Pelvis Area Hit instead of Chest/Head?

[kingcheese]

If you sever the femoral artery it will two 30seconds to a about 3minutes to bleed out, if you take a chest shot and sever th aorta maybe 30 seconds, sever an arm 30 seconds ma, i personal wouldn't aim for the groin, id use a shotgun, at 7 yards such is a typical range for defense even if the have armor on it will knock them down, i was always told in a defense situation not to stop until the threat was neutralized with a dead attacker or a surrender and preferable the first

 

[Crusader103]

i was always told in a defense situation not to stop until the threat was neutralized with a dead attacker or a surrender and preferable the first

Wow, those shots to the back are going to get you in some real trouble when the bad guy turns and runs. We've seen that more than a few times.

As to the original proposition, too often people leave off the rest of the phrase, "center mass," when it should truly be "center mass of the target offered (by the opponent) or selected (by you)."

Of course center mass torso shots are almost always preferable (though there are a few limited exceptions such as hostage, etc.). However, center mass torso shots are not always possible. That is, the torso is not always in view (offered by the opponent) such as when concealed by barriers in the environment. Likewise, body armor is a real concern.

The shooter must be well versed in alternative points of aim. Shots to the head are likely to produce positive results but that requires a shooter who can make such a shot at a likely moving target under extreme stress at perhaps an extreme distance (in gunfight terms). Some people can make those shots. I have no doubt about that. Most however, cannot.

That is why the pelvis is a valid point of aim. Arguably, it is less likely to bring about a near immediate incapacitation but if the torso is unable and the head is unfeasible it is a worthy target indeed. There are structures and systems within the pelvic region that can very much disrupt the aggressive actions of an attacker. The best target? No. A worthy secondary or tertiary target to the torso? Absolutely.

One must keep in mind that even a shot to an extremity is a worthy target when attempting to stop an offender. If I must shoot underneath a vehicle and the only target "offered" by my opponent are his lower legs and feet, he will be taking multiple shots to those areas.

The incapacitation of an assailant is a goal rarely achieved with immediate success when any small arm is utilized. It must be observed as a process. You must "select" the target most likely to bring about the quickest resolution to your problem. If that is not the torso, consider the head or pelvis based upon the situation. If none of those are available, shoot an extremity.

 

[JPG19]

I wouldn't consider aiming for the femoral artery a plausible strategy - if you're that good, why not go for his eye? Or perhaps his carotid artery? I can see it as an immobilization tactic but would hardly place a dime, let alone my life, on the chance of hitting a large artery and the assailant bleeding out.

 

[Deaf Smith]

The late great Jim Cirillo of NYPD Stakeout Squad fame stated in one of his books that the most effective shot for stopping somebody was shooting them through the hips/buttocks. He said they might still be alive, but they ain't going anywhere.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

What book did Cirillo say that? I have several of his and I can look that up.

Thanks,

Deaf

 

[jeepnik]

You know, when you're at most ranges you kinda stand there looking at the target. Sometimes if you get fancy, it might have a "hostage" in front of the target. Heck, once in a while folks shoot from some pretend barricade. But when push comes to shove, and all you can see or hit is the bad guys left little toe, you shoot him in the toe and hope he falls down so you can shoot him somewhere better.

You may not be able to shoot a fellow where you want, but anywhere you hit him is bound to get his attention. Sometimes you just gotta start small and work up from there.

 

[hirundo82]

While it may cause a stop, I wouldn't consider it a reliable option. There's a lot of redundant structural support in the human pelvic girdle, and it would probably be more a matter of luck than skill. I'm not even sure a hit to the pubic symphysis would stop someone from moving--you'd probably have to shatter the acetabulum/head of the femur.

For those who have mentioned pelvis shots as a hunting shot, remember the human pelvis is a lot more robust than that of most animals, as a requirement of bipedal locomotion.

 

[hirundo82]

decades ago i trained myself by drawing 2 triangles on the body

one connects the shoulders and than the bellybutton
the second connects the hips and than the groin

picture the anatomy behind those triangles....

I prefer to think of the top triangle with its points on the nipples and the larynx.

Although to be fair a solid[ hit anywhere on the torso or head has a decent probability of being fatal. I say "solid" because I've seen a number of gunshot wounds that were just glancing shots and never actually entered a body cavity. Probably becoming more common with the embiggening of our society.

 

[orionengnr]

I prefer to think of the top triangle with its points on the nipples and the larynx.

^^ This.

If he is wearing body armor...that is why the Mozambique was invented.

 

[Art Eatman]

JD Morris, you're totally wrong. If you shoot and miss, and he stops his hostility, you've done all you need to do and all that the law allows.

"Shoot to stop" is not a politically correct deal. It's cold-bloodedly practical. It can keep you out of the Graybar Hotel.

