Did past generations aim lower?

[Lew]

I was watching Magnum Force just now and noticed that the targets at the police range had the circle placed much lower on the silhouette than they are today. It was roughly from the diaphragm to the top of the pelvis.

Can anyone comment on this?

 

[Al Thompson]

We didn't know then what we know now. An awful lot of what was taught in the '70's was based on Hollywood myths. Modern post fight analysis shows us that hits above the diaphragm and between the nipples stops fights faster.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Take a look at http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=655871 ...

 

[Deltaboy1984]

I was taught to always shoot above the midline or for the head since childhood.

 

[lemaymiami]

I'm from the stone age so I might be able to shed some light on practical street level armed conflict.... No matter how you're trained -- in a real life shooting scenario most will shoot high... No, not because they were trained that way -it's becuase of how most react to adrenaline fueled extreme situations. As a result, I always advised my young guys (and gals) to deliberately aim a bit low on that once in a lifetime shooting situation. That advice was particularly valid if you had a shotgun in your hands at the time.

There may have been a shift in target orientation over time but I was never aware of it. Remember as well that things seen in movies may not accurately reflect how things are actually done (even if it's a Clint Eastwood movie). My last remark is particularly directed to all the stuff that had some former LAPD type as the technical adviser... since I was trained and worked on the other side of the country where we did lots of stuff differently (no matter what the local branch of LAPD International was doing....).

 

[Double Naught Spy]

The old targets are true center of mass instead of being center of chest targets often used today. true center of mass allows the shooter the most room for error while still landing shots on targets.

 

[LeonCarr]

DPS/Texas Highway Patrol used to use a target with a middle of the armpits/sternum aiming point, and the same target was used for Texas CHL Qualifications. In actual gunfights, troopers were shooting over the shoulders of the bad guys. They went back to the B-27 with its xyphoid process/bottom of ribcage X-Ring shortly thereafter for duty quals and CHL quals.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

 

[Shadow 7D]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDP8BRSEjrA
1930's film on the LA Sheriff's Pistol team
The trick shooting is crazy
however, pay attention to the targets, center of chest type.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Did you notice how badly the heart was misplaced? Sheesh. The shape is rather unrealistic as well.

 

[EvilGenius]

I'm from the stone age so I might be able to shed some light on practical street level armed conflict.... No matter how you're trained -- in a real life shooting scenario most will shoot high... No, not because they were trained that way -it's becuase of how most react to adrenaline fueled extreme situations. As a result, I always advised my young guys (and gals) to deliberately aim a bit low on that once in a lifetime shooting situation. That advice was particularly valid if you had a shotgun in your hands at the time.

There may have been a shift in target orientation over time but I was never aware of it. Remember as well that things seen in movies may not accurately reflect how things are actually done (even if it's a Clint Eastwood movie). My last remark is particularly directed to all the stuff that had some former LAPD type as the technical adviser... since I was trained and worked on the other side of the country where we did lots of stuff differently (no matter what the local branch of LAPD International was doing....).

Huh, I was taught that less proficient shooters and during an adrenaline rush most people shoot low because they tend to jerk the trigger pretty hard.

My assumption for the older style targets that have a lower/larger ring was to include the low shots as the same or similar accuracy level as the heart shots. (Though technically not as effective.) With the intent of making the less proficient shooters look/feel better.

Is this incorrect?

 

[Deltaboy1984]

We didn't know then what we know now. An awful lot of what was taught in the '70's was based on Hollywood myths. Modern post fight analysis shows us that hits above the diaphragm and between the nipples stops fights faster.

Yep I got some old shooting books that show almost gut shooting. I got turned to Col.Cooper back in the early 1980's and I had been taught to head shot most animals.

 

[allaroundhunter]

Huh, I was taught that less proficient shooters and during an adrenaline rush most people shoot low because they tend to jerk the trigger pretty hard.

My assumption for the older style targets that have a lower/larger ring was to include the low shots as the same or similar accuracy level as the heart shots. (Though technically not as effective.) With the intent of making the less proficient shooters look/feel better.

Is this incorrect?

Jerking the trigger often times results in a shot that is pulled high and left or right (depending on whether the shooter is left or right handed), rather than a low one.

 

[jeepnik]

Just as an aside, back in the days of flintlock and percussion combat long arms, it was common for officers to remind the troops to "aim low". Seems many of the troops, even experienced ones often times shot over the opposing line of troops.

I wonder if having the aiming point gut high wasn't left over from that time so that folks would shoot over the oppositions heads

Of course, shooting an enemy in the abdomen would usually result in a terminal, and painful wound that would likely have the individual live long enough to need to be taken to the rear, thus requiring manpower that would otherwise have been spent in combat.

