Specific Hypothetical: Luby's or bank robbery type situation: CNS or Vitals shot?

[sacp81170a]

Tokugawa has it right:

Shoot him a couple times in the chest run up on him and keep shooting till he stops.

Except that I would substitute "run over him and knock him down" for "run up on him". That's the way I was trained and I've used that tactic in force on force training with great success. One of the last things the BG will expect is a screaming charge at close quarters. I would only apply that tactic if I were caught in the open with no cover and no means of retreat, however. If there's cover or even concealment nearby that I can get to, even a little bit increases your odds of survival. Shoot and move. Don't linger behind your cover or hug it.

Unfortunately, these actions are counter intuitive unless you've trained in them specifically. As for the CNS shot, if you can approach him from the blind side and get your muzzle to within a few inches of the base of his skull, by all means, go for it.

 

[inherentical]

How many spare magazines am I carrying?

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Now, with a perp standing still at 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, or 11 yards or so, I would definitely take the head shot, as I feel comfortable hitting a head sized target at those ranges

Sure, if you and the perp are both stationary and calm, you might get your shot, but chances are, one or both of you will be in motion, in addition to being nervous.

This is a short range retreat drill I practice on a slightly smaller than head-sized moving target where the target is moving in a direction different from me. This makes the target a good bit harder to hit than one that is chasing me and hence is either staying in roughly the same relative position to me or getting closer. This is one a good day.

http://www.vholdr.com/video/moving-target-retreat-drill

Remember, you can't actually aim at CNS or Vitals. You can aim at exterior landmarks and hope you get the correct penetration and trajectory to hit the critical structures, but generally you simply can't aim at that which you can't see.

As noted by Jeff, much of the head is NOT anything critical. So hitting the head may just result in a disturbing, but maybe not even life threatening wound and certainly not debilitating.

 

[ilbob]

I vote for center of mass shots, 3 or 4 or 5 or 10. Whatever it takes.

Chances of hitting a guy in the head with a pistol from more than 10 or 15 feet away seem slim in such a situation.

I can hit a three inch bullseye target at 50 feet quite reliably with a handgun. I doubt that when the target is shooting back I will be quite that accurate.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

I'm pretty well convinced now that vitals shots are the only way to go (and to keep on shooting, obviously, provided there are no innocents in the background). Thanks for the thoughtful answers.

 

[roo_ster]

I dunno, I am inclined to find cover/concealment before returning fire or at least moving toward c/c while drawing.

If I have c/c, then I will most likely shoot COM or "high COM" with the aim point in mid-chest rather than COM. I'll also use a support, if available.

If in the open, sacp & tok have the right idea.

 

[Bobo]

Personally, I would have to be VERY sure I could make a head shot before I took it. Otherwise I'd shoot to vitals as many times as I could until the threat was down.

Even if I took the head shot(s), if or when the head moved I'd continue shooting to vitals until the threat was down.

Bobo

 

[Soybomb]

What you might consider, if your packing a major caliber, is one round to the pelvis to put him down and anchor him in place.

In the spirit of Jeff talking about the effectiveness of head shots, I feel this justifies me going to my trusty cut n' paste file o' debunking.

“I welcome the chance to refute the belief that the pelvic area is a reasonable target during a gunfight. I can find no evidence or valid rationale for intentionally targeting the pelvic area in a gunfight. The reasons against, however, are many. They include:

-- From the belt line to the top of the head, the areas most likely to rapidly incapacitate the person hit are concentrated in or near the midline. In the pelvis, however, the blood vessels are located to each side, having diverged from the midline, as the aorta and inferior vena cava divide at about the level of the navel. Additionally, the target that, when struck, is the most likely to cause rapid and reliable incapacitation, the spinal cord located in the midline of the abdomen, thorax and neck), ends well above the navel and 18 not a target in the pelvis.

-- The pelvic branches of the aorta and inferior vena cava are more difficult to hit than their parent vessels -- they are smaller targets, and they diverge laterally from the midline (getting farther from it as they descend). Even if hit, each carry far less blood than the larger vessels from which they originated. Thus, even if one of these branches in the pelvis is hit, incapacitation from blood loss must necessarily be slower than from a major vessel hit higher up in the torso.

