Shoot at the pelvis to stop an attack?

Status
Not open for further replies.
THANK YOU Briandg. Your last posts (should) resolve the issue! A pelvis shot with a bench-rest rifle on a bench rest at a standing threat would still not be my first choice. In a true self defense situation it is absurd - at least as a first or second shot.
 
I wouldn't go so far as calling it ridiculous, but it comes close.

Center mass heart lung target zones are very effective. Brain shots or skeletal center shots are also effective.

Heart lung region target spots are not only bigger, they are also generally more easily damaged. Logic dictates that if you can hit the upper chest, that's what you should try. It should be first line for any "ordinary shooter."

If center mass shots fail, for example,stopped by armor, move on. If there is a balloon hang in outside my house and I want to make it go away, I'm not going to shoot at the string.
 
My thoughts are that pelvis or shoulder come next and head shot would be that absolute last chance.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's my thinking. The descending aorta and inferior vena cava carry a lot of blood, and if you disrupt them with a shot a lot of blood leaves circulation quickly (admittedly a lucky shot, but so is the aorta in the chest). We know how fast someone can bleed out by the femoral arteries, but they originate from the terminal aorta in the area we are talking about. The contents of the bladder and bowel, when spilled, cause some pretty immediate pain. To get an idea of how bad serosal pain is, think about appendicitis, in which the pain is primarily from stretching the serosa of the appendix.

None of this is to say that the thorax is unimportant, or that shots there are more likely to be incapacitating than a pelvic shot, but a shot to the lower abdomen or pelvis is not inconsequential. Like you said, I would go there before trying a head shot on a moving subject, but I would go for a conventional chest shot first.
 
Win their hearts and minds before targeting genitalia.

Like dating, but faster.


Upper center mass is my first choice, preferably heart or spine, but whatever.
Face is second choice if torso shots failed, preferably entering brain via nostrils or tear ducts.
Pelvis is rather unlikely for close range self defense. Might work with a shotgun but I don't carry one.

If you shoot any critter on earth in the face enough times, he'll tend to leave you alone.
 
Last edited:
Nothing new.
At a two-week DEA course my PD sent several of us to in 1982, one of the instructors was an MD associated with the DEA.

We got him sidetracked at one point on some of his experiences as a medical examiner, including calibers, gunshot wounds, and so on.

He advised to go for the pelvic girdle if possible, because if it can be disrupted it's a shutdown as far as mobility & continued fighting go.
With a side note that, as he put it- "It rings the gong all the way up the spine."
Denis
 
I guess the answer is to shoot your standard center of mass, then head shot and if it doesn't stop them just keep putting holes in them until they stop.

Whether that is the COM, head, pelvis or whatever, just keep shooting til they stop fighting. I think we can argue for day where those shots should go.
 
Mas posted excellent info, it fits lock and key with my thoughts.

One thing that he explained well was to aim at kill points, not zones. Don't just shoot at the center of the chest, learn where the heart is and lean a bit into it. Don't just point at the face, aim center and above the eyes an it will damage important neurons. If you shoot for the pelvis, know where the pelvis is, or look for some other landmark.

A gunfight is all about chaos, and trying to wrestle control of the situation and stop it. Control your shooting to your best ability and put the rounds where they belong and maybe your opponent won't be one of the cyborgs who take an entire magazine without flinching.

Thanks, Mas ayoob.
 
Bill Jordan described the Border Patrolman who was shot by an undocumented felonious immigrant. The shot fractured his hip or pelvis and sure enough, it "broke him down" and he fell and rolled down the shoulder of the road. Apparently his assailant was waiting for him to get to the bottom and stop so he could finish him off. He did not live to see it, the wounded patrolman drew and shot him on the way.

I have had a fractured pelvis. That guy was TOUGH.
 
I never fractured my pelvis, but my mother in law broke her thigh off at the socket, similar, but not the same. She just laid there and screamed.

