Failure to Stop, Head or Pelvic Shot, whats a guy/gal to do?

General Firearms Terminal Ballistic Information
1

I am not a believer in the Mozambique or Stop Failure Drill of 2 shots to the chest then 1 shot to the head.

I find the head to be an extremely problematic target.

First of all the head itself is a difficult target to hit. It sits on top of the torso bouncing and weaving. It is definitely not a static/stationary target. I would say that the extremities such as the hand are the only parts of the body harder to hit.

Early in my career I read Charles Remsberg’s. Street Survival. Evanston, IL: Caliber Press, 1980, and on page 215 there is a picture of a man who was shot 33 times before ceasing to be a threat. What alarmed me was the large number of shots to the head (the caliber of the bullet is not important here, rifle shots to the head have produced similar results). Through additional research and classes it became apparent to me that there is very little in the head that is instantly incapacitating and those parts that would produce an incapacitating shot are small and well protected by the skull. Lookin4u does an excellent job of describing the problem in the thread "Interesting thread on GT about bullet performance in actual shootings"https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=44227. I am a master class shooter and I would not be confident in hitting the vital part of the head while experiencing the extreme adrenalin dump of the fight or flight reflex. Most training targets are way to generous with giving credit for head shots. Let’s face it you are asking people to hit a 2 by 3 inch at maximum sized target (probably more like 1 x 3 inches at best). A target that in real life exhibits a great deal of unexpected movement. These are the same people who historically depending on the stats you use miss the entire human body 50% or better of the time.

It has become my belief that unless it is the only target available, the head is a precision rifleman’s target on a slow or stationary assailant. Although I have seen these guys make some rather spectacular and unbelievable shots.

Because of the above I had joined a group of instructors who advocated shots to the pelvis when faced with an assailant armed with an impact/edged weapon or during a failure to stop situation. It was our belief that bullet strikes to the pelvis would break the pelvic bone immobilizing the assailant making them easier to deal with or that the scooped shape of the pelvic girdle would divert the bullet upwards under any body armor with a chance of hitting blood rich areas such as the spleen or liver. There is the added benefit of the pelvic area being a larger target than the head that moves in a more predictable manner. The International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors developed a target to help train to that end.

Upon joining this forum I had opportunity to read the thread “shots to the pelvis” https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=20649. Given the facts stated in this thread I have cause to rethink my position. It seems in reality that all shots to the pelvic bone do is punch holes in the bone not shattering it and are not immobilizing and/or as incapacitating as we believed.

So now what? I still believe that the head is an unrealistic target for the general population to hit under the stress of a gun fight. Maybe a new drill of 2 shots to the chest, scream, throw the gun at the assailant and run like the wind in the opposite direction (JUST KIDDING!!!) I am leaning toward pouring it on to the pelvic region until the pelvis gives way or there is significant blood loss to incapacitate.

Since joining this forum I have been impressed with the members reasoning and thoughts, so I would like to hear your opinion?

2

I have read that Paul Howe now considers a F2S drill as five shot COM and one shot to the head. Something to consider.

3

In general I agree with the intent of this poster’s position.

The caveat here being we are NOT talking about the precision (sniper) shooting circumstance. My understanding of the OP’s topic is and my observations are relative to the combative circumstance.

My organization does not teach head shots for this type engagement.

We teach center mass; then, if required, shots on the pelvic ring (girdle). We also do not advocate the concept of “2 to the… whatever.”

The concern here is that teaching people to take 2 shots (regardless of the target) may be training them to fail when a 3rd (4th, 5th etc.) round fired without hesitation may be the resolution required.

Basically shoot till the threat is reduced.

Our basic training precept is shoot center mass until YOU the shooter feel like shots on abdomen are appropriate to reduce the threat if your center mass shots are less than effective.

The truth is the head is an elusive, smallish, hard, moving object and under duress it will elude the shooter.

I am NOT criticizing those who do teach head shots. That’s your approach and if you feel it’s appropriate go crazy. Hell, we were all probably all taught that way. It’s intrinsic the the L.E. training programs and NOT necessarily “wrong.” the only thing that is wrong is the thing that does not work.

But MY experience/ training and that of my organizations Cadre suggests that the chest and abdomen are the 2 largest and most readily available targets presented.

Additionally the abdomen does not move as erratically, secondary to effective chest shots as the head does.

Lastly, effective shots on the abdomen/ pelvic ring not only serve to profoundly effect the structural support of your opponent (thereby taking them down at a minimum) but it is also a hugely vascular area of the body. The point here being it is an exponentially profitable area for your efforts which will cause a definitively final outcome for your opponent.

Ultimately what should be said is that whatever your approach… train, train, train, and DO NOT lose the fight because you hesitated or were not mentally prepared to go the distance.