And if you're gonna get in a swivet about lawsuits, "Don't take your guns to town, boy..."

 

[Deaf Smith]

Actually 'shoot to stop' is the wisest idea.

For if you shoot to kill you might kill them right after they deliver a killing hit.

Plenty of cases were people swapped lead and both died (ineffective bullets that still bleed them out.)

You want to stop them before they can harm you or anyone else. IF they die, well that is the way the cookie crumbles, but it was not the sought after goal.

Deaf

 

[LeonCarr]

Hey Deaf,

I believe it is Tales of the Stakeout Squad that references the buttocks shot.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

 

[Lost Sheep]

Know your target (hint: it is not the SURFACE of your target)

I prefer to think of the top triangle with its points on the nipples and the larynx.

Although to be fair a solid[ hit anywhere on the torso or head has a decent probability of being fatal. I say "solid" because I've seen a number of gunshot wounds that were just glancing shots and never actually entered a body cavity. Probably becoming more common with the embiggening of our society.

Remember that the body is three-dimensional. When hunting, (where the object IS to kill as humanely and as quickly as possible, but the discipline still has some things to teach us) it is common to picture a basketball (or melon, or whatever) within the chest cavity and extending a little oblong into the viscera and encompassing the heart, lungs, liver, etc.

If taking a shot from the side, the nipples/larynx triangle is not helpful.

The last line of this post is most helpful

decades ago i trained myself by drawing 2 triangles on the body

one connects the shoulders and than the bellybutton
the second connects the hips and than the groin

picture the anatomy behind those triangles....

The operative word is "behind".

Lost Sheep

 

[HeadHunter1-3]

Didnt read the entire thread however about 3 years ago hip/pelvis shots were added to the USAF M9 AFQT. The thought behind it was a femoral artery/shattered hip shot to disable/kill individual wearing plates.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Didnt read the entire thread however about 3 years ago hip/pelvis shots were added to the USAF M9 AFQT. The thought behind it was a femoral artery/shattered hip shot to disable/kill individual wearing plates.

Should have read the thread. Pistols aren't apt to shatter a hip or disable a person wearing plates when the hip doesn't shatter.

Most folks can't tell you where to shoot to get the proclaimed breakage because they haven't a clue.

Most folks don't know where the femoral artery is.

Most folks can't tell you what the anatomical feature is that is called a "hip" because it is a generic term that refers to several bones or one bone in two at least two instances, both different bones. Oddly, one definition of the hip does not even involve the pelvis and so "hip" is really a poor choice of terminology.

Hip bone - means all of the pelvis http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hipbone
Hip - means parts sticks out of pelvis region http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hip
broken hip - means femur neck breakage http://orthopedics.about.com/cs/hipsurgery/a/brokenhip.htm

In short, what can happen, is likely to happen, should happen, might happen, etc. are hugely variable and what most people want to happen when using pistols doesn't happen at all.

 

[kingcheese]

Turning around to run is a legal surrender....

 

[Double Naught Spy]

A shotgun impact does not knock people down and turning around to run is not a legal surrender. Once again, I call to attention the Ocala shooting by Samuel Williams of two robbers in the internet cafe where he shot one twice in the hip/buttocks and continued to shoot while the buttstot dude and his partner turned and ran toward the door, whilst still retaining weapons which indicated no surrender and he was not charged for shooting at surrendered people.

 

[Lost Sheep]

A shotgun impact does not knock people down and turning around to run is not a legal surrender. Once again, I call to attention the Ocala shooting by Samuel Williams of two robbers in the internet cafe where he shot one twice in the hip/buttocks and continued to shoot while the buttstot dude and his partner turned and ran toward the door, whilst still retaining weapons which indicated no surrender and he was not charged for shooting at surrendered people.

Turning to run, indeed, is not surrender, but turning and running does (in most jurisdictions) remove the right to shoot. When there is no longer an immediate, credible threat you no longer have the legal defense of "self-defense".

Just because a thinking, reasonable prosecutor declines to press charges does not mean you broke no law. Sometimes reason prevails over black letter law. Sometimes politics does. Sometimes those things do not sway an over-zealous prosecutor or politics that don't fall in your favor, maybe whipped into a frenzy by media attention to a high-profile incident. Then, shooting a fleeing person (no matter what they did before they turned and ran) might get you in a world of trouble. You feeling lucky? Want to test that?

No thanks.

Discretion is the better part of valor.