-- Other than soft tissue structures not essential to continuing the gunfight (1oops of bowel, bladder) the most likely thing to be struck by shots to the pelvis would be bone. The ilium is a large flat bone that forms most of the back wall of the pelvis. The problem is that handgun bullets that hit it would not break the bone but only make a small hole in passing through it: this would do nothing to destroy bony support of the pelvic girdle. The pelvic girdle is essentially a circle: to disrupt its structure significantly would require breaking it in two places. Only a shot that disrupted the neck or upper portion of the shaft of the femur would be likely to disrupt bony support enough to cause the person hit to fall. This is a small and highly unlikely target: the aim point to hit it would be a mystery to those without medical training — and to most of those with medical training.

The “theory” stated in the question postulates that “certain autonomic responses the body undergoes during periods of stress” causes officers to shoot low, and that apparently this is good in a gunfight because such shots cause “severe disability.” I hope that the points presented above debunk the second part of the theory. As for the “autonomic responses” that cause officers to shoot low, I am unaware of anything in the anatomy or physiology of the autonomic nervous system that would even suggest such an occurrence. Most laymen do not understand the function of the autonomic nervous system. It is simply a system whose main function is to fine tune the glands and smooth muscles (those in the walls of organs and blood vessels) of the body. During times of stress such as perceived impending danger, the autonomic nervous system diverts blood from the intestines and digestive organs to the skeletal muscles — in the so-called “fight or flight” response. The effects of this response are constantly exaggerated by laymen who lack an adequate understanding of it — most notably by gun writ-ers eager to impress their readers.

Interestingly, the human body can get along quite well without major parts of the autonomic nervous system. During my professional life as a surgeon, myself and colleagues removed parts of thousands of vagus nerves (mostly in treating peptic ulcer disease) -- thus depriving the patient of the major part of the parasympathetic half of the autonomic nervous system. We also removed many ganglia from the sympathetic half of the auto-nomic nervous system, in treating such things as profusely excess sweating and various problems caused by spasm of the arteries. I am unaware of any evidence that these operations produced any significant effect on the future capacity of these patients to react appropriately in times of impending danger.

Unfortunately, the pelvis shot fallacy is common. This fallacy, along with other misinformation, is promoted constantly by at least one gun writer who is widely published in the popular gun press. Because of this, I regularly debunk this fallacy by including some of the above rationale in my presentations to law enforcement firearm instructor groups.”

 

[Fred Fuller]

Another problem I can see with shooting low on the BG in what is likely a crowded place is the degree to which doing so endangers bystanders should you miss or overpenetrate. In any such situation, the best I can figure would be taking a knee, or maybe even going rollover prone to give an upward trajectory to my bullets. Better I cause a leak in the roof than in a bystander. Aim point would likely be upper thorax, going for the big pipes and wires there, taking care to try and deliver quality hits. I 'only' carry a .38Spl but it's loaded with CorBon DPX. It'll do if I do.

Yes, going low would limit my ability to move, but I haven't set any land speed records lately anyway (in other words, as crippled up as I am, movement isn't exactly my strong point). Getting low can offer me a more stable platform to shoot from, and might even give me some concealment or cover if I'm lucky.

It's a nightmare scenario, no matter what... even having drilled on it in training I'd hate to have to try it for real. But there was a restaurant shooting some years ago- not while I was there- in a place I used to go to while I was living in Fayetteville, NC (Luigi's- four killed, several wounded) that brought the possibility home to me in a very real way, and it never has really gone away since.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/133031/ to save your google-fu from wear and tear...

FWIW,

lpl

 

[Powderman]

First, understand this:

In a scenario like the Luby's massacre, you are in mortal danger. And once you start your move, you WILL become the center of attention.

Thus, you must begin with the most important thing, more important than ANY gun you may be carrying--and that is the warrior's mindset. You MUST accept the fact that you will more than likely be hit, and resolve yourself to carry the fight to the killer--and to put him down decisively.

A poster above mentioned the proper method of engagement; in the military we call it "walking fire".

Immediately draw and place at least two rounds center of mass. Do NOT wait to see if they have any effect, especially if this person has demonstrated by their actions that they will continue killing.

Advance toward them immediately. If they have NOT dropped like a rock, continue firing rounds. Remember that even a heart shot will leave the perp with about 10-15 seconds of oxygenated blood--and 10 to 15 seconds of potentially lethal action.

Thus, advance QUICKLY, keeping your weapon aimed on target. As you close the distance if the killer has STILL not ceased their activity, use the head shot as an option.

