I just saw this video where Michael Janich points out that disabling shots to the hip / lower torso region are safer to bystanders. Thoughts?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEFTGoJ-FIs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEFTGoJ-FIs
Hip / Lower Torso Shots?
- Thread starter Vermonter
- Start date
- Status
Unless you hit the femoral artery you are not going to get rapid incapacitation. Handgun rounds are not likely to shatter the pelvic girdle. There are plenty of documented stories of people walking into the ER with broken bones in the hips and thighs.
The pelvic shot has been advocated by some people for decades. But there is a reason it's not widely taught. It's not as effective as shooting into the upper torso.
The pelvic shot has been advocated by some people for decades. But there is a reason it's not widely taught. It's not as effective as shooting into the upper torso.
I had one trainer advocate for it in the military, and we ran failure drills of 2-3 rounds COM, 1 to the head. If the threat kept coming, aim for the groin area and "zipper up" back to COM. Wash, rinse, repeat.
The thinking was that targeting the hips of an armored opponent would give a chance of stopping their mobility. Fixating on the underlined portion above, whether it stops the target or not it at least gives an opportunity to land hits where they can penetrate (albeit not to vitals, and even a nick of the femoral may not be an instantaneous stop). Nonetheless, while I am not a doctor I am on the side that says handguns suck and like Jeff I don't have a ton of faith in a mechanical stop from targeting the hips. It's not something I've continued to train since becoming an exclusively civilian shooter.
The thinking was that targeting the hips of an armored opponent would give a chance of stopping their mobility. Fixating on the underlined portion above, whether it stops the target or not it at least gives an opportunity to land hits where they can penetrate (albeit not to vitals, and even a nick of the femoral may not be an instantaneous stop). Nonetheless, while I am not a doctor I am on the side that says handguns suck and like Jeff I don't have a ton of faith in a mechanical stop from targeting the hips. It's not something I've continued to train since becoming an exclusively civilian shooter.
Last edited:
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Several issues to think about:
1) "Safer to bystanders." This is important. Each of us should take some time to practice techniques for shooting in dense crowd situations. We talk about the risks of trying to engage an active shooter in a mall, stadium, movie theater, church, etc. regularly, and many will say, "there's no way I could take a shot without injuring bystanders..." That might be true, but if you practice changing shot angles by moving, taking a knee, or even shooting alternate body parts like the pelvis, you often can make something out of nothing if you really have to.
2) No, it isn't terribly effective, compared to a center of mass shot. As Jeff said, a bullet through the pelvis isn't likely to physically stop anyone, or break their structure down. Mostly it will just punch a hole. But, it certainly might be enough to break their attention from killing others, or make them realize they're vulnerable and get them to flee or look for cover, or otherwise buy folks time to get away. And it might actually end the attack. Worth a try. But not a primary target by any means.
1) "Safer to bystanders." This is important. Each of us should take some time to practice techniques for shooting in dense crowd situations. We talk about the risks of trying to engage an active shooter in a mall, stadium, movie theater, church, etc. regularly, and many will say, "there's no way I could take a shot without injuring bystanders..." That might be true, but if you practice changing shot angles by moving, taking a knee, or even shooting alternate body parts like the pelvis, you often can make something out of nothing if you really have to.
2) No, it isn't terribly effective, compared to a center of mass shot. As Jeff said, a bullet through the pelvis isn't likely to physically stop anyone, or break their structure down. Mostly it will just punch a hole. But, it certainly might be enough to break their attention from killing others, or make them realize they're vulnerable and get them to flee or look for cover, or otherwise buy folks time to get away. And it might actually end the attack. Worth a try. But not a primary target by any means.
TimSr
Member
If the bystanders are behind the target, no shot with any ammo would be safe.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Of course. That's a given. But these sorts of techniques are about the very worst-case situations. For example, an "active shooter" in a movie theater or mall. Some situation where a person is shooting/killing people RIGHT NOW and you could try to stop it, but your own shots directly at his center-of-mass are pretty likely to hit someone on the other side of the bad guy.
