Mozambique drill - why re-evaluate?

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jack 99

New member
I think the Mozambique drill is a good concept, but why 2 shots to the bod and then re-evaluate before the head shot?

Seems that even if the perp is shot twice to the vitals he's probably still standing and, given that he was a true threat worthy of shooting in the first place, fair game. Consider that you've shot twice, but probably have no idea if you even hit at that moment, how can you assume he's anything but still a threat? Why hesitate at all?

Obviously, if he's sitting flat on his butt or on his back, shooting him in the head could lead to some legal hassles, but that pause might cost you a vital second and even your life.

Why not train 2 to the bod and one to the head, no pause, no re-evaluation, just so long as the threat is vertical, keep shooting?

------------------
"Put a rifle in the hands of a Subject, and he immediately becomes a Citizen." -- Jeff Cooper
 
The way I practice the failure to stop drills, I shoot an uninterrupted string on reactive targets. That way you can condition yourself for the proper responses. Have a friend set up the targets to fall at different locations (ie head shots needed to drop or centermass only) this is a fun way to train and can be as cheap as your imagination can make it.

------------------
"peace, love, joy, and happiness..."
 
I train a double tap and then instant scanning for a failure. If the head's still there, shoot it! No long re-evaluation period needed, just ride the recoil from the second shot on the double tap to the head, pull the trigger again if it's still there.
 
Lets see, if you want to stop a threat and are not sure two shots to the body will stop it then you should start with the head shot. The idea is that the two shots will stop the threat so you evaluate the situation. If more is needed to stop the threat then a single head shot, repeat the head shot as needed.
 
A SWAT cop/Trainer friend has been doing a lot of cross-training with SEALS/SPecOps. He says they now do one to the body, and ride the recoil up for a headshot.

Seems to me it would depend on the situation. 3 BG's? One fast round to each COM, see who's still standing, re-engage until all down. One BG's coming at you? Shoot him to the ground. I've trained various ways, but none of the cardboard has shot back. Those BG's are one-dimensional, I tell you. :)
 
Damn...every once in a while someone that knows what they are talking about goes and says something so logical....

Shooting one to the body, one to the head, under the right circumstances is sheer genius born of field experience (SpecOps). Why fight the recoil for the second shot? I will have to practice it, but for certain circumstances, that sounds like it would work VERY well, fast and simple.

I now have something to work on at the range. Thanks Covert.
 
BTW- What do you call the "one to the body, ride the recoil up, then one to the head" technique?

There must be a cool name for it, and shorter than the one in quotes I just listed above. ;)
 
Jack 99,

Good question....many of my students come to me confused about the same issue. It is not easily addressed.

Let's start with some common tactical school terminologies:

Standard Response- 2 hits center mass (to the center chest vital area.

Failure Drill- (Named based on the theroy that the standard response failed to stop the subject attacker)..After 2 hits center mass immediately make 1 hit to the head.

Mozambique- 2 hits center mass, go to guard position, evaluate effect, then 1 hit to the head if necessary to stop subject attacker.

Guard Position- Handgun kept in shooting stance, grip, etc., but lowered slightly until muzzle is pointed at the subject attackers hands, so you can see the subject and evaluate condition. Sights are lowered to subjects hand level so you can observe the most dangerous part of the body (usually).

What does all this mean? There is probably just as much chance that a subject shot with 2 hits center mass will have some type of body moment or body response as that they may not!!! meaning half the time after two hits center mass a subject could falter, or step back, or maybe lean. The other half they may not give any indication they have been hit. They may not even realize they have been hit and keep on coming (drugs, body armor or determination have effect normal responses). Different people, different conditions, different results.

If you spend any time performing failure drills properly (Perfect Practice, Makes Perfect), at close street combat distances of 5 yards, it is reasonable to beleive you would be capable of 2 hits center mass, 1 hit to the face in 2.5 seconds (on paper).

It is unlikely that real people, if they acted like paper targets, would be able to make any major body movement response in the 1.0 second or less between your 2nd hit center mass and your 3rd hit to the face. And if they did, it is unlikely that you would recognize it unless the head fell completely out of your field of fire.

Add to this the fact that some real subject attackers do not act as paper, nor the common type of moving targets found on most advanced tactical training courses. Some attackers may stand almost motionless and make a good target for you (but if they do, do you have justification for the shooting) and others may move so quickly and eratic that getting a solid hit will take many rounds to accomplish.

If you are in a shooting and survive, you most likely will face a second shooting where the prosecutor shoots your story full of holes. There is good cause to be concerned and to train to evaluate and stop using deadly physical force the moment you are no longer in danger of serious bodily injury or death.

I teach my students to Train to Defend, Train to Survive, Train to Win. It is a fighting doctrine. Once they are committed to the force, they continue to apply the force until the threat becomes less than a threat. Part of this winning, surviving, defending attitude is training to evaluate situations rapidly and accurately. I call this process "Look, See, Access". Under deadly force stress it is not easy to break from the attack and go to evaluating, but it is a very real skill and need, which will enhance your ability to succeed.