Also remember that lateral movement is your friend and ally. Move toward the threat, but also displace laterally--two quick steps forward, one to the side and forward, another at the opposite angle--you get the picture, I hope.

Either way, be prepared to SHOOT immediately, and CONTINUE to shoot until the threat stops.

 

[RX-178]

'pelvic shot'

The only reasoning I can think of that makes any sense at all for targeting the pelvic area is when you're anticipating a target wearing body armor.

It seems to me that, in the interest of keeping a defender's response in a shooting scenario as simple as possible, some instructors are teaching 'Just assume EVERYONE is wearing a bulletproof vest, and shoot at the pelvis instead of center of mass.'

 

[GRB]

This is a funny thread, not amusing but funny I that I was surprised by some responses. I have been shaking my head for a few minutes now as I read the whizzing match taking place over caliber. As to the caliber debate, there will never be any scientific evidence of how effective a certain caliber will be in stopping humans, that is unless we are unlucky enough to see the rise of another world power that uses horrific experimentation on humans. So any and all scientific testing of ammunition either will be anecdotal when applied to its effectiveness on humans, or guesswork at best.

The truth is any pistol caliber, and indeed any rifle caliber, can have its bullet be deflected by something you would possibly not expect to deflect it. It does not necessarily mean the caliber is not up to the job at hand, but rather that the particular variables at the time of the particular shot caused the bullet to go astray. If you cannot see that as a possibility then you are truly allowing your life to depend upon fantasy, because stuff happens.

In other words, there is no such thing as a guaranteed one shot stop, and it does not matter where you hit your assailant, nor does it matter with what caliber (I am talking about things you would normally carry, not a Howitzer round, let's keep it real). Here is an anecdotal piece of proof of that. I worked at Beth Israel Medical Center as a square bade during and right after college. I saw a guy brought into the ER with a gun shot wound to the head. I saw the x-rays and spoke to the doctors and nurses. He had been shot once in the front of the head at fairly close range. The bullet split in two, one piece traveling straight back and lodging in about the center of the gray mass, the other fragment going back and down and into or just above the brain stem. The guy was in the ER - he was not in the morgue. I had to guard him. I worked a 12 hours shift, almost all of which was spent watching this man. He was awake, he was aware of what had happened, he was complaining about the pain in his head (yes head shots hurt), he was asking why a doctor was not coming to see him, he had to be restrained with straps to keep him from getting up (he tried several times). In fact he had been talking in Spanish, ands when I blurted out I did not speak Spanish, he spoke in English. It was one of the creepiest things I have ever had to do. I do not know the outcome; the hospital had called for an expert to operate and only one doctor in the whole world was willing. He was on vacation in Europe and was cutting his vacation short to speed back to help this man.

So for about 10 hours I guarded a man who was awake, cognizant, talking, and trying to get out of bed -a man who had been shot in all likely hood with a .45 caliber bullet - remember I saw the x-rays. Is this a fluke, maybe and maybe not as much of one as you think. There are many documented traumatic brain injuries where the brain has been penetrated by foreign objects and the person survives. Recently (as within a couple of years ago) there was one in the news of man who had a headache for years, and he suffered with it before finally having a doctor reexamine him to find a bullet lodged in his skull. So much for CNS one shot kills, or for penetration of the skull.

The truth of the matter is that in a situation as described, if you decided to shoot at the bad guy, I think you would be a fool to aim at his head being self assured that it would be a one shot kill. First of all, the other stuff above does not matter. What matters is that you are in a hostage situation, or killing zone.You have, as it was explained, just seen someone else get killed by the bad guy. If you are not a sociopath or psychopath your pucker factor is running at maximum, maybe even has failed you and your pants may be wet or dirty or both, and this is no joke. Your adrenalin is pumping too. You may be trembling, perspiring, and just plain out very scared. You perception of events likely has taken on almost a surreal feel. Things may have seemed to have slowed down - if only because of the amount of things you are processing. Sounds may be distorted. You are going into a mode that may either save your life or get you killed. If you have some advance training, even self taught, to get you prepared for something like this well then you may decide to take action.

For this case you decide to draw and fire to save lives. The threat of grave bodily harm or death is imminent as the guy is still standing there with the gun. What you do next is what decides the day, at least for you and maybe for the bad guy. So what would you do? Would you simply draw and fire as seems to be what the thread starter is considering? Or would you instead:

Shoot him a couple times in the chest run up on him and keep shooting till he stops.

Sorry but this is not the movies. This is the real thing. In a real shooting, distance, to some degree is your friend. If the guy has not been taken down, you want to get distance between you and him, you do not want to charge him firing. When you do this you are in the open. When you do this you usually get tunnel vision locked on the target, and miss other things around you. When you do this you make yourself an easier target.

That one really had me chuckle, but so too did this:

Commence WALKING forward, firing. You don't want to trip and fall.

Okay, maybe a shot at a better thing than running and maybe not, but again why approach at all.


And this one too, gave me pause to wonder- what do you mean by UNLESS:

Unless the perp is pulling a Hennard ala Waco, hold your fire.

Pay attention, and I mean to the situation you are in. The guy just killed someone, the gun is still in his hand. We are in a bank or restaurant. I am there, others are there, he is not leaving but standing there gun in hand. He is a threat, and the threat is imminent that someone else will get shot. If you do not see that, you do not understand the meaning of imminent threat.

I am not mocking any of you. I am trying to help you realize there quite possibly are better choices to make. I know I would do something else, something that my training has hammered into my head that only one person out of all those who responded so far would also do. You see all of you, or most of you, are concerned whether or not you shoot the guy from 15 yards, whether or not you take the head shot or the body shot (as was asked by the thread starter), whether or not it will be the infamous and often elusive one shot stop; but there is something much more important to consider. That my friends is your safety.

It seems apparent that almost everyone of you think (probably unconsciously) that your gun is some sort of a magic shield. Why do I say that, well because only one person out of you all suggested what, given the situation as explained, likely would be the right thing to do:

My first move will most likely be to move to cover.

Sadly though the person who said that the proceeded to get it wrong:

"Move first, then draw."

Maybe I am splitting hairs, but move and draw at the same time would be better, and when split seconds count, take advantage of what time you have. The important thing was though that this poster said seek cover! How many of you would draw at 15 yards without taking cover, then begin to fire? Don't say now that you would seek cover if you already indicated you would shoot, or if you said you would hold your fire. You said what came into your heads first; think about that - because what you said you would do could be likely to get you killed.

Here is what I possibly would do:

I would act, not react to the situation. I would assess the situation while moving. Movement is your friend, a moving target is harder to hit. In addition by moving you are likely to see more, and to not get tunnel vision. My primary concerns would be to look for danger, and to look for safety, as I both moved and assessed. As I did these things I would be drawing. This bad guy just killed someone, so what am I to do? Am I to hold my fire and hope he leaves, if so I may as well leave it in its holster. Not me though, I am drawing, readying to fire, acquiring my target, moving to cover, assessing the situation, possibly motioning to others to hit the deck, and probably firing either as I move to cover or as I get behind it. If the guy keeps his back turned, and his attention elsewhere, I can hopefully reach cover and take a good shooting stance before I need to fire. If he is still holding the gun when I get there, I am shooting. No announcement of Police - don't move. Nothing like that - just shooting - but that is only if I am absolutely certain in my mind that this is indeed a bad guy and not a good guy who just shot a bad guy. So if I was in a bank and heard someone say "this is a holdup" then turned and saw a guy get shot - hmm I'd have to think about it and I would probably announce. If on the other hand, I was in the bank, and I both heard and saw it as the man announced "this is a holdup", and I knew for sure it was this guy who said that, then I saw this same guy shoot someone, I would not hesitate to fire on him.

As for shot placement, well it depends upon many things, but I am almost certain that I would shoot at center of mass of the largest part of the target available to me. If his torso was exposed, well then that would be my target. Two or several to the chest, if possible. If the threat continues unabated, well I would have to suspect body armor and then take shots at the next best thing - the pelvic girdle and or thighs. I would avoid a head shot or shots if possible because there is too much chance of a miss, and the head is well protected no matter what round you are firing. Sure a round can and probably will penetrate, but the head is better armored than is the chest or back. If the angle is not optimal there may well be a deflection off of the skull. The head is also a much smaller target, and the brain cavity even smaller. Of course, if left with only a head shot, I would chance it from behind cover.

While firing from behind the cover, I would be assessing. Is my cover good enough, is there better nearby. Should I move. I would at least try to shoot from different positions if possible so as not to give the bad guy piece of me popping up in the same place each time I shoot. I would move to better cover if available, and if I could.

I would be doing something else very important that I do not think any of you mentioned. I would be looking out for other assailants. Sure this is a 'madman with a gun' scenario. Yet, how do you know its not two psychos, or three. Bad guys do not usually operate as lone wolves. To assume this guy is alone could be a fatal mistake. In addition to assume there is not another good guy armed individual on the scene would also be a possibly fatal move. So once I start shooting, I would announce in a very loud voice. "Police - don't move, or “Everyone take cover"; or "I am a good guy, get down. Someone call the police." Then dependent on what happens, I would go from there. Maybe the bank dick, who is standing behind you, would not ventilate you having mistakenly thought you were also a bad guy.

If by chance I was lucky and stopped the threat, I would again announce. I would tell everyone to stay down on the floor, to spread eagle. I would scan from behind cover. I would only then, if satisfied that there was no other imminent threat, approach the downed bad guy. I would ask for assistance in having someone call the police. I would tell them to make sure to tell the police that an armed good guy just took down the bad guy. The bad guy has been stopped. The good guy is wearing this, repeat the good guy is wearing this. I would secure the bad guy with handcuffs, with a belt, with anything that I could, and I would hopefully get someone else to help me. I would continue to assess, I would be looking for the other threat - including responding police because they are indeed a threat to me. You can bet if you shoot a bad guy in a bank, and they see you standing there with a gun, or even just standing while everyone else is either laying down or running, they at least are putting you on the ground and cuffing you. Obey the uniform is the order of the day in such things. And did I mention, my gun probably (but not necessarily so) would have been reholstered somewhere in there, hopefully before the cavalry arrives. I don't need some scared cop mistaking me for a bad guy.

Of course each situation is different, but I could face it dependent upon my training. I might act differently if I was there with my wife and children. If I was going to take action, I would not want to be near them. I might also act very differently if it seems I could get a bunch of people to safety by all of us sneaking away before he hurt someone else. The thing is you need to assess the situation and act in a manner that you think is appropriate. Hopefully the way you act is a good one and you get the job done and go home a winner. I would do other things to, but by now in this very long post, you are getting the idea.

All the best,
Glenn B

 

[sacp81170a]

Sorry but this is not the movies. This is the real thing. In a real shooting, distance, to some degree is your friend.

No offense Glenn, but that's exactly what I was trained to do in basic and advanced SWAT training. You might eat a bullet, but the imperative is to put the bad guy down. It's not a "Hollywood" thing, it's a "warrior" thing. The FBI SA from Denver who first trained us in this technique was responsible for putting together much of the initial training program for HRT and Delta.

I agree with those who add lateral movement to the mix, but the gun isn't a "magic shield", your total aggression toward the BG is.

 

[csmkersh]

Okay, you're looking at this as a SWAT responder with AR and armor. Most of us are looking at this as civilians whose "armor" is a Levi jacket over our shirt.

Draw, fire and move, toward cover if possible, but, [ ] it, move.


​

 

[sacp81170a]

Draw, fire and move, toward cover if possible, but, [ ] it, move.

Agreed.

 

[GRB]

No offense Glenn, but that's exactly what I was trained to do in basic and advanced SWAT training.

Yes but we are not talking about a SWAT situation here, we are talking about you in on the scene in civies, not in a vest, with groin protector, and a helmet, eye protectiion, gloves, with a sub-machinegun. We are also taliking about, for the most part, an armed non LEO, though sure it could be one of us. Again though to advance on the bad guy while not wearting body armor would be foolsih at best. Any SWAT instructor, who taught you to do so while you are not wearing full body armor, was putting your life unnecessarily at risk. In such a situation, in regular street clothes, distance, surprise and cover are your friends - moving in directly at the target is as I said, at the vey best, foolish.

As for you 'total aggression toward the bad guy' being a magic shield, I beg to differ; and please pardon me but I feel I must plainly say now you are writing things that will get others hurt. is this what someone else taught you. It may hold true in military operations where you need to advance to take a hill, or a bunker, or in SWAT to save hostages, but it is hogwash in the scenario as described. There are no magic shields in a gun fight. Nothing beats shooting from behind good cover if you have to be in such a situation. You advancing aggressively is not cover, it is not a shield, it is not magic. If you think for a moment, even figuratively speaking, that magic shields are involved, you really need to find another instructor before you find out by getting shot that no magic at all is invloved. What is involved are good firm principals of shooting, cover, concealment, movement, and so forth.

Of course that is just my opinion on this issue; maybe bluntly put but no offense meant.

All the best,
GB

 

[1911 guy]

Instant decision.

Given your scenario, the decision is an no-brainer for me. I've seen him shoot one person, believe he's about to shoot again and have a clear target at 15 yards.

Draw, aim COM, advance while shooting to slidelock and reloading. Not exactly textbook procedure, but the fastest way I know to end a lone threat. If he's got a buddy, this plan is seriously flawed.

Quote:
moving in directly at the target is as I said, at the vey best, foolish.

That really depends on the situation. In a crowded space where you are in immediate danger with no way to exit, closing distance while firing increases your hit probability and decreases the chances of a collateral wounding/killing. In most cases, I'd have to agree with you, but also reserve the right to say that there can be some pretty crazy circumstances presented to us. While I'm not looking for ways to increase my odds of getting hurt, sometimes you just realize your day is going to blow no matter what and suck it up.

Eventually, we all have the Salmon Day. Spend all your effort fighting the current, just to get ****ed and die. Put it off as long as possible, but if it's your time there's not much you can do but make it worthwhile.

 

[sacp81170a]

but it is hogwash in the scenario as described. There are no magic shields in a gun fight. Nothing beats shooting from behind good cover if you have to be in such a situation. You advancing aggressively is not cover, it is not a shield, it is not magic.

I think if you will reread my first post, you will see that I already said that charging is a tactic of last resort if you have no cover available. Hogwash? Generations of military tacticians have espoused the charge. Did I say charge straight in? No. Did I say use available cover, shoot and move? Yes.

I think you're stuck in the mode you are because you may not have experienced the proper use of a close quarter attack as a valid CQB tactic. Did I say that I expected to be wearing body armor? No. Is a totally aggressive charge a magic shield in a fight? No, but too many people get shot and simply fall down because that's what they've learned they're supposed to do when shot. I've been shot twice, stabbed once and finished those fights, not because I'm super human but because I was committed to the atttack and didn't let wounds stop me. You say I'm advocating that everyone should charge without exception when that's not what I said at all.

Given no other option, a committed, aggressive charge with lateral movement works, not because I think it does, but because I know it does. Others may glean what lesson they want to from that, but it's been my experience.

Oh, and getting shot or stabbed sucks, but it doesn't suck as much as dying.

Given the sketchy reliability of handguns as man stoppers, if my choice was standing in the open and shooting vs. taking the fight to the BG, I'll take the fight to the BG, but only if I have no other option. See? That's what I originally said. Methinks you're missing critical sections of my posts.

I would only apply that tactic if I were caught in the open with no cover and no means of retreat, however. If there's cover or even concealment nearby that I can get to, even a little bit increases your odds of survival. Shoot and move. Don't linger behind your cover or hug it.

In a crowded space where you are in immediate danger with no way to exit, closing distance while firing increases your hit probability and decreases the chances of a collateral wounding/killing. In most cases, I'd have to agree with you, but also reserve the right to say that there can be some pretty crazy circumstances presented to us.

Exactly. I like your comment about the Salmon Day.

 

[Phil DeGraves]

Shoot for center mass and trust the Lord...

 

[benEzra]

The Box O' Truth has done actual testing, clearly described how they performed those tests, and provided actual photographs of their testing. Which thus far is a lot more than I've seen from you and Mr. Awerbuck.

The human brain box is not made of flat panels of 5/8" drywall, and as far as I am aware, the Box o'Truth has not done any testing using actual heads, or even any attempt at an artificial facsimile thereof.

Hunters do have some experience shooting at heads with things a lot more powerful than pistols, and they do experience deflection. Bone is a LOT harder and more resilient than drywall, and curved hard surfaces can deflect things in unexpected ways.

 

[Defensory]

Posted by benEzra:
The human brain box is not made of flat panels of 5/8" drywall, and as far as I am aware, the Box o'Truth has not done any testing using actual heads, or even any attempt at an artificial facsimile thereof.

Hunters do have some experience shooting at heads with things a lot more powerful than pistols, and they do experience deflection. Bone is a LOT harder and more resilient than drywall, and curved hard surfaces can deflect things in unexpected ways.

