Breaking the hip or pelivs?

G

Gopher .45

New member
In 2 of 4 classes I have attended and several place on TFL and other boards, I have heard people talking about breaking the hip or the pelvis of a bad person via shooting them. This is usually described as a last ditch effort to reduce bad person mobility if other shots have not worked. The theory sounds good enough, but since I have been looking for this information in the last year, I have never heard of an actual case where a handgun was use to accomplish this task. This search includes newspaper accounts, current and historical events on tv, and reading a variety of self defense-related books.

Can anyone provide me with any links to articles describing shots breaking the pelvis or hip or are there any LEOs out there that have been able to accomplish this themselves?

I get the impression that this is some sort of folklore. I was specifically told that if you shoot the bad person in the pelvis, it will break it and thereby cause them to be unable to walk.
 
I was taught this same thing in 2 of the 3 professional-level courses I have taken. In the first course, my fellow students included three doctors (2 surgeons and 1 anasthesiologist) and they confirmed the validity of such wounding. Of course, your caliber/ammo would have to be such that you would get good penetration. This is what is being taught for third shot placement instead of the traditional Mozambique drill (2 to the chest, evaluate, third to the head).
 
Prof, excellent example for claims of such a wounding to be effective. Sure if you break the pelvis in the right place, the person will be unable to walk. What are the chances of that actually happening? That is why I am looking for actual examples as opposed to potentials.

For example, through natural childbirth, a woman's pubic symphasis essentially lets go, meaning both halves of the pelvis are separated at that point. Additionally, the sacrum ligaments have relaxed as well, loosening the hold on the ilia. While no bones are snapped, the woman's pelvis is effectively (but not actually) broken. It is no longer a single unit. I have seen women walk immediately after giving birth, and of course they did not walk normally, but their mobility was only slowed down, not stopped. Keep in mind that the pelvis in these cases has essentially multiple wounds to it.

My long-winded point is that there is potential to stop the mobility of a person and this is something we are taught, but I am not convinced that the potential is very high and I have yet to actually come across a documented case of it happening.

And I concur, caliber/ammo will play a crucial part.
 
I remeber reading years ago that Wild Bill Hickock claimed that he always aimed to strike his enemies just below the belt buckle. He apparently had an intuitive grasp of what you are describing.
 
FWIW, In my last two classes (Suarez & Hackathorn), neither instructor liked the idea. The reason for shooting someone is to stop the threat. Even if you were able to stop the BG's mobility, he could still have the ability to harm you. The only way I would intentionally go for a hip shot is if that is the only target available. If you are a good enough to hit the 3X3" area that would break the hip joint, you are also good enough to hit the cranial vault and thus put a definative end to the threat.
 
The ONLY way I would attempt this shot is if I were in contact with the individual and I couldn't get the gun up to make a chest or head shot.

As someone pointed out, even if you drop the BG, he can still shoot.

------------------
Beware the man with the S&W .357 Mag.
Chances are he knows how to use it.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by blunder:
FWIW, In my last two classes (Suarez & Hackathorn), neither instructor liked the idea. The reason for shooting someone is to stop the threat. Even if you were able to stop the BG's mobility, he could still have the ability to harm you.[/quote]

The main proponents of the pelvis shot recommend it primarily when your opponent has a contact weapon. If he has a knife and can no longer walk, then he is no longer a threat (provided you're not within arm's length).

M1911
 
Blunder, to actually break the hip joint is an area smaller than 3x3. Typically, breaking the hip, as when and old person has fallen, involves either a degeneration of the femoral socket on the pelvis, or the snapping of the neck of the femur. The neck connects the ball of the femur (which fits in the pelvis socket) with the shaft. That are of the shaft, head, and socket is closer in size to 2"x1" than 3x3...a much more amazingly accurate shot on a moving individual.
 
I think this is a bad idea.

As Gopher .45 stated you have to be a really good shot to hit the hip. Even if you do hit the hip there is no guarantee that it will break the bone in two.

The pelvis is a large and wide ring. A handgun bullet will not be able to break it in two(maybe by a freak accident)- just punch a hole in it.

The hip and especially pelvis is at an odd angle- to even be able to have a chance of hitting them would take alot of study in human anatomy.

Even if you did break the bone the BG can still pull the trigger or let the momentum of the attack throw himself into you for the stabbing attack.

No- stay COM, the highest chance for critical shot, and then go for the head/face shot- easier anatomy and a larger target than the hip.