You could stand by and say, "I can't take the risk of injuring or killing an innocent..." But most of us would have a hard time living with the decision to let the bad guy go on killing people at will while our gun stays in the holster.
Techniques like this might be a way to slow, hinder, and maybe even stop the killer, while reducing (not eliminating) the risk of the good guy harming an innocent victim accidentally.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
I think the axiom should be to take the most effective, safest shot that you can take in the circumstances you have.
And that will NEVER be exactly identical from one scenario to another.
Center-of-mass is the rule of thumb we go by for self-defense, and it's a good rule for a variety of reasons. But center-of-mass just isn't possible or practical 100% of the time.
So...train and be flexible. Take the best shots you can, when you can, and do your best to make them count.
And that will NEVER be exactly identical from one scenario to another.
Center-of-mass is the rule of thumb we go by for self-defense, and it's a good rule for a variety of reasons. But center-of-mass just isn't possible or practical 100% of the time.
So...train and be flexible. Take the best shots you can, when you can, and do your best to make them count.
Exactly, what is safer to bystanders, taking a shot and maybe missing or maybe the bullet goes through or letting the active shooter continue un-opposed? The answer seems obvious to me. Anyone ever even heard of a case where a civilian or LE accidentally hit an innocent bystander? I'm sure it's happened, but I'm also sure it's extremely rare.
It is certainly a consideration but it seems to me kinda like worrying about a sprained ankle jumping out a 2nd story window when your house is on fire.
And before someone jumps on me for comparing a bystander getting shot to a sprained ankle, I think the risk of an accidental bystander hit vs. scores of people being deliberately gunned down w/o intervention is a fair comparison.
It is certainly a consideration but it seems to me kinda like worrying about a sprained ankle jumping out a 2nd story window when your house is on fire.
And before someone jumps on me for comparing a bystander getting shot to a sprained ankle, I think the risk of an accidental bystander hit vs. scores of people being deliberately gunned down w/o intervention is a fair comparison.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Oh sure, it is a serious issue!
Remember about three years ago, the two NYPD officers who tried to stop a guy with a gun on a NY street and ended up shooting NINE other people?
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/25/nypd-shooting-bystander-victims-hit-by-police-gunfire/
Not cool. So this isn't an idle concern.
Thanks for posting that, no I'm not saying it isn't a valid concern. Put in perspective though, even in that extreme instance, no bystanders were killed...how many get killed by an un-opposed active shooter?
(That wasn't an active shooter scenario, cops probably could have done something differently, it says he was walking "casually" down the street, they probably had time to secure the area a bit better or follow for a while until he gets to a less crowded area or walks by a solid building backdrop)
I'm just reacting to the way discussions about this seem to go where it seems like most posters wouldn't shoot at all for fear of hitting a bystander elevating that accidental risk above the risk of being deliberately shot by the perp. Seems like an inverted risk analysis to me.
If one did a formal risk assessment on each scenario assigning both likely severity and probability to each with control measures in place, not taking the shot for fear of hitting a bystander would come out the clear loser.
There can never be a right answer as far as where to shoot. Depends on the unique situation at hand. Shooting low could be the best answer as many times as shooting high could be. Generally, I'd think shooting high chest or head would be best in an active shooter scenario as it ends the biggest threat. In the Janich video, the context is someone with a knife, not an immediate threat to bystanders, his thought process there made sense in that limited circumstance and those angles.
(That wasn't an active shooter scenario, cops probably could have done something differently, it says he was walking "casually" down the street, they probably had time to secure the area a bit better or follow for a while until he gets to a less crowded area or walks by a solid building backdrop)
I'm just reacting to the way discussions about this seem to go where it seems like most posters wouldn't shoot at all for fear of hitting a bystander elevating that accidental risk above the risk of being deliberately shot by the perp. Seems like an inverted risk analysis to me.