I herniated a disk and nearly went down. I've broken a few things, and I would have been able to shoot. It's complicated. For him to go down like that and still win is incredible. What a man.

Some of the bad guys are just as amazing as he was.
 
Good points.

As noted in the earlier link, breaking down the pelvis does not NEUTRALIZE the attacker, but it profoundly impairs his mobility.

The pelvic shot makes sense for the opponent with knife, club, or bare-handed disparity of force, since taking away his ability to reach you does in fact take away his ability to harm you.

Anchoring him in place also makes it much more likely that you can deliver a brain shot if he is armed with a gun and center chest shots have failed, since his ability to "duck" a weapon pointed at him is dramatically reduced when his grounded body reduces the potential range of movement of his head away from a gun he perceives to be pointed there.

Tailor the tool -- and the tactics -- to the task. The pelvis would not be my first target facing an antagonist armed with a remote control weapon such as a firearm, but it does have its place in the toolbox.
 
Mas,

Thank you.

Didn't you report an incident some years ago involving a female police officer who stopped an attack with a pelvis shot? I believe she was using a 9mm with 147 grain bullets. Or am I just imagining it?

I was looking through back issues of American Handgunner with no luck.
 
Frank, it was New York City PD, young female rookie who was first on scene against a knife-wielding madman. She ordered him not to move, he came at her with the blade, and she dropped him like a rock with one shot to the pelvis. Reports were that he lost all interest in hurting her or anyone else, and just laid there screaming until backup and Emergency Medical Services arrived. It was the standard NYPD 9mm load then and now, 124 grain Speer +P Gold Dot.
 
Seems like a bunch of us in going to the bathroom, do not want to go back to sleep, yes?

Being retired helps.

Showing a class of young Officers, or Security staff, the organs that sit behind that jacket, or shirt, is a great idea. Hanging your vest over that part of the human body? Yes, that can cause the wearing of said vest, to be a priority.

Practicing firing burst's of 3 and 4 rounds, not a bad idea.

Dr. Fackler said shooting the pelvis? Might just put a hole in it?
 
Good points.

As noted in the earlier link, breaking down the pelvis does not NEUTRALIZE the attacker, but it profoundly impairs his mobility.

The pelvic shot makes sense for the opponent with knife, club, or bare-handed disparity of force, since taking away his ability to reach you does in fact take away his ability to harm you.

Anchoring him in place also makes it much more likely that you can deliver a brain shot if he is armed with a gun and center chest shots have failed, since his ability to "duck" a weapon pointed at him is dramatically reduced when his grounded body reduces the potential range of movement of his head away from a gun he perceives to be pointed there.

Tailor the tool -- and the tactics -- to the task. The pelvis would not be my first target facing an antagonist armed with a remote control weapon such as a firearm, but it does have its place in the toolbox.
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting with the link and additional info Mas.

I've really enjoyed your books. Please keep writing more. :)
 
That may be the only time I've ever heard the remote control comparison. I've used it since the nineties, but on a psychological basis. Using a gun became so common, so easy, that I started thinking of people using one in some cases as a "hurt button". How many individual killings would take place if the killer hadn't had a gun, and his choices were hand to hand and bloody and brutal?

Killing and hurting with a gun is easy, drive by and spray, even works. Take it out and push the button. It gives you a jolt of adrenaline, makes a person feel like a big and bad dude. It's a rush. Take away his remote control and force the guy to leave his recliner to change the channel, and maybe he won't.

The anti crowd may be right in that one small point. Not having the hurt buttons around may deter a few killings, but not that many, and certainly not enough to justify the blanket restrictions. Strangers are still murdered every day out in public with clubs and kitchen utensils.


Off topic, but something I wanted to share.
 
Drawing a handgun in time to hit an attacker with bullets at all is probably luck in the first place. Would be for me. Had a micro fracture of a rib once that barely showed on x ray. Could not move!.....I shall take aim in the general vicinity of those should calamity strike.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top