Lost Sheep

 

[sniperlongshot]

best choice for me, stay down, stay low, stay out of sight, act as a helpful witness,.......if you let the other guy win, then you win.............the minute your gun is noticed, even if not pulled, you had better plan on spending a lot of money on a lawyer,............and in a perfect world, you may not beat the ride, but the rap.

as far a where to shoot when you have to, if you practice this, it works, look over the gun, keep the front sight in you perifial, aim center of the chest at shirt pocket level, since your looking over your sight and not through them, you get to see what the target is doing, and about to do, and your bullet will hit about 8" high from you poin of aim, just above the line of thier shirt/vest.

same thing if your aiming low,.....above the shirt line, turns them off light a light bulb, .....down low, break their hips and they can't stand up or walk, and will bleed out quick

your decision for which,...target presentation, type of weapon, hostages, etc

 

[kingcheese]

Turning around removes the threat, there is an exception to every rule, in my local turning around to retreat and surrendering are the same thing, still if its a choice between going to jail or dying, id take jail, and,a shot gun puts out around 1000 foot pounds at the muzzle using a 12ga,you really wanna tell me that won't put a man down? Seriously if it will drop a deer like a sack of bricks,it will drop a less nimble man

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

...a shot gun puts out around 1000 foot pounds at the muzzle using a 12ga,you really wanna tell me that won't put a man down? Seriously if it will drop a deer like a sack of bricks,it will drop a less nimble man

Newton's 3rd Law (action and reaction) says that if you are projecting enough force to "knock them down", as you said in your previous post, then the reaction to that force is enough to knock yourself down as well.

Yes, a 12 gauge will kick, sometimes pretty hard. But the next time you're out hunting deer and have one hanging from a tree to field dress, step back and take a shot at it with some 00 buck while it's hanging on the rope. Note how much it swings. Then give it even a moderate shove with one hand and note the difference.

"Dropping" a deer, or a human, isn't the same thing as saying "knock them down". The former is a cumulation of the holistic effect of being shot...which includes what they were shot with and the systemic effect of that shot on the body. The latter is a pure application of force.

The terms are often used synonymously, but they don't mean the same thing at all.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Turning to run, indeed, is not surrender, but turning and running does (in most jurisdictions) remove the right to shoot. When there is no longer an immediate, credible threat you no longer have the legal defense of "self-defense".

I am sorry, but that must be with the law that says shooting a person in the back is illegal. Would you find those for me because nobody else seems to be able to do so? I can't even find a firearms instructor that says that just because a person has turned away from you that they have ceased to be a threat. Since you did say this is in most "jurisdictions" then you are obviously refererring to specific laws since jurisdictions refer to specific areas of legal authority. Please cite.

Turning around removes the threat, there is an exception to every rule, in my local turning around to retreat and surrendering are the same thing

I requested too soon. Maybe you can find the law that says this along with the shot in the back law. Maybe you can find that in the laws of your "local." Once again, please cite the specific code.

What I referred to is not a singular exception. We have several thread on the matter on this very forum.

and,a shot gun puts out around 1000 foot pounds at the muzzle using a 12ga,you really wanna tell me that won't put a man down? Seriously if it will drop a deer like a sack of bricks,it will drop a less nimble man

While I have to admit that a deer on methamphetamine is known to be one of the most violent and dangerous animals in the animal kingdom feared by law enforcement and special forces alike, before you change the species being discussed and change your words, let's review what you actually said...

id use a shotgun, at 7 yards such is a typical range for defense even if the have armor on it will knock them down,

So seriously, if you have ever fired a shotgun, you know it won't knock you down. If you think it will knock down your bad guy or your deer (but on the viscious deer, you did change the words to say "drop" which is actually more appropriate), it won't knock one down, not an adult.

a shot gun puts out around 1000 foot pounds at the muzzle using a 12ga

Let's see, referring to Chuck Hawks data for a quick reference, you are selling short the shotgun at just 1000 lbs. I will even go as high as 1300 lbs. That still isn't much compared to a .308 which is more than double that.
http://www.chuckhawks.com/shotguns_protection_field.htm

So here we have Alex Jason getting hit with 7.62x51 NATO ball wearing Level III body armor and he does not get knocked down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaS_2l8nGdg

Check out...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gEL0qKbHaQ

Holy crap! A 12 ga. with 00 buck at short range will not knock over a piece of ballistic glass on a cheopo card table folding chair. Scratch that. The chair appears to be a Sam's plastic back and seat folding chair. They are not cheap, costing up to $35, and will hold a 300 lb man at a Thanksgiving dinner, but they are not known for stopping 1000+ ft lbs of muzzle energy, and yet, the chair with the glass is not knocked over. The glass is not penetrated and doesn't fall out of the chair despite not being affixed to the chair. How is this even possible???

Newtonian physics is how, kingcheese. Seriously.

 

[Kleanbore]

We have almost six dozen posts here, some good, some not so great. Add the posts made in THR over the last eight plus years that can be found using the search function and this subject should be adequately covered.