If one did a formal risk assessment on each scenario assigning both likely severity and probability to each with control measures in place, not taking the shot for fear of hitting a bystander would come out the clear loser.
There can never be a right answer as far as where to shoot. Depends on the unique situation at hand. Shooting low could be the best answer as many times as shooting high could be. Generally, I'd think shooting high chest or head would be best in an active shooter scenario as it ends the biggest threat. In the Janich video, the context is someone with a knife, not an immediate threat to bystanders, his thought process there made sense in that limited circumstance and those angles.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Agreed, on all points.
Unless one is in something like the wide open spaces of Montana, there is always some likelihood there is a person or persons located in the direction of arc of movement of an attacker, and within range of danger
If you can see them, you should move to put them out of the line of fire.
I also believe that one's first thought while drawing and moving should be "backstop!".
I had the occasion several years ago to blunder into the beginning of an obvious robbery in a store. My first reaction was to move--to move to get a lane of fire that would not endanger anyone moving between me and the bad fellow; to move so that anyone moving "down range" would be reasonably safe; and to move to where I would have a backstop.
It all happened instantly, and the bad fellow ran out of the store when he noticed what I was doing.
Yes, the safety of innocents is a serious issue.
The "Pharmacy Robbery" episode of The Best Defense illustrated the danger, showed how to deal with it, and demonstrated some range training to build the skills for moving to shoot around people in the foreground, to shoot without endangering people in the background, and to obtain a backstop. The episode came out long after my scary experience.
Sheepdog1968
Member
I know Thunder Ranch Urban Rifle had us shooting pelvic shots more than any other class I've taken elsewhere. I'm not sure if the TR pistol class does the same. I'm guessing carrying out our routines on where we shoot is,probably a good thing. I did a couple of things when clearing a room in Urban Rifle that clearly showed I had some undesirable training scars.
1911 guy
Member
Rifle rounds have a greater chance of actually breaking the pelvic bone and seriously incapacitating the target. Handguns rounds, as mentioned by both Jeff and Sam, tend to just punch holes.
I'm an advocate of the pelvic shot when the angle of the shot mitigates some danger to bystanders. Otherwise, not so much. It can be useful if the target is wearing body armor, but most civilian self defense shooting don't involve armored bad guys.
I'm an advocate of the pelvic shot when the angle of the shot mitigates some danger to bystanders. Otherwise, not so much. It can be useful if the target is wearing body armor, but most civilian self defense shooting don't involve armored bad guys.
Sam 1911, a lot of people have not seen the after action from the NYPD shooting at the Empire State Building. The shots injuring the bystanders had went through the bad guy. The location where the shooting occurred is all steel, granite, and concrete which enhances the ricochet factor. I don't think any of the critics would have done any better. It doesnt change the concern but most effective SD rounds and calibers will make an entry and exit wound.
The lower torso shot has been around over 20 years. It's lack of acceptance vs center mass speaks for its effectiveness.
The lower torso shot has been around over 20 years. It's lack of acceptance vs center mass speaks for its effectiveness.
1911 guy
Member
I've seen the footage of the shooting itself. The police fired ten rounds into the deceased. A few of the victims were indeed pass-throughs, but not the majority, certainly not all of them. One officer responded textbook, the other should have been tried for criminal negligence.
Quote:
The lower torso shot has been around over 20 years. It's lack of acceptance vs center mass speaks for its effectiveness.
Agreed. It's one of those things that is of such limited utility that I wouldn't bother actually practicing it.
Quote:
The lower torso shot has been around over 20 years. It's lack of acceptance vs center mass speaks for its effectiveness.
Agreed. It's one of those things that is of such limited utility that I wouldn't bother actually practicing it.
I've spoken and trained with Michael Janich and the OP read a bit out of character. After watching the clip it makes a lot more sense.
In the clip, he is referring to breaking contact, after being attacked with a blade, and drawing his handgun.