FWIW I have seen lots of broken bones- all types from bullet wounds. I don't know of any that were deliberate(to break the bone that is).

regards,

Olazul
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>FWIW, In my last two classes (Suarez & Hackathorn), neither instructor liked the idea. The reason for shooting someone is to stop the threat. Even if you were able to stop the BG's mobility, he could still have the ability to harm you. The only way I would intentionally go for a hip shot is if that is the only target available. If you are a good enough to hit the 3X3" area that would break the hip joint, you are also good enough to hit the cranial vault and thus put a definative end to the threat.[/quote]

My understanding of the pelvis/hip shot was that it was a follow-up to two rounds COM, and only expected to slow down the BG long enough for you to get in a head shot.

The problem with shooting at the head (after two rounds COM -- ie the "traditional" Mozambique) is that the head is also a small target, and usually moving around quite a bit more than the pelvis.

Regardless... no matter where I'm aiming, I'm going to keep pulling the trigger until the threat has been neutralized... and then I'm gonna reload.


------------------
The value of my life, my Rights, and those of my family are incalculable;
your life and your Rights, should you choose to threaten mine, are worth exactly $1.79 --
delivered 230gr at a time.
 
Guys: My point in quoting a 3X3" area was being overly generous. It is a difficult, if not impossible shot, especially on a moving target. It's also one that may or may not stop/slowdown an attacker. Based on that, I'd rather take the head shot and ensure the attack ends. I have read of several people being shot in the pelvis and still being able to carry out an attack. I have yet to hear of anyone taking a shot in the cranial vault and causing anymore problems.
 
Ayoob mentions both a pelvis hit that produced a stop and a cranial hit that did not in his book "The Ayoob Files: The Book". FWIW.

Giz
 
It is not as difficult or as impossible as a head shot. The pelvis is one of the MOST stable targets on a moving target.

I wouldn't want to take the pelvis shot, mind you, but if two the the chest fails to dent my adversary, and I cannot conect with one to the head for whatever reason, the fourth shot is going toword the pelvic girdle. Ideal? No. Advised at that point? Yes, per many (most?) instructors.
 
1911 and sedwards have it right. As I stated above, the pelvis shot is an alternate to the third (head) shot of the Mozambique drill. The reason for this, as sedwards stated, is that the head is an extremely hard target to hit (small, moving). The police officers whom I have talked with and who have been in shootouts all agreed that they never went for the head as they considered it an impossible shot (great on a non-moving cardboard target, but not in real life). The pelvis might not break, but the pain of a shot in the groin area is going to sure get the BG's attention (read, put them on the ground). If they have a gun, then, of course, you don't go for either secondary target: keep putting them center-of-mass until they stop firing.
 
I think some of you have been reading too much of "Combat Handjob". If COM hits don't stop the threat, you are probably going to need a central nervous shutdown to end it. There is no way that a pelvic shot, regardless of how painful it would be, is anywhere near the fight stopper that a center head shot is. I admit that a head shot isn't easy and that it's possible for a bullet to glance off the skull but hitting the exact area where the ball meets the socket isn't easy either. I'm not saying that it won't work but it's just not the best solution unless it's the only solution. Frankly, I'll be most happy to hit any exposed item that I can as many times as I can.
 
Okay, so far all I have is one incidence reported in an Ayoob book on a "pelvic stop" (not kill, just stop). At this point, I would still contend that the idea of shooting someone with a handgun in the pelvis to break it or the hip is a folkloric idea repeated and repeated again in classes (such as the two I took) that are supposed to be teaching students effective self defense with a handgun.

I would acknowledge that it is possible, but not probable. I acknowledge that it would produce a lot of pain (like any other gun shot doesn't). For all the information provided so far, I would add that Ayoob mentions in that same book that an officer died from a bullet wound to the arm.

My thought is that if the pelvis shot is a last ditch effort, but there is no or limited information on the effectiveness of such a shot, maybe there are some better alternatives? Why are we as shooters tauting such a shot for which there is very little information to substantiate the claim?

As far as the idea of shooting someone in the groin, that topic has been discussed at length. The idea has a lot of shortcomings. See ... [Link to invalid post]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>At this point, I would still contend that the idea of shooting someone with a handgun in the pelvis to break it or the hip is a folkloric idea repeated and repeated again in classes (such as the two I took) that are supposed to be teaching students effective self defense with a handgun.[/quote]

I personally don't care whether a shot to the pelvic region breaks his hip or his pelvis... all I want to do is break his stride, ie slow him down, so that I can get a better shot at something that will end the engagement.

