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.
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: