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

Status
Not open for further replies.
There are many inaccuracies here that need to be addressed.

1. The OP is not advocating shooting someone in the genitalia. He is simply asking what we think about targeting the Pelvic Region as a viable immobilizing shot.

2. Psychological stops and Physical stops are very different things that occur for very different reasons. However, both are stops and have defensive value.

3. The Pelvic Shot is a viable stopping shot. Don't attempt to use it.

The pelvic shot is a tactic that was developed and trained by law enforcement. After some high-profile shootouts in the last few decades, law enforcement personnel were made painfully aware of the presence and usefulness of body armor, as it was used by well-armed perpetrators.

The "Headshot" has always, and will always be the end-all, be-all incapacitating shot (And it's the CENTER of the head; not High-Middle, regardless of what you see in the movies). But anyone who's seen a true shooting take place will tell you that achieving a headshot in the heat of the battle is an aspiration at best; especially when the assailant is shooting back at you with the confidence that near-impenetrable body armor provides.

Enter the Pelvic Shot.

It is trained by Sharpshooters to incapacitate the shooters, and it's a much easier shot to make. The groin doesn't sweep around like the head does (Ask any successful defensive football player where they look at a ball-carrier to see where he's going. Not the head or shoulders, watch his hips). So you shoot him in the groin and you can achieve one of the following:
1. Broken Pelvis- Debilitating and painful. Makes the central weight-bearing structure of the body incapable of supporting weight.

2. Large Sensitive Vascular Damage- Slightly debilitating, mostly painful. A shot to the hip, groin, or femur/quad impacts highly sensitive areas rich in blood and nerve tissue. Makes it hard to continue the attack.

Sounds like a great tactic right? Now for the major difference. The guys using this tactic are shooting .308 rifle rounds or something close. You are most likely not carrying a .308 concealed on your person. The standard self-defense handgun calibers and loads do not possess the appropriate level of ballistic intensity to shatter a pelvis, so the best thing you can hope for is a vascular shot to cause damage. And if the round you're carrying is only capable of vascular damage, the appropriate tactic would be to direct that toward the major organs including the heart and spine: Center of Mass.

It is wrong that CCW classes are teaching this tactic without fully understanding where it came from or what it's intended use it (and obviously being unable to convey that to their students). So please, for your own safety, put this tactic on the back burner and don't consider it a viable option for self defense.

To be perfectly honest, and I've been telling people this for quite some time, your absolute BEST tactic for personal self defense is:
Two in the Chest, One in the Chest.
Don't get fancy. Don't try to throw out something someone once tried to teach you. Put as many shots as fast as you can into the most vital area of the body. And don't stop until he does. Simple.

I hope this finds you well and provides some help.

~LT
 
Center of mass is not the best target. Upper chest has more vital stuff , go there !
A hit to the lower spine will paralyze the entire hind end instantly.That's exactly what happened to my deer last year. I also saw a video of a going away shot in that area at a cape buffalo .The buffalo was wounded and they didn't want to track him in heavy brush .His hind end instantly dropped and anchored him though he was still alive.!
 
I've been a SWAT instructor for around ten years. The reason we teach this method (called a failure drill) is if the bad guy is on the move and is wearing body armor, then it will be difficult to shut him down with a shot to the cranial vault if not at close range. Your first two shots should be center mass. If that fails, Depending upon your distance, your follow up shot in the pelvic girdle is a good option. There is a good chance that you will shatter the pelvis/hip area and drop him like a sack of potatoes. At this point, he will then become a stationary target. You then assess whether to shut him down (if he keeps firing) or if you accomplished your mission by stopping the threat. We have a lot of options at this point. (taking cover, moving to a better position for a follow up shot). Our primary goal is to win and go home to our family. We need every advantage that we can get, so don't rule out that option.
 
1. I don't know a whole lot of civilians that encounter an assailant wearing body armor. And all else being equal, when faced with an un-armored assailant, I'd rather shoot the man in the chest than shoot him in the pelvis.

2.
Center of mass is not the best target. Upper chest has more vital stuff , go there !

"Center of Mass" isn't so much a "target" as it is a "tactic". We train to shoot Center of Mass because this is the point of aim that will most likely yield us a hit considering target movement, imperfect accuracy, and multiple shots. How lucky that the human body is put together in such a way that most of the more important stuff is located just about in the same area.