Your anecdotal proclamations are meaningless.

Please show us some documented scientific tests from your "Hunters". Also, human heads are completely different than deer heads etc.---so unless your hunters have been shooting humans in the head, your example becomes even more inane.

Head shots are far and away the most effective means of stopping a human attacker. The only reason LEO's etc. are trained to shoot center of mass, is because it's harder to hit the head in a critical situation, especially for your typical LEO who doesn't shoot very often and usually only has to qualify once a year.

But if you can get a good head shot on a perp, it's the best "money shot" there is. The immortal Jeff Cooper understood that, which is why he required students of his "Modern Technique" to be proficient at them, and why he incorporated such things as the "Mozambique Drill" into his curriculum.

A bullet in the brain will stop an attacker immediately, while perps who've been shot in the heart have been known to keep attacking/fighting for fourteen seconds or more.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Your anecdotal proclamations are meaningless.

Please show us some documented scientific tests from your "Hunters". Also, human heads are completely different than deer heads etc.---so unless your hunters have been shooting humans in the head, your example becomes even more inane.

BenEzra's information is a bit off, but the general premise is partially correct. The head is not a box with 5/8" flat walls. Very few areas of a healthy skull are 5/8" thick. Most are less than 1/4" thick. The occipital (Lower back) and frontal (forehead) may be thicker, but not uniformly. The top, sides, eye and sinus areas are MUCH thinner. See http://www.head-face-med.com/content/1/1/13 Conditions such as porotic hyperostosis can result in a thickening of the exterior vault, but not necessary with denser bone.

The only 'box' is the cranium, but there are NO flat walls anywhere in it. They are all curved. The rest of the head volume, as seen on a person with soft tissue, is compromised of non-vital structures. Approximately 50% of the "head" region (by volume) fits this pattern (estimates will vary based on fleshiness of the person).

It isn't that the skull is all that thick, but there are numerous accounts of bullet deflections from skulls. The problem does happen, no doubt.

Head shots are far and away the most effective means of stopping a human attacker.

This is a classically phrased statement that actually misses the point just as many head shots miss the CNS. Head shots are not necessarily effective if vital CNS structures are not damaged. It is more accurate to say that High CNS damaging shots are the most effect means of stopping a human attacker, not "head shots." While such shots may be effective, they can be the most difficult to actually attain.

The immortal Jeff Cooper understood that, which is why he required students of his "Modern Technique" to be proficient at them, and why he incorporated such things as the "Mozambique Drill" into his curriculum.

So you discounted BenEzra's hunter information for Cooper's information. Interesting. You do realize that Cooper was not known for his extensive pistol combat experience, right? Most of his war experience was from rear command (see book by his daughter). Yeah, he taught failure drills, but it was based on...anecdotal information as well. My point here is that simply invoking Cooper's name and making an appeal to higher disembodied authority is no more better justification than Ben Ezra's information. Both of you have equally valid arguments based on justification presented. You didn't present any data either.

A bullet in the brain will stop an attacker immediately, while perps who've been shot in the heart have been known to keep attacking/fighting for fourteen seconds or more.

But you have to hit the brain, stem, or high spinal cord to get the effect you want, not just strike the head. These really are very different things just like people who may get shot in the center of the chest don't necessarily suffer damage to the heart. As it turns out, it can be difficult to aim at and hit an internal structure for that is not directly visible and that is afforded bony protection.

 

[1911 guy]

Quote:
A bullet in the brain will stop an attacker immediately, while perps who've been shot in the heart have been known to keep attacking/fighting for fourteen seconds or more.

Having shot at folks and had folks shoot back, I'd much rather drop a few rounds to COM than risk a complete miss with a head shot. Especially at more than a few feet. There's a reason we train to (usually) shoot COM, it's to increase hit probability. That's important, given that we're talking about slinging bullets in a crowded environment. Maybe you're more HSLD than I am, but I'll opt for COM until it proves inneffective.

 

[csmkersh]

Do you have any idea how hard it is to put a bullet into the medula box? A 2 inch stationary zone is hard enough but add to that movement, addrenalin and perhaps fear....
​

 

[TexasRifleman]

Lots of talk of "cover" here.....

Keep in mind that nearly all of the furniture and partitions you are going to find in a restaurant are not cover, merely concealment.

There is little in a Luby's that a bullet won't penetrate.