Did past generations aim lower?

[Al Thompson]

When a Marine sniper advises to aim center-mass rather than for the so-called "fatal-T" I will heed his word.

A .308 bolt gun is rather different that a Glock 19. And an anonymous "Marine sniper" is not the "go to" guy for civilian self defense ballistic data or tactics.

 

[jeepnik]

I remember seeing that years ago. I always wondered just how many "trained" experts shot themselves in the thigh as they drew.

 

[JPG19]

A .308 bolt gun is rather different that a Glock 19. And an anonymous "Marine sniper" is not the "go to" guy for civilian self defense ballistic data or tactics.

At the end of the day you're still throwing lead at a live animal in an effort to stop an attack. Perhaps you don't consider him a reliable source of information but he has much more training than 99% of the people on this forum so I will certainly take his advice over an anonymous internet forum poster's but, to each his own. Place my own logic and thought processes on top of that and I will maintain my opinion that shooting center-mass is more prudent than aiming for the head...unless you're playing your Xbox, that is.

 

[Al Thompson]

I'm not sure what an X-box is, but I'll take your word for it.

Once again, hits below the diaphragm tend to not work as well as hits above. If you want to use the critter analogy (and IMHO, it's a good one), no experienced hunter recommends gut shots. Getting that bullet into some organ that starts shutting the bad guy down is the goal.

 

[Old Fuff]

Between the introduction of revolvers in the middle 1830’s to the middle 1920’s I think it was more common to point rather then aim during a defensive shooting. I base this observation on extensive handling of handguns from this era, and noticing that the sights were both primitive and very small. If one tried to quickly pick up any kind of a sight picture – especially in low light conditions – the fight might be over before they got started. Given this, a tendency to “point lower,” rather then higher might be expected. Also horrendous trigger pulls, necessary to insure ignition, could contribute to low shots.

 

[herrwalther]

Maybe they were on to something. Col Dave Grossman covers in his books that a small percentage of soldiers would actually shoot AT the enemy to kill or wound them. The figure changes slightly between which war WWI, WWII etc. The ones that didn't shoot directly at the enemy would shoot over the enemy on purpose. So maybe aiming lower was a ahead of their time idea that has some merit.

 

[Owen]

Grossman's comments on this topic were taken from the SLA Marshall study, of which large swaths have been debunked.

 

[3212]

A hunters experience which may or may not apply to this discussion.For many years I participated in deer drives in an area with a lot of crop damage.I soon learned to forget the 3 inch high zero at 100 yards.I sighted in 1 inch low at 100 yards with a .243.I had the tendency to shoot high on moving deer.I had several opportunities to shoot running deer coming head on.I killed them but the hits were higher than I thought.Also several spine shots on broadside deer.

 

[AKElroy]

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.

This was the method advocated in the last renewal class I took earlier this year. The instructor is a competitive shooter and retired marine. He went into some detail about how it more effectively prevents a BG from advancing, and it sounded plausible.

 

[Potatohead]

This is a good thread. My instincts tell me that I should aim for the center of the chest. In football they tell tacklers to "watch the hips" because where they go, the body goes..So I would think if the hips are the first body part to shift when a perp moves, the chest would be easiest to hit since it would be moving last, or at least after the hips. AKA It may be harder to hit the pelvic area?

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I think you have confused things, Mr. Potatohead. The chest isn't necessarily the "last to move" and hence "easiest to hit." You used the football tackling analogy about watching the hips. You watch the hips because the head and chest can be moving all over the place even when the hips remain still. Compared to the hips, the chest is often the first to move and sometimes in the wrong direction.