 

[Al Thompson]

Jeep, that ties in pretty well with some of Dave Grossman's work in On Killing.

As for keeping the 10 ring on the bellybutton, that also may be from a desire by administrative types to get higher qualification rates.

In any event, we now know it's a poor choice.

 

[lloveless]

I have heard that pelvic shots are a high quality shot due to fracture of the pelvis makes the platform unstable, pelvic fractures bleed lots, and then there are lots of arteries, and veins in that area also.
ll

 

[Al Thompson]

lloveless, I've heard and read from some astoundingly well qualified folks both sides - it works, it doesn't work.

No clear cut answer. My take is that if someone is attacking me with a contact weapon and I have time and distance on my side with no ability to retreat, I might take the shot. Buddy of mine delivered a load of buckshot into a crazed guys upper thigh and it stopped the loon. But he had several things going for him and he adjusted accordingly.

 

[Hangingrock]

Just as an aside, back in the days of flintlock and percussion combat long arms, it was common for officers to remind the troops to "aim low". Seems many of the troops, even experienced ones often times shot over the opposing line of troops.

As a reference you may want to obtain this book: The Rifled Musket in Civil War Combat Reality And Myth by Earl J Hess. (Bullets fired from a Rifled Musket followed a parabolic trajectory at mid-range those rifle balls flew well above the enemy creating two killing zones which in between those zones troops could operate untouched.)

 

[Fred Fuller]

I have heard that pelvic shots are a high quality shot due to fracture of the pelvis makes the platform unstable, pelvic fractures bleed lots, and then there are lots of arteries, and veins in that area also.

I know motor vehicles can break the pelvis, I've seen that happen as an EMT. Never worked a shooting where there was a pelvis hit though, so I have no field experience with them.

Personally it isn't something I would target by preference. John Farnam taught 'zippering' (stringing a short burst of shots vertically up the centerline) several years ago, and he wanted a couple of hits low in the pelvis to start the string, but that's the only formal instruction I have ever had which targeted the pelvis - and that was only as a starting point. I don't know if he's still teaching that approach or not.

 

[jeepnik]

As a reference you may want to obtain this book: The Rifled Musket in Civil War Combat Reality And Myth by Earl J Hess. (Bullets fired from a Rifled Musket followed a parabolic trajectory at mid-range those rifle balls flew well above the enemy creating two killing zones which in between those zones troops could operate untouched.)

I've shot black powder handguns, shotguns and both rifled and unrifled long guns for decades. I'm pretty familiar with the rainbow like trajectory that the long guns and handguns have.

If truth be told, some of the troops intentionally shot high (at least on their first outing) due to a resistance to kill another human. Many just failed to use their sights at all and some though they tried to use sights were too excited to do so properly.

I can't even imagine the courage it would take to stand in a line, face to face with a line of opposing infantry and just load and fire. True at some point they closed to bayonet range (another form of terror in itself) but there were cases where opposing lines just continued to trade volley after volley.

 

[ShelbyV8]

With the amount of body armor that is on the street now days head shots and pelvic shots are more important. A ruptured Femoral Artery will bleed out very quickly

 

[JPG19]

With the amount of body armor that is on the street now days head shots and pelvic shots are more important. A ruptured Femoral Artery will bleed out very quickly

Body armor? Head shots? Perhaps you live in Chicago (in which case I'd be wearing body armor too) but I would urge you to reconsider the glorified head shot and try double or triple taps to the chest. A head shot is a rather poor choice in the event of a shooting as it is too small and has many different simultaneous directions of movement. That said, perhaps a shot to the pelvis could be effective, but the likelihood of you hitting the femoral artery is much smaller than the likelihood of you hitting either the heart, lung, or aorta should you choose to shoot in the chest. When a Marine sniper advises to aim center-mass rather than for the so-called "fatal-T" I will heed his word. But then again, that's just me.

 

[Davek1977]

Body armor isn't so prevalent as to abandon tried and tested techniques for ending a conflict. I'll continue to practice putting bullets center mass in as efficient of manner as possible...

 

[Owen]

The british military was trained to aim at the belt buckle with the SMLE, which was zeroed for something like 15" high at 100 yards, because it gave a point blank range of something like 500 yards.

 

[BigG]

The british military was trained to aim at the belt buckle with the SMLE, which was zeroed for something like 15" high at 100 yards, because it gave a point blank range of something like 500 yards.

That's true for most weapons I've tested. They shoot pretty high and a lot cannot be regulated much lower without quite a bit of work.

 

[beatledog7]

I was YouTubing about DA revolvers last night and ran across some old FBI-USAF training films from the 50s to 70s.

While the narrators never actually talk about anatomical aspects of POA, the demonstration shooters consistently aim for the area between xiphoid process and navel.