You win fights or you lose fights. Everything else boils down to Bull Shit, shooting range bravado, chit chat and/ or litigation. I’d rather be alive to participate in my right to a fair trial than to think that my family is without me because I trained poorly or wasn’t prepared to defend myself or them.

4

It’s also square range mentality that the pelvic area will even be visible.

Keep shooting.

5

I think the following quote at 10-8 from an extremely experienced LE officer (DB) I know is relevant:

[i]Back in 1989 I took over training my agency’s SWAT team. My first stop was LAPD “D” Platoon to see what we needed to change (the training they were getting prior was totally antiquated). Larry Mudget was a Godsend as far as info and philosophy. He gave me everything including the kitchen sink. I took it all home and implemented their qual course with our guys. They cried…a lot. It was very difficult to get to their standards, especially because we had to figure out how to shoot the DA/SA P-220 to the standards they shot with Colt 1911’s. We took about a year. I got the whole trigger reset thing figured out and within a year, our guys could pass the LAPD course. We shot it every range. We used it as a practice standard. That course requires head shots to be fired with every string shot from 10 yards and in. Lots of traditional failure drills done at speed. It was all they knew. Guess what started happening in the field…they started hitting everything they were shooting at. Several of my guys performed on demand head shots on hostage takers with no issues at all. My favorite debrief:

Q: “How confident were you taking the head shot”

A: “You make us shoot those things all day at the range from 10 yards to 3 yards, so 6 feet was easy”.

Again, it was all my guys knew, so the were like little robots when the flag went up-flash sighted shots to the upper body, and then right to the head if the guy was still up. What we had were very low round count shootings, and few lawsuits. The shooting(training) parts were never an issue in the suits filed.

Our patrol guys were being trained with a “different” philosophy from a different guru…and showing typical dismal performance. Eventually, everyone was forced onto the system that I brought back from LAPD, and while I was there forcing this, our shooting performance was off the chart for most agencies. We only taught pelvic shots as an "available target, not as something to target, and certainly not as a failure to stop response. I investigated a shooting (outside agency in our city) where the suspect took several shots to the pelvis with little effect and the incident was ended with a head shot. The coroner on that just laughed when I brought up the idea of teaching cops to shoot folks in the pelvis as a means to incapacitate. He just pointed to the deceased suspect and said…proofs right here of how well that theory works.

Sure, the pelvis is easier to hit, but the results are not as consistent. In two of the cases we had of officers delivering head shots both were instant drops, and one survived. The results were still the same even if the round did not penetrate the skull.

For those of us in the urban jungle, so often our opponents are vehicle bound. It is critical the officers have to learn to track BG’s in those cars, and usually the head is what is available. The guys I trained were no smarter or better than anyone else. If they can learn, anybody else can learn. You just have to not cloud the issue for them with lots of theories and what ifs and options. They truly revert back to their training. If all they know is flash sight pictures, controlled rounds, and slow down and take the head if option A fails, they will do it. If you give them a whole bunch of things to process, in a fight, they won’t process at all. If you think the pelvis is the hot way to go, great, make em do it all the time and see how it goes. I KNOW what works in this case, and I’ll stick with it. YMMV.[/i]

6

I wish my agency would adopt a similar qual. We still shoot to the COM and no head shots. However, I still shoot for the upper COM(highly vascular region), and the head during quals. Some of my fellow officers are savvy and understand what I’m doing, and some think I’m trying to be cute and get annoyed. :rolleyes:

7

For the record I’m a Center of Available Mass kind of guy. With the thoracic area being the primary/preferred target area. You fire at the greatest available mass even if it’s the head until the thoracic cavity becomes available or the assailant becomes incapacitated. Firing does not end at a particular round count but at the cessation of the threat. A gun fight is a fluid and dynamic event and my students must be fluid and dynamic as well. I hope that after all these years I have rid myself of the square range mentality and my training programs reflect that.

I had advocated the pelvic shot in three incidences only.

  1. It’s the only available target.

  2. When faced by a man armed with a contact/impact weapon. The goal being to immobilize or slow down the assailant. Lets face it even while our students are moving/retreating the assailant is closing in. The assailant can go forward faster than we can go backwards. Even if we blow up a persons heart he still going to be active for a period of time before his body uses up it’s available oxygen.

  3. When after firing at the thoracic cavity/chest it becomes apparent that the assailant isn’t going to stop, either because he’s hyped up on something or he’s wearing body armor. It’s now time to try something different, like head or pelvic shots.

I must say you guys have given me something to think about. DocGKR’s quote from the 10-8 forum where the instructor expected more from his students and thru hard work got it. Also the comments about keeping the students options simpler so they do not go into overload trying to consider all their options. The KISS principle seems to apply here.