Center of Mass is your best bet when defending yourself. I don't think I've ever heard an instructor teach, "Upper Chest".

~LT
 
In Jim Cirillio's (sp?) books he said the pelvis shot (groin in this thread) would "always" knock down the target. - He also said the targets were still a danger, but it gave you the chance to move in and disarm.

YMMV - But his books should be required reading for membership on this forum.
 
I agree that a civilian is highly unlikely to encounter a BG with body armor. But if you do, walking your shots down to a hit in the lower abdomen has a lot better chance of scoring a hit than walking your shots up to the head. In other words, it may be a better tactic to get a fast hit in the lower abdomen or pelvis than to have to try several times to get a hit on the head, even though the head may be more quickly debilitating.

It is not entirely true to say that the lower abdomen has only the aorta as a vital structure. The mesenteric arteries to the large and small bowel are pretty substantial in size, and the arteries that run along the intestine are not puny, either. Instantly debilitating like a shot to the brain stem, no, but in the same way that a shot to the chest that misses the heart and aorta still causes some pretty significant damage and bleeding in the lungs, a shot to the lower abdomen that misses the aorta will also cause some significant bleeding in the abdomen and/or pelvis, along with a great deal of pain from sensitive peritoneal surfaces. Overall, a hit there is better than a miss to the head, and it may well give you the time you need for an escape.

Optimal? No, but neither should it be entirely dismissed, I would think. A reasonable option to keep in mind.
 
I agree that a civilian is highly unlikely to encounter a BG with body armor. But if you do,

I think we're getting a bit ridiculous here. I agree that a civilian is highly unlikely to encounter a charging crocodile, but just in case you do...:rolleyes:

This tactic is best left to the people who would more likely encounter an armored assailant (LEO, Military). And they will be the first to tell you that if the person is NOT wearing armor, then the much better option would be to shoot them in the chest. It just is.

In Jim Cirillio's (sp?) books he said the pelvis shot (groin in this thread) would "always" knock down the target.

Nothing ALWAYS happens in a gunfight. Nothing. And you should be increasingly suspicious of anyone (and I don't care who it is) who speaks to you about Best, Worst, Always, or Never when it comes to weapons or tactics. There is no supremacy. There is only better, or worse; no best or worst.

~LT
 
The problem we have here is all the comments coming from people who have never been in combat/shoot-out with someone trying to kill you.
 
There are lots of complete misses in gun fights. A missed groin shot is less likely to hit a bystander than a missed head shot.

That said, I still think the headshot is the best way to end a gun fight.
 
Umm, what exactly is immoral about it? And what about the physiology is incorrect, exactly?

Whats immoral about it...?

It's a law enforcement/military technique of weapons deployment designed to impair/immobilize an attacker/enemy.....shoot 'em in the balls outside the wire and listen to the goblins scream, ja?

But most of us here are armed citizens. As a consequence thereof, it is, IMHO, your moral duty to never pop that round off until you have cowered begged pleaded run hide and do everything in your power to avoid pulling that trigger.

Hell, I bet ya in a good percentage of cases, you shouldnt even be in a position where you need to employ that gun. Why are you in gangbanger town at 4am? Why did you run outside to confront the guy peeing on your lawn? What are you gonna do, shoot the pizza guy in the hip?

And when you do shoot, you had better have no other choice. The last and final resort. And that means you don't play Gecko45, you empty your piece into either COM or face, hopefully from a few yards away.

The next to last thing you want to do is shoot somebody. Physiology?....The last thing you want to do is shoot somebody in a painful area and watch him writhe and scream on the ground as sirens scream in the background. Ya think he is gonna "bleed out" (what a manly term).....Gee maybe we will see someone advocating finishing him off...Naw, whats gonna happen is you will break that hip, leave the 20 year old crippled and....

Get your civil defense lawyer ready. Los muertes no hablas no longer applies. And maybe your perp was Jean Valjean

Honestly, if folks would stop the measuring contests of calibers and extra mags and hollowpoints and started concentrating on reading about the moral and ethical ramifications of taking life together with reading your own state laws on self defense you would be far better prepared for that once in a lifetime incident.

