2 to the chest, 1 to the groin...

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

huntinaz

New member
I never thought I'd start a thread in the "strategy and tactics" forum, but here we go. Pigs are flying somewhere. Anyway...

When I qualified for my CCW the instructor had us shooting 2 to the chest, 1 to the groin. I know most folks go 1 to the head as opposed to the groin, and I didn't give the notion much more than a chuckle at first but it got me thinking. I have a medical background and acually I believe there are some major benefits to the "1 to the groin" option. Also let me clarify, the groin is not the actual place I'd aim, more like a low center of mass, say just below the belly button. Here are the pros as I see them:

1. It's a bigger target than the head. Better chance of hitting something. Your aim is not likely to be as good as it is at the range due to the adrenaline and nerves of shooting somebody.

2. There's a whole lot of "bad" stuff down there. The area around/above the actual groin has spine, hip, vascualture, major nerves...you hit this stuff and it is bad news.

We know that pain sensitivity is high, it would very likely make somebody double over. It is unlikey somebody is going to advance after you break a femur, hip, or spine. Touch a big nerve and they pain will be bad as I said before. Hit that vasculature and you start bleeding out. Also there is a lot of bacteria that is gonna get into the blood and tissue with disruption to this area. Not that the goal is to kill somebody days later from an infection but the reality is that an infection will be started.

As you can see, not a bad place at all to inflict immediate pain and serious injury. Of course the legal term for this is to "stop the threat" but the reality is that in order to do that, the pain/serious injury thing is what facilitates that.

The one con, as I see it, is that the absolute best way to somebody advancing is a brain/high CNS shot. You hit that and the response is indeed immediate. I'm a hunter and I have seen this first hand.

So, what say you internet experts? I think I'm convinced of this method myself, please discuss further.
 
Last edited:
I'd agree. In fact I was just in another thread talking about the Tuellder Drill and I mentioned hitting someone in the knee/lower part of the body as apposed to dumping a mag in the chest.

My theory was close to yours. Immobilization. I'm not a hunter, but I've seen my share of hunts were someone put a 30-06 thru a deer and it runs away. Thats with no adrenaline pumping at the time of impact. But thats not to say I've never seen it drop a deer in its tracks. That would just be silly.
 
Shooting someone in the extremities is not deadly force, the legal ramifications are bad.

However a lower body shot to me sounds like a good idea.
 
I have been through LEO firearms courses and particular instructors who also advocate the same tactic. Though I was taught in those courses to aim for the hip/pelvis more so than the "groin". The idea being to stop the attacker from advancing further and making them a more stabilized/ slower moving target for a CNS shot should it be needed. Also, as the OP mentioned, there is a lot of blood moving through that area of the body.

I think it is a sound idea and a good alternative to trying to make a headshot.
 
Just my .02...
But I think you are engaging in "projecting" your own fears of being kicked in the groin (which we have all experienced) and believing that this is a viable SD tactic.

I have read other threads that advocate shooting for the groin as a psychological target. If the BG sees you targeting his nads, he will shrivel, lie down in a corner and call for his momma. I'd call this a long shot at best.

You say that the groin/hip is a larger target than the head. The entire width of the lower midsection...yes. Is your groin larger than your head? If so, we could make endless jokes about "thinking with the small head" :)
 
Its called the pelvic girdle shot. a legitimate alternate shot placement for body armor. Also the thigh, femoral artery shot. Sometimes pointing your weapon towards an offender's "junk" will cause him to think twice and surrender. I have seen it happen on the job before I retired. I for one would rather get shot in the head than there. :eek:
 
But I think you are engaging in "projecting" your own fears of being kicked in the groin (which we have all experienced) and believing that this is a viable SD tactic.

I have read other threads that advocate shooting for the groin as a psychological target. If the BG sees you targeting his nads, he will shrivel, lie down in a corner and call for his momma. I'd call this a long shot at best.
Click to expand...

I think you may want to re-read the post and brush up on human anatomy. I'm not projecting any fears or talking about a psychological target. I'm talking about actual human anatomy and actually putting a bullet thru it. There are real-life nerve endings down there, and not just in the sexual organs. Think about how sensitive that area is (lower stomach, groin, and yes junk), and then think about having a bullet zip thru it. Bad pain and bad news. Anyway the pain is only one of many good reasons to aim there.

you say that the groin/hip is a larger target than the head. The entire width of the lower midsection...yes. Is your groin larger than your head?
Click to expand...

Again, go back and re-read. The groin is a generic aiming point, it doesn't matter where you hit as long as you hit. You're not aiming exactly for the weener, I'm talking low center of mass. Lot's of important stuff down there. Yes, the area is bigger than the human head. The actual "package"...I admit it is not bigger than my head:o

But if you read my post you'll see that's not at all what I'm talking about.
 
think you may want to re-read the post and brush up on human anatomy.
Click to expand...
My point exactly. If you read up on the actual mechanics of stopping a human attacker, there are about two ways to accomplish that.

The first, and most effective, is massive CNS damage. Very difficult to accomplish.

The second is massive vascular damage (bleed-out). Not much easier to accomplish, and a good deal slower...e.g., the bad guy is stiill returning fire until his blood pressure drops and his brain ceases to function. Generally accepted to be 30 seconds or more.

Hitting someone n the hip area may immobilize him, but in the real world, it sure as Hell will not stop him from returning fire.

Do you want your headstone to read, "Damn, I stopped him from advancing/retreating! Thought that would do the trick!"
 
Hitting someone n the hip area may immobilize him, but in the real world, it sure as Hell will not stop him from returning fire.
Click to expand...
I believe it will indeed stop them, at least from doing something useful. At least long enough to get away or shoot them again. It isn't like the movies where you get shot up and keep going until you're shot in the head. I'm not talking about shooting John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, or Arnold as the Terminator. I mean real people, who get hurt when they get shot. Also I'm not saying you should shoot once to low center of mass and then stop. You are getting too hung up on the fact that the weener is down there. That's really not at all what I'm talking about.