Although many gun fights are settled with less than 5 rounds, it is a real good idea to manage your ammunition. As you mentioned there may be many attackers against you. Your constant Look, See, Access will be necessary to evaluate threats as they appear and priortize your actions accordingly within the means you have on your person.

And last, this is simply not the whole of this issue. It comprises many hours of training and information exchange in my courses. I only encourage you to explore the logic behind any shooting drill or tactic. I'm sure there are others reading this, ready to pick it apart.

Best Regards....
"Train as You Live and Live as You Train"
 
Let's just remember that the Spec Ops community can legally go out and kill people. By that I mean, if anyone asks them if they were trying to kill the BG, the appropriate response is "hell, yes!" On the other hand, private citizens and LE's are authorized to employ deadly force to stop a threat. Once the threat is gone the legality is, too. It's a subtle difference, but one that will come out in court. As a citizen, we are not authorized to kill, rather to employ deadly force to stop a potentially lethal threat. The fact that our counteraction may well result in the death of the BG is besides the point. Intent is everything.
"Were you trying to kill that man?"

"Why, yes I was."

The attorney then implies that you were doing everything in your power to kill, not stop the threat. Stupid, I know, but that's life.

If all you do is head shots, then you may very well get hosed in court and portrayed as an executioner.

Now that may not matter, very much if you're dead, just be aware that the reason for head shots, in a civilian or LE situation is:

1. It's the only target available because of cover, hostages, or innocents in the area.

2. The possibility that the subject is wearing body armor, on drugs, or is very determined.

If you are practising the failure drill, I wholeheartedly agree, that the second or third sight picture should be on his head, and if you have acquired a target, you take the shot.

For the average shooter however, I thing it is a better idea to just keep shooting until the threat stops. If the BG is wearing body armor, then go for the head shot, but not very many people can make that shot under life and death stress. As important as knowing your capabilities, is knowing your limitations.

"He who knows neither himself, nor his enemy, is a fool, and will meet defeat in every battle."
~Sun Tzu

Just something to think about...

Chuck
 
I agree with Chuck. The average citizen needs to keep pulling the trigger until the target is down then. 95% of the gunowners out there could not make a head shot under normal circumstances let alone when the target is moving and firing at them. The head is a very small target. Last time I checked a miss to the head is not as effective as a hit to the body. Live targets do not stand still while you are shooting at them. Try doing the Mozambique Drill with a target that is ducking and weaving. Not referring to anyone on this site ,but some of the so called experts out there seem to have lost most of their common sense. If you are confronted by multiple adversaries you had best be looking for cover. If you survive you need to pull you head out of your a-- and ask yourself how you managed to put yourself in that position in the first place.
 
We call it "vertical tracking" and we teach
it as a four shot drill. from very close to the target draw and fire at the mid section.
As you fire relax your grip slightly and ride
the recoil up. You can easily fire four
shots in a vertical pattern very quickly.
All this with the gun close into your body
to discourage a gun grab. If you did it right
the fist shot bent the bg over and the last
shot is aimed at the head. This is for a committed "must eliminate" situation.

[This message has been edited by bobo (edited November 18, 1999).]
 
Jack 99 raised the question of whether it was wise to evaluate the effect (or lack thereof) of one's initial pair to center-of-mass before executing a head shot as one's "failure drill". Jack 99 then went on to write....

"Why not train 2 to the bod and one to the head, no pause, no re-evaluation, just so long as the threat is vertical, keep shooting?"

This well illustrates the communication problem that leads to the controversy over "evaluate or no evaluation". Jack 99 suggests "no pause, no re-evaluation", then adds the caveat "so long as the threat is vertical". That sure sounds like an EVALUATION to me.

Now, I'm not trying to be critical of Jack 99. The communication problem here is that many people hear the term "evaluation" and imagine some long, drawn-out, deliberative pause. In the context of a failure-to-stop drill, the evaluation process must be HYPER-rapid and should be occuring essentially CONCURRENTLY with the initial pair being fired. If one's response does not include an evaluation step, then once one starts shooting, one would shoot until empty.

As to the issue of whether one should depress the muzzle so as to be able to see the threat during this evaluation step; one will pretty much HAVE TO in order to track one's attacker if he is collapsing. One will likely have to depress the muzzle somewhat if the attacker is NOT collapsing as lots of people tend to crouch under stress.

My point is that, unless one's plan calls for just firing one's gun empty at where one's attacker's center-of-mass WAS at the outset of the fight, then one IS doing an "evaluation" whether one calls it that or not.

Rosco
 
I think if you are properly watching your frontsight, you will have to shift focus to the target to see if the shots took hold. Then, back to the head shot. That's what I believe Jeff Cooper means by evaluation.

------------------
45 ACP: Give 'em a new navel!
 
I agree with Chuck and Joe D, hitting a moving target especially one as small as a head is very, very difficult. SpecOps personnel train everyday, most civilians are lucky to get to the range 1 or 2 times a week. Paper targets don't move, people can move very quickly. I'm not saying it's impossible to get head shots, but I think for the great majority of people it is better to keep putting rounds into center mass until the threat is gone. The Miami FBI shootout was a terrible reminder that handgun rounds (except maybe the 44 magnum etc.) are by nature underpowered and even a perp with a fatal wound can still be a grave threat. Whatever your personal tactics are I think we're all agreed that you can not shoot once and see what happens. I am not skilled enough to hit a small moving target unless it is very close range, so I'll go for center mass until the threat is gone or my revolver goes "click" ;)

------------------
God Bless America
 
Hello everyone.