Shoot 'em in the hip indeed.

The problem we have here is all the comments coming from people who have never been in combat/shoot-out with someone trying to kill you.

No, the problem is actually all the comments coming from people who have never been in combat/shoot-out with someone trying to kill them, but saw it on a video game and want to be in that shootout.

Join the Army then. Plenty of true evil ones to shoot at

WildimsotiredoftestosteroneAlaska ™©2002-2011
 
"The pelvic shot is a tactic that was developed and trained by law enforcement."
LordTio3, I have over 30 years in law enforcement and was never taught this. Including my SWAT Training!!!!!!
The head shot is only taught, with a handgun, at 7 yards and less. With practice it's not that hard!

"At this point, he will then become a stationary target"
bravo, he also becomes a stationary threat, not out of action. And I was never taught this in my SWAT Training!

LordTio3 "Nothing ALWAYS happens in a gunfight. Nothing. And you should be increasingly suspicious of anyone (and I don't care who it is) who speaks to you about Best, Worst, Always, or Never when it comes to weapons or tactics. There is no supremacy. There is only better, or worse; no best or worst. " I was referring to my personal department training, in reality there is static with some clarity. Overall I agree with statement1 IMOHO. :D
 
I think one benefit that hasn't been discussed about the groin shot is the potential of limiting said bg from ever reproducing again even if he does live.
 
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.

Not an expert, but we've all seen actual shootings on tv or dvd. Can't recall , during a life and death situation, ANYONE having had time to put two in the chest, let alone one in the head or groin. It's always a life and death struggle and things happen FAST.

Doesn't mean there aren't situations where one of the aforementioned tactics wouldn't be the thing to do. OK, Bubba could be wearing a vest.

If that situation arises, put the third bullet where you can dictated by the circumstances, but one target may be more available than the other. If you really believe you can plan that in advance----best of luck. :cool:
 
Last edited:
I once went shooting with my BIL, who at the time was a cop, and he told me he was then being trained to shoot twice center mass, and one to the groin. This was about 15 or so years ago. So it was definitely being taught by some police agencies.

But most of us here are armed citizens. As a consequence thereof, it is, IMHO, your moral duty to never pop that round off until you have cowered begged pleaded run hide and do everything in your power to avoid pulling that trigger.
Huh? The idea of not begging and pleading for my life was one of the utmost reasons for my even getting a CPL.:rolleyes:
 
The idea of not begging and pleading for my life was one of the utmost reasons for my even getting a CPL

Then I guess you have rejected a tactical technique that can save your life, or alternatively, your psychic manhood needs some taming.

Or you have a lawyer on retainer:cool:

Your CPL isnt for pride. Its to defend your life.

WildithinkiseeadumbscenariocomingAlaska ™©2002-2011
 
In the Marine Corps we always practiced 2 to the chest 1 to the head. For the same reason previous post have listed. A CNS shot means an immediate stop. And after all, that's what we all want is an immediate stop. However I think there's good argument for 1 to the groin or I would say a low center mass shot instead. To be honest I've never thought about 1 low center mass. My argument would be to go to low center mass for the same reason football players are tought to go for the midsection when they tackle. I've been lucky enough to have never been in combat but I've had enough training to know that combat is very fluid and changes very fast. When moving and changing direction your midsection is the last thing to move. It's also the slowest part of the body to change directions. Becuase of this if a head shot is just out of range I think a midsection shot I definately an inteligent thought. I can see a good argument to go for a low center mass shot. I still believe center mass should be your first attempt though.
 
Last edited:
But most of us here are armed citizens. As a consequence thereof, it is, IMHO, your moral duty to never pop that round off until you have cowered begged pleaded run hide and do everything in your power to avoid pulling that trigger.

Hey, have you been hitting the sauce up there in the mid night sun, or land when it's dark at noon? Or are you off your meds?

A man said one of the reasons he got the CCW was so he wouldn't end up begging for his life, and you question his manhood then lecture him on his moral obligation (based on your standard) to run away, risk getting shot in the back, throw down his gun, beg, and avoid pulling the trigger--- and then hope Bubba spares his life.

People arm themselves so they aren't in that position in the first place.

I know I do.:cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top