"Stopping" Hits

[GLOOB]

Easyg...Where to start. I won't try to convince you. You make a lot of relatively true statements in your posts. You just happen to be mostly dead wrong where you disagree with my posts.

Now, as for the matter of a difference between COG and COM, I am in complete agreement. These are two TOTALLY different things.

Take a theoretical perfect cylinder of consistent density that is exactly 10 miles tall. It's COM will be exactly 5 miles down from the top. The COG will be 5 miles plus maybe a centimeter from the top. This is because the force of gravity is stronger at the bottom than it is at the top.

But if you are suggesting a practical difference between COG and COM on a human-sized object, you must be using an electron microscope for a sight.

Q. "Besides, tell me again why you would choose the pelvis"
A. I never said I would.

For your sake, please figure out what point you are trying to make before you fire off your next offensive post.

P.S. I've ordered xrays on many people with hip fractures that could not stand. Take note; I state this only as part of this pissing contest you have instigated , not that it actually proves anything - as if I were even trying to take sides on where best to shoot someone...which I'm not, frankly.

 

[GLOOB]

Food for thought

"Shawnee, would you ever consider shooting a deer in the pelvis rather than in the chest or head?"

Would a sniper ever consider taking a pelvic shot on a stationary, unaware human?

There is one conceivable reason to aim at the pelvis (or at least utilize the zipper, starting from navel up) that has nothing to do with arteries or the ability to walk, and I stated before, but would like to reiterate. Scenario: an attacker is attempting to close distance for melee combat. You only have time for one shot before he is within striking distance. He's a UFC champ with a knife (or easyg having a bad day ), and once he's on you he is going to turn you into a bloody pretzel. He could more easily evade a head/chest shot (quick duck or turn sideways) than a shot centered over his pelvis/abdomen (followed by as many more shots as possible, of course). Will this shot hit his pelvis? Well, if he is moving, it could hit ANYWHERE. If he ducks, you may well hit him in the head. But it may well have a higher probability of hitting SOMETHING. I know I'm talking Matrix-style mall-ninja stuff, here. But the OP did ask.

 

[easyg]

But if you are suggesting a practical difference between COG and COM on a human-sized object, you must be using an electron microscope for a sight.

Go and try this experiment and then come back to post....

Take a man and a woman of approximately the same height and weight.
Have them face you with their legs shoulder-width apart.
Place your hand high on their chest and slowly push them backwards.
I'll bet you that the guy has to reposition himself or tip backwards long before the woman does.

Women have a lower center-of-gravity then men do, it's a fact....and it has nothing to do with COM.

P.S. I've ordered xrays on many people with hip fractures that could not stand.

And I've X-rayed many people with hip fractures who could not stand.
But are you claiming that a hip fracture will prevent someone from standing and walking 100%?
If you're claiming that then I can tell you with 100% certainty that you're wrong.

Regardless, I suspect that we will have to agree to disagree.

Easy.

 

[GLOOB]

"Women (taken as an average) have a lower center-of-gravity than men."
This is obvious.
1. They are on average shorter than men. Hey, that was funny AND it's true.
2. On average, they have narrower shoulders and wider hips. And don't forget the thunder thighs and the junk-in-the trunk as compared to men's beer-guts.

"It has nothing to do with center-of-mass."
I hope you are not suggesting that anyone can have a lower COG than another person yet have the same, or higher, COM. Perhaps you are not, and you are actually making a theoretical argument on how mass is measured and what it actually means....

....If the latter:
I can't directly dispute this. I'm not a quantum physicist. But Einstein's theories of the universe take for empirical fact that gravitational mass and inertial mass are the same thing and that no experiment will ever show a difference. But there is no reason why they necessarily should need to be identical. So even if they are empirically the same, for all intents and puposes, one could argue that the one really has nothing to do with the other... except that they happen to always appear identical. So the fact that COG happens to be exactly the same as COM (aside from neglible discrepancy as introduced by the distance part of the gravity equation) MIGHT very well be a cosmic coincidence.