I am now thinking of revising some of my courses of fire to reflect head rather than pelvic shots.

I am not adverse to working hard and holding my students to a higher standard. I had one nationally renown tier 1 instructor review my training program and tell me my courses of fire were overly difficult and that I should simplify them so more people would pass. My written response to his review was that since I wasn’t having problems qualifying my students I would pass on that.

I thank you guys for reminding me of that.

8

I’ve been trained in using both methods (hammer to the body, one to the head and the pelvic shots) and I prefer the hammer to the body followed by the head shot. There is no doubt that the head shot is going to be very difficult under stress situations and at longer distances, but I sure prefer it over the pelvic shots. Just me though.:wink:

9

Sure would be nice if we had some GRENADES, don’t you think? :smiley:

Seriously, you should practice head, pelvic ands other extremity shots so that you can realisticly assess your ability to perform them. Obviously many of the folks on this board have a higher level of marksmanship than your average internet audience, but many 1st responders will have difficulty getting COM hits on an active threat, much less hitting a specific part of the body. If you have the skill to do that on command in training, then you might have a decent likelihood of doing it for real. But some people are clutch shooters and some aren’t.

If you’ve at least considered and attempted shooting more than torso shots in training, you’ll be more likely to do an instant assessment and follow your instincts. That may be head, pelvis, extremity, lay down covering fire while withdrawing to cover, etc. A pelvic shot on the North Hollywood bank robbers would have been fairly ineffective. But they didn’t have anyone on scene who could make a head shot at the ranges involved while under fire.

Knowing what you can do is important. Knowing what you can’t do is even more important.

10

It was my understanding that the pelvis was more soft, flexible and porous than most think and that one of the reasons it often fails as a F2S is that bullets punch thru “most” of its area cleanly and do not cause the bone to easily shatter.

I personally have broken my pelvis in 3 places and it caused a F2W (Failure 2 Walk:o, but I could drag myself:eek:)

11

What do you think about this system?

http://www.sabretactical.com/Jeff_Video/jeff_video.html

12

Great point shooting and interesting how he indexes his body. Not sure what the “CAR system” is though? Massive shoulder flexibility? Try sprinting in that position instead of transitioning to your other hand. Agree with their pdf on it being great for inside a car or any 0-5’ scenario. Its a tool in the box. Not a end all be all system.

13

I’ve got to think on this a bit. His ability to hit the target quickly, accurately and with increased recoil control seems very effective. The recoil control of the sub-gun is excellent. At first glance I’m leery of the bladed body position presenting the weakest part of my body armor to the assailant. He does address the issue on his website, but I’m not sure I buy the reasoning that properly fitted body armor and the effectiveness of his system minimizes the threat enough to make me a believer. Properly fitted body armor gives room for arm movement. That leaves a rather large gap that exposes the top of the thoracic area. If my reading of the latest FBI stats is correct when bullets slip past the body armor a large percentage enter thru this area. From what I see on the website he does blade the body rather severely exposing a great deal of this area.

What I will do is experiment with it the next time I am on the range and give it more consideration toward it being something to add to my tool box. If I think there maybe something to it I’ll see if my organization will break some funds free so I may attend his class. In all fairness that the only way to give the system a fair evaluation.

14

I do agree that shooting COM should be our default training, and going for specific locations such as the head and upper torso are for those times when the opportunity presents itselt. Given combat stress usually causes our hearts to reach almost 200bpm, going for specific sections of the body may not be even possible given how the brain and how the body’s motor skills operate at that level of adrenaline dump. That being said, if shooting COM is the best we can expect in such situations then it could also be said that our shot placement will be less than adequate. Thus, using 00-buck, or larger calibers can give a slight advange when there is lack of good shot placement.

15

My last unit always taught to shoot the head twice after the body shots. A buddy of mine at JSOC said they would shoot the target sometimes 5 - 10 times COM then go for a head shot. That may be where Paul Howe got the 5 to center mass and one to the head failure drill. Israeli police would train to keep shooting center of mass while moving to the threat until they were on top of them then take the head shot.

16

+1 to each of these last 2 sentences. Head shots should be taken when appropriate and when it presents its self as the best option.

Good points all through this thread. I’m not fully impressed by the Sabre video offered for consideration. I would say curious at best.

My point about the head shot essentially comes down to the fact that AFTER COM shots (regardless of how many) the head will start moving away from you and in an erratic way. For the average citizen shooter training for defensive circumstances; engaging a small, roundish, bony, erratically moving target, under duress is problematic.