So he's talking about shooting at distances from 2-4 feet. Shooting to the lower body, at that distance, any shot that passes through, or misses, your target is going into the ground....which is what you'd want in CQB with people standing around (like a store, restaurant, or mall)
Also in the clip, he has just intercepted a knife thrust and thrown his assailant aside. In that situation, the lower body of the target is the most static part (the upper body would be moving like a swinging target) and presents the easier target. He doesn't advocate targeting the lower body at distances outside of CQB
His knife fighting techniques do target the lower body for disabling strikes...as they target severing the quadriceps muscle group
In the clip, he is referring to breaking contact, after being attacked with a blade, and drawing his handgun.
So he's talking about shooting at distances from 2-4 feet. Shooting to the lower body, at that distance, any shot that passes through, or misses, your target is going into the ground....which is what you'd want in CQB with people standing around (like a store, restaurant, or mall)
Also in the clip, he has just intercepted a knife thrust and thrown his assailant aside. In that situation, the lower body of the target is the most static part (the upper body would be moving like a swinging target) and presents the easier target. He doesn't advocate targeting the lower body at distances outside of CQB
His knife fighting techniques do target the lower body for disabling strikes...as they target severing the quadriceps muscle group
Hangingrock
Member
Cool, calm, and collected placing ones shots. That's the objective. Realistic or theoretical for the 90% plus individuals among the general population?
Theoretical...because 90% plus don't have any professional firearms training whatsoever much less force on force training. The stats for LE aren't so great and they get about 40 hrs firearms training or more in the academy.
I recently did some searching for civilian accessible force on force training and the best bet I found was the Simunition instructor course. It is LE/Mil only, not a problem for me but not civilian accessible. I'm toying with the idea of getting the certification and putting on some local courses, I know I wouldn't make much $, it would just be for the training value I'd get along with teaching others and maybe some pocket change.
1911 guy, NYPD released the information that the rounds hitting the bystanders had gone through the bad guy. That's in the article Sam 1911 linked. 16 shots were fired and 10 hit the target. They had no reason to lie about it as it didn't reduce their liability.
One fact the proponents of the lower torso overlook that if you do it in an urban environment there is no dirt for the round to bury itself in. It will ricochet off the sidewalk, building, or any of the other hard surfaces there.
One fact the proponents of the lower torso overlook that if you do it in an urban environment there is no dirt for the round to bury itself in. It will ricochet off the sidewalk, building, or any of the other hard surfaces there.
1911 guy
Member
Watch the video. A bystander was struck and fell to the left center of the screen, the perp was lower right of the security camera that caught the incident. The bystander was directly shot by the officer furthest to the right, who was firing blindly, barely hanging onto the pistol with one hand. The officer to the left got a two handed grip, fired at a single point, and was holstered already while the idiot to right of the screen was still waving his gun around.
Did you expect anything else from NYPD than to cover their butts?
Did you expect anything else from NYPD than to cover their butts?
Sav .250
Member
Unless less your a trained professional. I seriously doubt your going to say," ok take the hip shot. No, on second thought, take the knee shot. "
The other side of this coin would be that everyone should become trained...whether they are a professional or notSav .250 said:
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
I'd like to think that each of us -- "trained professional" or not -- would look at a situation like an active shooter, draw our weapon, and then think for at least part of a second about the people behind him. You don't have to be a "trained professional" to more or less instinctively act to reduce the chance of killing an innocent. And that's what this is about.
Telekinesis
Member
Shivworks ECQC and Tactical Response: The Fight (and the night version) are a couple of good/reasonable cost classes available to non-LE/Mil.
I'm sure there are others out there too, the problem is that they do not get the publicity and they're not seen as being as cool as the 1,000 round 2 day live fire courses. I think part of it is because the live fire classes tend to be "ego building" where you're learning new techniques and succeeding, while force on force is more "ego crushing" where you learn what areas you need to work on more.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
