruder has at 10 feet away, if I have my gun i'm going to use it.

The point that you seem to have overlooked is that while one may not point a firearm without justification, the situation may change instantly and the justification to shoot may no longer exist.

If you are outdoors and you shoot someone and you cannot later present sufficient evidence in support of justification, you will no longer have to worry about where to aim your firearm.

If you discover an intruder indoors and he sees that you are armed, and if he yells "don't shoot", and if earwitnesses (even among your own family) hear that and investigators learn about it, and you do shoot, you will become the subject of a case study that will enlighten many about what the castle doctrine really means.

I guess what I'm trying to say is aim where you intend to shoot, but only if you know you have to.

The OP's question related to someone whose actions justified the presentation of a firearm, and whose subsequent actions eliminated any justification for the immediate use of deadly force. At that point, you do not know "know you have to" shoot, but I cannot imagine even thinking about not keeping a gun on him until he has departed on his own volition or has been taken into custody. He remains very dangerous, and the situation may change again in the blink of an eye.

Now, should it turn out that I do have to shoot, I would try for the center of the chest. However, for reasons discussed above, I would not aim there while things were sorted out.

...I was also taught to never point a firearm at anything you don't intend to shoot.

That's a safety rule, much better expressed as "Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy", and it has nothing to do with the tactics of holding a suspect at gunpoint, even temporarily.

 

[Sav .250]

If you have to think rather than re-act in a situation, you`ve lost any advantage . Knowing what to do before hand.....

 

[USAF_Vet]

It has probably been said, but Center of Mass is based on what target is presented. If the largest target available is the head, fire center of mass of the head. If the largest COM available is a leg, same concept applies. I think the last thing any of us want to do is get in a gunfight trying to fire from cover, and hit an opponent who also has cover. In that case, retreat, if possible, is the best option.

 

[basicblur]

Same as if I were carrying walking down the street someone walking by shoves my back yells give me ya money or i'll cut you, there getting carried off with somewhere around 10-12 bucks worth of high quality hollow points. I'm not waiting to see if they actually have the knife to cut me with.

Emphais mine.
You might want to rethink that one?
Best to put some distance between the two of you if you can.
Iff'n you shoot without waiting to see, I can see bad things happening to you in court.

 

[Kleanbore]

One Other Thing

I'm sure that everyone understands how important it is to keep one's finger off of the trigger.

However, even trained officers who have been videotaped in training situations and who are convinced that they did just that have been surprised when video images show them briefly touching the trigger from time to time. It's a common and natural phenomenon.

So, that's not enough. One wants to make sure that the firearm has a long, reasonably heavy trigger pull, like a D/A revolver or a DAO or striker fired semiautomatic with something like a New York trigger pull, or if the weapon is a 1911, one should keep the safety engaged and a thumb on it. And for heaven's sake do not cock the revolver.

One does not want the have a negligent discharge while pointing a firearm at someone.

 

[AOK]

However, even trained officers who have been videotaped in training situations and who are convinced that they did just that have been surprised when video images show them briefly touching the trigger from time to time. It's a common and natural phenomenon.

So, that's not enough. One wants to make sure that the firearm has a long, reasonably heavy trigger pull, like a D/A revolver or a DAO or striker fired semiautomatic with something like a New York trigger pull, or if the weapon is a 1911, one should keep the safety engaged and a thumb on it. And for heaven's sake do not cock the revolver.

I can certainly see someone with poor muzzle discipline or having their finger on the trigger at inappropriate times in an intense situation. Especially gun owners without the proper training and handling of a gun on a routine basis. I really don't know what you consider a "trained officer" though. Our definitions could very well be different.

If someone doesn't have a solid training background and continuous routine of working on what they have learned, maybe they would have poor trigger discipline. If this was the case and they have forced or convinced the assailant to drop their weapon rather than keep their muzzle pointed anywhere at the assailant it may be best to go into a safe position such as SUL. That way the firearm is still out (one should never be to quick to reholster or set your gun down unless being told by a LEO), in your control, and pointed in a safe direction. If things change in a hurry you can have the firearm back in the fight in a fraction of a second.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by AOK: If someone doesn't have a solid training background and continuous routine of working on what they have learned, maybe they would have poor trigger discipline.

It isn't a matter of "poor trigger discipline", it is something that people do subconsciously, perhaps checking to assure themselves that the trigger is there, and the best trained people do it, and vigorously deny having done so after the fact.

If this was the case and they have forced or convinced the assailant to drop their weapon rather than keep their muzzle pointed anywhere at the assailant it may be best to go into a safe position such as SUL. That way the firearm is still out (one should never be to quick to reholster or set your gun down unless being told by a LEO), in your control, and pointed in a safe direction. If things change in a hurry you can have the firearm back in the fight in a fraction of a second.

In the scenario at hand, the intruder has not yet dropped his weapon.