So if you think a low center mass shot is worthless, are only head shots effective then because that's the only place you can cause "massive CNS damage?" Why bother with 2 to the chest then? I acknowledged in my original post that a high CNS shot is the most effective way of stopping somebody right now. But I don't think that is necessarily the first place you should aim. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I'm saying in general, a low center mass shot is a good spot to hit somebody.

The second is massive vascular damage (bleed-out).
Click to expand...

Exactly, if you agree with this then a low center mass shot will accomplish this.

Guys, please don't get hung up on the junk, that's not the actual target. If you disagree that's fine, but put some more thought into it than that.
 
Jake Balam said:
Shooting someone in the extremities is not deadly force, the legal ramifications are bad.
Click to expand...

You are mistaken. In all 50 states, shooting someone anywhere IS deadly force.

huntinaz said:
I believe it will indeed stop them
Click to expand...

The local hospital just had an 84yr old woman come in with a broken hip. She broke it a week earlier in a fall but the pain finally overcame her fear of the doctor.

A quick Internet search will show that the kind of damage necessary to break the pelvic girdle is not going to be easy to do with a handgun.

Furthermore, while it is possible for someone to bleed out from a shot here, the chest offers a much better chance of hitting major vascalature or a large blood bearing organ - not to mention that there is much less of the CNS available in the pelvis.

If you search on "pelvis" you'll find several good discussions on this.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=283554&highlight=pelvis
 
Don't they make class I and II bullet proof clothing to cover this area? I know they make bullet proof cups.
It may not do any more than force him to take a step or two backward or knock him down. I would like to be sure with a head shot!!
 
Folks who advocate such silliness know nothing about our justice system to go with their ignorance of morality and physiology

WilditsimmoralstupidandpotentiallydangeroustohealthandwelfareAlaska ™©2002-2011
 
I get the reasoning here, but I'm for the head. The one on top of the shoulders.

You also have to consider if you gun is powerful enough to break the pelvic girdle. What if you like a lot of folks are carrying a 380 with a 95 gr. bullet or even a smaller caliber?
And as already mentioned, he'll shot you while he is down.
 
if needed, shoot until they stop advancing towards you, then get to a safe distance and call 911. im not going for headshots or groin shots unless its accidental.
 
the lower abdomen, hip, groin etc would not be a kill shot. think about it, what major organs are in that region?
small bowel and colon. people survive trauma to those organs everyday. the only hope for a kill shot is hitting the abdominal aorta, which is 2cm wide in a normal adult male. even that shot wouldn't be fatal for over a minute.
2 to the chest;
collapse one or both lungs, heart is a 7.5 cm target in the average adult male.
folks don't fight well when they can't breath. even worse if they have a hole in their heart.
one to the head;
realistically the only definitive kill shot. not much chance of the bg returning fire.
now, having said that, i was working ER one night when the local LE brought in an attempted suicide. shot himself through the mouth. had an exit wound the size of a quarter on the back of the head. the LE had to restrain him to get him in the ambulance. i pronounced him dead 10 minutes after his arrival in the ER, a full 30 minutes after the shot!
 
Folks who advocate such silliness know nothing about our justice system to go with their ignorance of morality and physiology
Click to expand...

Umm, what exactly is immoral about it? And what about the physiology is incorrect, exactly?

Remember I'm not suggesting this is a one stop shot, it would be additive.
 
There is a certain utility in anchoring someone to a given spot, and breaking the hip will do that. Sure, the bad guy can still return fire, but he can't move.

Hunters of dangerous game like to break large bones to slow down, stop a charge and anchor the threat.

When I was studying Land Warfare with my Uncle, he taught us that some vehicles are harder to stop than others. A shot into a turret might not be available, but a shot into the engine compartment, or into the track of the vehicle would anchor the threat. We called that a Mobility Kill. A tank that can only fire is called a pillbox, and pillboxes are easily reduced to rubble.

We can extend the metaphor to the man with a broken hip. He's easy to get away from. Running away, seeking cover, is good tactics. It's easy for the police to find a guy with a broken hip. He'll be laying where he was shot.

If I"m ever tasked with shooting someone in a scenario such as this, I'm not trying to kill him, even though I'm using lethal force. I'm trying to stop him from committing a criminal act, to stop him from harming innocents. Sure, I'm using lethal force, but whether or not he dies isn't up to me. For sure, I'd rather he survived to be arrested, tried, convicted and executed. I'll be aiming at the center of mass, but if my adrenaline gets away from me and one of my shots happens to take out his hip, that's in the hands of God.
 
I'm for the head.
Click to expand...
Yes. If the BG is extremely close (and in most cases he will be), then he needs to be turned off NOW!

While a shot on a moving head at 7+ yds will be difficult, at close range it should be relatively easy if you have practiced much. I've seen very inexperienced shooters do head shots on moving persons in FoF scenarios.
 
I've been taught to shoot center-of-mass. So that's where I'll aim. It's a simple concept, and one that has worked for many decades in LE. The biggest concern for me is to apply the same training I have been through in the CG to my CCW practices. That way, if I ever wind up in court, I can articulate why I did what I did because of my training. In the CG, if deadly force is authorized, we are taught to shoot for center-of-mass, regardless of the amount of mass showing. Example: BG is shooting from around a corner and all I can see is part of the shoulder/arm, I would shoot for the center-of-mass of what's showing. If BG is shooting from frontal position with entire upper body showing, I would shoot for the center-of-mass that is showing.

Simple principle backed by decades of training in the LE and civilian worlds.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top