Part of the disparity in opinions may reside in the participant's particular choice of weapon; methinks a 230gr .45 slug (expanded or not) impacting a BG's lower torso / upper thigh region is going to have a lot more affect on his mobility than a 115gr 9mm.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>My thought is that if the pelvis shot is a last ditch effort, but there is no or limited information on the effectiveness of such a shot, maybe there are some better alternatives? Why are we as shooters tauting such a shot for which there is very little information to substantiate the claim?[/quote]

My rationale is that the BG just might be wearing body armor (was at a gun show last Sunday, saw L2 vests for $150, so I consider it a reasonable possibility). If two rounds COM don't immediately end the engagement, then the likelihood that two more rounds COM having that affect are fairly slim, and I should go looking for another target.

The second largest target, and second largest concentration of primary arteries, is in the lower torso -- which is also a part of the body that many L2 vests do not protect, and has the added benefit of very likely slowing down the BG.

Remember now -- you're mid-engagement, the adrenaline is pumping, your fine motor control is gonna be severly impaired, and you now have a very pissed off (and possibly unhurt) BG coming at you, intent on killing you.

You're gonna land a head shot? I'm not.

A pelvic shot is no more guaranteed to end an engagement or put the BG on the ground than two rounds COM -- but the likelihood that I can hit a pelvic shot under those circumstances is significantly higher than my ability to make a head shot, and I figure a hit (any hit) is going to keep me alive longer than a miss.

If I want to come out of that engagement alive, I'll play the odds and take the pelvic shot, and then aim for the head.


------------------
The value of my life, my Rights, and those of my family are incalculable;
your life and your Rights, should you choose to threaten mine, are worth exactly $1.79 --
delivered 230gr at a time.
 
Good discussion so far,

If you are looking for the largest part of the body to plant a bullet if there is a vest on then yes- go for the pelvic shot.

If you are looking to break a hip or pelvis with the shot then it is going to be difficult at best.

a 230 gr .45 vs. 115gr 9mm is moot. It will be exceedingly difficult to hit the bone irrespective of caliber. I have seen plenty of 9mm and .45 pass through bones producing the hole and leaving the remaining bone sound enough to ambulate on.

The second largerst concentration of primary arteries is in the pelvis? I don't think so. The only major arteries are the iliac(2) and the pelvis has a large volume- therefore diluting the concentration. The neck on the other hand has 2 carotids in a small volume. The pelvis does however, have a high concentration of veins.

A pelvic shot may- break a hip, cause vascular damage, and if you are lucky will cause nerve damage making it difficult or impossible to stand. What it will not do is make it impossible for the BG to shoot at you for several minutes at least.

A head or neck shot may- disrupt the cns(brain or spinal cord), damage vasculature cutting off the blood supply to the brain immediately, cause a large air embolus and immediate incapacitation, or disrupt the airway- all of these will keep the BG from shooting at you- quickly.

Of course you could miss also. A scenario at 3 yds is much different than one at 15 yds with a moving target.

Therefore I think there is room for both "failure" drills depending on the circumstances.

Lets be realistic in the wounding potential though. There is nothing magic about a pelvic shot to make the BG give up or become incapacitated, and if possible, the head/neck shot should be taken because of the instant physiological incapacitation potential.

Regards,

Olazul
 
Sedwards and Olazul, both good comments. A shot to the pelvic area, whether it breaks the pelvis or not, is still a shot to the body cavity and is should hurt the person. I was taught that if you have an extreme goal-oriented bad person that is maybe hyped on drugs or adrenaline, then that person may be lethally shot in the chest, but not be dead yet, still approaching, and so you have to "break the pelivs" to preclude mobility or shoot the head for a nervous system shut down. If the person is already shot multiple times in the chest and still approaching, then that person doesn't feel pain for whatever reason. A shot to the lower abdomen isn't necessarily going to do the trick either unless locomotion is stopped. If pelves aren't being broken by handgun shots, then maybe this line of teaching is wishful at best.
 
One should also learn movement techniques such that you are not just standing there blazing away at the on-coming knife wielder.
These might be as important as doing a 2 COM, 1 head, 1 pelvis routine.

As you shoot, skip away to where the bad guy isn't headed. Many schools teach this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top