 

[jojo200517]

The point that you seem to have overlooked is that while one may not point a firearm without justification, the situation may change instantly and the justification to shoot may no longer exist.

If you are outdoors and you shoot someone and you cannot later present sufficient evidence in support of justification, you will no longer have to worry about where to aim your firearm.

If you discover an intruder indoors and he sees that you are armed, and if he yells "don't shoot", and if earwitnesses (even among your own family) hear that and investigators learn about it, and you do shoot, you will become the subject of a case study that will enlighten many about what the castle doctrine really means.

What I was trying to say is don't even pull out the firearm unless there is justification to shoot. Frankly if someone is kicking in my door yelling don't shoot its not going to matter too much. The law is pretty simple in my state, if someone has broken in or is attempting to break in you can respond with lethal force. I guess if it happened I would as you say really enlighten many as to what castle doctrine really means. It would be left up to jury I suppose.

About the only thing I can see that would make me lower weapon down is if they immediately run away before I could get it pointed at them, if they seen me and immediately fell over arms and legs spread on the ground, or if they grabbed someone else as a hostage or shield.

In this case I guess a proper position would be a low ready position. It would keep your firearm in a safe direction, and still be ready in the event of things heading back south.

Emphais mine.
You might want to rethink that one?
Best to put some distance between the two of you if you can.
Iff'n you shoot without waiting to see, I can see bad things happening to you in court.

I have thought about it a good bit. My state has no duty to retreat if you are attacked. I can in fact see bad things happening in court, lousy jury's convict the innocent and set the guilty free many times. It goes back to the saying "i'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6".

 

[basicblur]

I have thought about it a good bit. My state has no duty to retreat if you are attacked.

I think "if you are attacked" is the operative phrase.
If, as you state, you're not going to wait to see if your 'attacker' has a knife before you shoot, don't be surprised if when in court, he tells the judge/jury he just asked you for a cigarette/light/directions, etc, and you just pulled a gun and shot him!

So there you are in a he said/he said situation, and you find out your adversary in court was, in fact, not armed at the time he was just trying to bum a cigarette...

Chances are a person on the street doing this is a 'professional', and plans on using the law against you, 'specially if you PO him by foiling his plans.

In my neck o' the woods, I hear a common tactic for folks breaking in houses is to not carry a weapon-first thing they do when in your house is head for the kitchen and find one of your knives so in court they can try to skirt an armed robbery/assault charge etc. should things go south.

 

[cambot]

If wearing body armor shoot at head, if wearing helmet and body armor asess situation and KYAG.

 

[two gun charlie]

yip , the old rhodesian double tap , two to the chest one in the head , works like a charm everytime . I'm 100% with you on this one.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by jojo200517: What I was trying to say is don't even pull out the firearm unless there is justification to shoot.

Good.

That does not address the question of what to do with the firearm if the justification then ceases to exist.

The law is pretty simple in my state, if someone has broken in or is attempting to break in you can respond with lethal force.

The criminal codes of many states include forcible unlawful entry into an occupied domicile, and in some cases an attempt at same, as justification for the use of deadly force. The intent is to reduce the evidentiary burden on the defender who has used deadly force--the defender is given a presumption of a reasonable belief that imminent danger was imminent and that deadly fore would be lawful if immediately necessary.

However, all such presumptions are rebuttable, and the law was not intended to give a resident a license to shoot someone who was not attacking him.

To do so remains murder, and if there is evidence that rebuts the aforementioned presumption, that will most likely be the judgment. If you do not understand that now you need to learn it. There is a better way to learn what the castle doctrine really means and what it does not than by being arrested, charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced.

In this case I guess a proper position would be a low ready position. It would keep your firearm in a safe direction, and still be ready in the event of things heading back south.

That would certainly be the ting to do if the intruder took off, or if you have persuaded him to lie face down with his legs crossed, his palms turned up, and his face away from you.

But that was not what the OP described--he described a situation in which one had yelled "freeze" and the intruder is standing before the defender. Personally, I would not lower the firearm at that point unless it became clear that the intruder was a completely innocent person who had entered the wrong house by mistake.

It goes back to the saying "i'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6".

That overworked cliche describes two very bad outcomes. If it goes as far as a trial, the defendant's life and bank balance will never be the same, and a conviction would result in the loss of his personal freedom, his record, and the rest of his fortune.

There is a much better choice.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by cambot: If wearing body armor shoot at head, if wearing helmet and body armor asess situation and KYAG.

Posted by two gun charlie: yip , the old rhodesian double tap , two to the chest one in the head , works like a charm everytime . I'm 100% with you on this one.

If either of you had bothered to read the whole thread, or even to read the first post carefully, you would know that those comments do not address the OP's qustion and therefore have nothing to do with the discussion.

One other thing: "KYAG" is not acceptable here.