No doubt about it the “operators” amongst us may well be prepared to take head shots and should. But the “John Q. Public” who finds themselves confronted in an uncontrolled, defensive circumstance should be considering and training for the COM with a followup to as large an area and target rich area as possible.

I recognize the “what ifs” mentioned, such as opponent in a vehicle etc. Obviously if a target area doesn’t present it’s self there needs to be an alternative.

I absolutely understand the concepts of and usefulness of the head shot. But do not dismiss the effectiveness of devastating an opponents abdomen/ pelvis.

I want to make certain that I also add a HUGE +1 to the statement mad about just keep shooting till threat is eliminated.

What I have enjoyed here and on this board in general is the intelligent back and forth. thanks for the conversation folks.

17

Agreed to of the above. But don’t lose sight that if you expect more of your students you will get more. The fine line is at what point are you expecting to much.

HUGE +1, The only reason I joined this board is the quality of the discussion/debate found here; not like the nonsense you find on many of the other boards.

I may not agree with everything said here but I enjoy the mental no nonsense exercise.

Keep it up guys!

18

If you watch a lot of videos of people shooting with the Center Axis Relock, you see that almost exaggerated bladed stance. While I believe that their claim that if your body armor is fitted properly that it shouldn’t be a problem to take a round to the side, I also recall that body armor is designed with an arm hole so you can fit your arm out of it. Its that upper lateral/armpit area that seems to attract a lot of bullets, and there’s really no way to eliminate that hole in your body armor without severely restricting arm movement.
A lot of people also follow the belief that squaring yourself to your threat is a physiological human response. I’m not up on the specific studies, but this seems to make good sense. Look at wrestling, the earliest martial art, and look at the progression to sideways fighting stances in arts like Karate, TKD, etc, and now look at modern MMA. We’ve gone from squared to threat, to bladed, and now back to square. In close combat, a more squared stance makes sense as it lets you see, respond, and be mobile in a wider arc towards your front than a bladed stance would.
I’m also noticing that there’s a lot less sight picture involved in these videos. That’s fine; as long as you have the ammo, time, and quality instruction to train for it. Paul Castle came from the Metropolitan Police Service’s Specialist Firearms Command, IIRC. They get A LOT of training and range time, so for someone in his case, this technique might work. For civilians with limited funds and range access, and LEOs with competing training agendas and budgets, this might not be a practical methodology to follow.
Please correct me if I’m wrong; these are just my humble observations.

19

(perhaps the CAR-specific parts of this thread should get broken off?)

I watched it. I’ve also been through Paul Castle’s CAR class first hand. I don’t know the shooter in the video. My thoughts:

[ul]
[li]He’s never farther than a yard from the targets. The muzzle is often only a foot or so from the targets. Yet in most cases he is not using the close-in CAR retention shooting position, at least as I was taught it. The way he’s shooting in the demo allows for faster and more accurate hits, but it’s completely impractical from a retention standpoint.[/li][li]Facing a line of threats and running down them laterally at that range rather than creating distance is, again, a poor idea for anything beyond a demo video trying to show off artificial speed.[/li][li]When his gun malfs and when it goes empty, he stays flat-footed within arms’ reach of the target.[/li][li]The head shot accuracy shown on the last target would fail to meet the parameters of required accuracy for effective head shots that has been spelled out in this thread and elsewhere on M4C.[/li][/ul]

A lot of people who fall into the CAR camp do so because they had relatively little or no exposure to truly fast up-close shooting previously. Many LE and mil training programs put little stress on it and are more concerned about safety issues (self-induced GSWs) than speed. I know in the CAR class I took, which was a closed invite-only deal made up mostly SWAT and SOF folks, quite a few of the guys thought it was wicked cool that they could shoot so fast. If I recall correctly, the goal on the arms’ length targets was .20 splits (one second between the first and sixth shot). The problem is that with a more universal technique, you can achieve that same level of speed, and better accuracy, along a much wider range of distances.

The other thing that CAR often trots out is the “shooting over your shoulder while sitting in a car” thing. First, we have to ask how often people are engaging threats to their rear quarter while seated in a vehicle. Second, we need to ask if using the vehicle either as a weapon or to get away is a smarter tactic. Finally and perhaps most importantly, we need to ask what people who aren’t trained in CAR do under that circumstance. I’ve tested this myself with students who’ve never been exposed to CAR and when you make them shoot over their shoulder from a chair or car seat, they manage to get into a very similar position without any training or coaching. Why? Because if you have a good grip and put your sight on the target, the rest is mostly style points.

20

Todd

Thanks for the input. Working it thru I agree with all that you said. Not having taken the course I didn’t want to comment to much it case there were things that weren’t obvious in the videos. Having taken the course you have a better prospective than those who are just looking a promotional videos.