...if the former: perhaps you are not understanding the common definition of the term "COM." The only place I have ever read that "COM" is most accurately defined as "the center of the human trunk" is in your earlier post. But as you shrewdly point out in a previous post, you can't believe everything that you read on the internet!

 

[Samuel Adams]

As a former deputy sheriff and USAF Security Police, all of my instructors taught us to aim for center mass. No fancy stuff.

 

[easyg]

I hope you are not suggesting that anyone can have a lower COG than another person yet have the same, or higher, COM.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

 

[GLOOB]

I Agree To Agree

Ok, now I'm understanding you. I agree that you are correct in this matter and that you will continue to be correct in all future matters in which you redefine the subject of debate and use your personal idiosyncratic beliefs (i.e. prejudices), rather than commonly accepted and well-documented definitions of common terminology, as your basis for making factual statements.

I also concede that I'm a smartass and that I'm not endearing myself to anyone on this forum with this post. Please forgive me, y'all. Actually, I suspect what happened here, easyg, is that you jumped into the middle of a debate between DoubleNaughtSpy and I without reading my original post. Well, I'm done "contributing" to this thread.

Oh, and - easyg, I apologize for the misunderstanding. I see exactly what you're saying, now, and I completely agree that your assertions are completely correct. The source of the confusion was with the term "COM." Apparently, on gun forums the standard definition is not always implied.

 

[1911 guy]

Pelvic girdle shots.

There have been a few cases where it's worked. There have also been a lot of cases where it hasn't. There was also an old west hombre killed dead by one pellet from a load of shot. I and many others have taken rather larger chunks of lead and didn't die. In my opinion, it's a bad bet. Sure, there are things there that will put a person down, but the problem is they're not as densely packed as in the chest cavity.

As soon as we all realize that handguns are grossly underpowered for human sized targets, the better off we'll be. My idea of "stopping power" is 15 pound sledgehammer heads at 4,000 feet per second. Anything smaller warrants an "insurance shot" or three.

 

[Turk]

Interesting thread. My self defense firing is to double tap center of mass and if the bad guy is still standing I will double tap to the pelvic to put the person down. If further rounds are needed they will be coming down range to head. This type of shooting for me goes back 30 years to what is called the Mozambique shooting drill (I’ve also heard this drill taking the shot to the head). If I remember right mercenaries in that African country used it. The fact is if someone can take two hits center mass from a 9 Para or 45 ACP etc. you’ve probably got someone so doped up he doesn’t know he’s dead or he’s wearing body armor. The pelvic is a lot larger target than the head. I once had a guy tell me I should go for the head shot first and by not going to the head it told him that I probably needed more training and my answer was quite plan. I can see you’ve never been in a real eyeball-to-eyeball firefight and the fact was he hadn’t.

Turk

 

[THE MACHINIST]

when in doubt empty the magazine to be really sure, separate body from head at least 4 feet.

 

[mightyike]

As a surgeon who has taken care of hundreds of GSW's, please query wound ballistics, etc., on Google. Use your immagination regarding searches and you will find much reading, including FBI studies. Read articles by Fackler, et al., about stopping power, trauma and immediate incapacitation.

Keep your eyes open, be objective, try not to be swayed by hype, especially gun writers who are essentially paid by all the advertisers.

Be aware, on guard, shoot straight.

Richard in AZ

 

[mightyike]

Here is a website with FBI, Fackler, et al., links.

I try to be objective, have been shooting since age 5 (57) and always look carefully at the wording and references.

ibid.

 

[mightyike]

<http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm>

 

[Odd Job]

I have to agree with Double Naught Spy with regards to external landmarks for shooting internal structures. Only if the target presents himself with his sagittal plane running parallel to the long axis of the barrel, can you use radiographic centring points to attempt to hit the anatomy within. And even then, there is no guarantee that you will hit that structure because the projectile may be deflected upon impact with clothing or even the intervening anatomy itself.

Even if we had weapons that could fire projectiles on a dead straight laser beam-type trajectory, completely unaffected by the target matter, we would still have the problem of failing to aim for the internal anatomy in cases where the individual was presented obliquely to the point of view of the shooter. The centring points that may have been applicable when the target was AP (facing us straight on) will no longer be applicable when the target is oblique (angled).

As for the pelvis: this has discussed before, not sure if it was here or TFL, and I can't recommend it as a designated target if COM is available. If COM is protected and a shot has already been tried on the head but missed, then by all means you go for whatever you can get because at that point you are running low on options.
But I can't recommend going for the pelvis from the outset.

 

[Turk]

1911 Guy wrote:

As soon as we all realize that handguns are grossly underpowered for human sized targets, the better off we'll be. My idea of "stopping power" is 15 pound sledgehammer heads at 4,000 feet per second. Anything smaller warrants an "insurance shot" or three.

I agree and that is why in my nightstand is my Hi-Power that I grab first until I get to the closet to retrieve my Colt SP-1.

Turk

 

[GLOCK45GUY]

I train to aim for the belt buckle one handed at 10-15 feet. If you can do this without looking at your daily carry piece and hit this area your doing good. Any distance beyond this I go for a two hand grip.

 

[DougDubya]

Farnham teaches the zipper method, as quite often, the first shot tends to go low. Recoil should adjust the aim vertically. In the meantime, you have a strong chance of hitting the pelvic girdle, the fat lumbar spine, and the lower aorta on the way up to the ribcage.

 

[easyg]

I have to agree with Double Naught Spy with regards to external landmarks for shooting internal structures. Only if the target presents himself with his sagittal plane running parallel to the long axis of the barrel, can you use radiographic centring points to attempt to hit the anatomy within.

The centring points that may have been applicable when the target was AP (facing us straight on) will no longer be applicable when the target is oblique (angled).

How do you think we aquire oblique views of the spine?

Regardless of how the target is turned or obliqued, the spine remains in relatively the same area.

For example....
Most Rad Techs don't even touch their tube or bucky when transitioning from an AP t-spine view to an oblique t-spine view, they just oblique the patient the proper amount....the centering remains the same for the most part.

Of course, when shooting at a person who is probably moving, there's no guarantee that you will even hit body, much less the spine.
And as you stated, there's always the chance that the round will not penetrate the clothing or other body structures.
But it's still a very good place to start shooting.

 

[Odd Job]

How do you think we aquire oblique views of the spine?

Regardless of how the target is turned or obliqued, the spine remains in relatively the same area.

For example....
Most Rad Techs don't even touch their tube or bucky when transitioning from an AP t-spine view to an oblique t-spine view, they just oblique the patient the proper amount....the centering remains the same for the most part.

That is incorrect.
The centring points for oblique vs AP spines are different. I'm surprised that you as a radiographer would suggest that they are the same.

X-ray centring points are analogous to the discussion about aiming for external landmarks with the intention of striking anatomy within. The advantage on the X-ray side is that you have a guy who will cooperate with the degree of rotation, and you have the luxury of positioning him according to known angles to achieve the view required.

When you have a target at an unspecified angle, how are you supposed to pinpoint where to fire to hit the target, especially if it is a small area? You cannot continue to aim as if he was not oblique. You have to change your point of aim, but by how much?

Have a look here where I have attempted to explain the problem of angles more clearly:

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=214744

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Even if we had weapons that could fire projectiles on a dead straight laser beam-type trajectory, completely unaffected by the target matter, we would still have the problem of failing to aim for the internal anatomy in cases where the individual was presented obliquely to the point of view of the shooter.

Heck Oddjob, even if we has laser bean type trajectory, most folks would have problems hitting intended structures because they don't actually know where they are in the body. There are people to this day that think their hearts are located in the upper left quadrant of their chest because they were told to put their hands over their hearts for the Pledge of Allegience. They might know where some of their organs are in a 2 dimensional frontal view, but could not tell you where they are from a laterial view.

 

[Smith JMB]

Does this help answer this question?

http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stopping_power