I'm new to the coaching/instructor game, but while doing additional research on the reasons we do/coach/teach a particular fire pattern, I found some interesting information. First, the "Failure to stop" drill, or Mozambique came from a student of Jeff Cooper's. The guy was a citizen of that African nation. He was attacked and shot the BG twice in the body, the BG kept going and got the next one in the head. He told Cooper about the situation and it was so named.

Second, military personnel are in the business of kiliing people, not stopping attacks. Speed is essential in killing or disabling a target. The idea of one to the body and the second to the head makes sense under combat rules, but in the civilian courts may not. I was taught in the army that under certain situations to go straight for a headshot. I do not nor would teach the single head shot for civilian applications. A head shot indicates a DIRECT attempt to kill the other person, not halting an attack. It would be much harder to convince a DA, that you were in fear of your life or the lives of others, and needed to STOP the BG with a head shot. (This opinion comes from many hours of talking about this with my family lawyer.)

Next, the two shots to the body one two the head makes sense in a physiologcal sense. The idea is to place the two shots into the three inch line that runs from the forehead to the belly button. What you are actually doing is targeting the central nervous system and main blood vessels that run the length of the torso. Yes, I know that bullets don't go where they are suppose to when entering a body. But, the theory is that severing these blood vessels will cause an immediate drop in blood pressure causing the BG to fall down and go boom. If the bullet goes straight enough and deep enough it will damage the spinal cord and a similar result will happen.

Why two shots? Well, I found two schools of thought. First, is that a bullet will expand, in a perfect world, about 40% upon impact. An expanded .45ACP will produce a wound track of about three quartes of an inch. In a matter of milli seconds the hole will start to close. Putting two rounds close together will cut a pathway of one inch after closing, increasing the bloood loss and increasing the chances of hitting something vital. Additionally, catching two rounds is more psychologically debilitating than one, but three is wasting valuable time.

The second is like the rule of diminishing returns. That after two shots, any additional rounds will not have the same physiological effect. Sort of taking a good butt kicking, after a while it stops hurting. The autonomic systems have kicked in after the first round struck, blood is being shunted away from the wound site, shock has started to set in. Third or fourth shots will not have the same debilitating effect, unless you get lucky and hit a major organ. Then, if the attack is still coming, the head shot aimed at the tip of the nose becomes needed.

Just somethings to think about.



------------------
Joe Portale
Sonoran Sidewinder
Tucson, Arizona territory
 
Thanks for the replies, guys.

My conclusions:

1)
The world would be a lot safer without lawyers.

2)
The Mozambique or fail to stop drill is pretty good just as Col. Cooper scripted it. I think I'll leave the first-round head shots and "one to the bod, one to the head" techniques to the pros.

3)
As far as my question: yes, if your evaluation goes no further than "is the threat still standing or not" then that really takes no time at all. If the guy is still in front of you, shoot.

My question was more related to the evaluation of whether or not the first 2 rounds were really effective. Let's set the time limit at one second for the purpose of argument. Can you really evaluate how effective those first 2 are in that time frame? Would the perp even be showing any signs that he is incapacitated at that point? Could you really even tell if you had hit and WHERE you had hit? IMHO, I don't think so.

If he's vertical, that's all the evaluating I'm going to do.

------------------
"Put a rifle in the hands of a Subject, and he immediately becomes a Citizen." -- Jeff Cooper
 
YOU'RE ALL RIGHT!

And Jack, you're right about the lawyers (unless you need one for your defense) :-)

Seriously, this is an outstanding thread, imo. (btw, I do practice the Mozambique and the 1+1 at close range, in addition to the "Bill Drill: six rounds as fast as you can at 7 yds, trying to make as tight a group as poss in the A zone).

I have one further thought: I still think the Mozambique or 1+1, or "walking the muzzle up" from COM to head, can be highly effective in close quarters especially. At 1-5 yds, even with terminal wound(s) at center of mass, your assailant has possibly 20 seconds to live or more... plenty of time to do you great harm before expiring, esp if armed. Instant nervous system short circuit is required. At that close range, the headshot, with practice, is very feasible. I agree that it is impractical for most of us beyond 7yds under stress. Shoot for the bigger target then.

I have to disagree with the notion that headshots could cost you in court, i.e. that you risk being seen as an executioner. You've made the decision to use deadly force in defense of your (or a) life, the only justifiable reason to use it. If you shoot at center of mass repeatedly, or even once, that is likely death for the BG. Maybe slower, but deadly anyway. Lethal force is lethal force, whether applied to the head or the chest. It's either justified (and applied only until the threat ends) or not. You can't shoot to wound (i.e. "stop"). I'll take my chances on using a headshot if it's the best means to immediately end a CQB situation. imho.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top