Shoot at the pelvis to stop an attack?

Status
Not open for further replies.
All this is the dreaded "speculation" that gets threads locked or posts deleted in other places.
Click to expand...

Maybe we can save it and steer the post back in the right direction. Going back to the OP.

If we talk about center mass as a common tactical shooting concept, cannot center mass include the pelvis when we are talking center mass?

I have always been uncomfortable with the idea of 2 to center 1 to head. Only because under major stress I fear attempting a head shot with the knowledge that if I miss the head there is a list of humans that die beyond that head.

What about a training practice of 2 to center 1 to pelvis? 2 to pelvis 1 to mass?

Or everything to mass and move hoping the bad guy doesn't get you all because you didn't get the head.

There was a shootout here awhile back between LEO's and a bad guy. The news story said that the bad guy was shot in the head. Later when I saw a mugshot of the LIVING bad guy with a bandage around his jaw I asked a LEO friend of mine "I thought they said he was shot in the head?" The LEO said the jaw is the head.
 
If we talk about center mass as a common tactical shooting concept, cannot center mass include the pelvis when we are talking center mass?
Click to expand...
I don't see how that makes any sense.

I have always been uncomfortable with the idea of 2 to center 1 to head.
Click to expand...
I don't like the idea either.

What about a training practice of 2 to center 1 to pelvis? 2 to pelvis 1 to mass?
Click to expand...
What do you think you would likely hit with that pelvic shot? Consider this from a prior post:

"....finding either of the junctions where the femoral head meets the acetabulum is going to be tough to do intentionally on a stationary naked target given the amount of anatomy most folks know and the lack of external landmarks to denote such locations. The problem increases hugely when the intended target is clothed/clothed strangely and even more so when the target goes into motion."​
 
Where ?

Did two to center of mass then one to the head come from? As a copper I was taught it because if 2 to the chest failed, discounting misses of course, maybe, just maybe, the guy had a vest on. I mean maybe if the bad guy is willing to shoot it out with a cop, the cop should shoot the third shot where there is no vest. The neck or head, is the second biggest visible hit area.
 
The neck or head, is the second biggest visible hit area.
Click to expand...
But it isn't, especially if you take into account the area where the vest is likely to fold. The lower abdomen, pelvis, and legs is a much larger target. Sure there is a gap between most guys legs, but it isn't that wide.

I don't know why people are so set on discussing single shots. Don't use a single shot.
'well, only 15% of shots taken n armed confrontations find the target'
A case of poor statistics. Look at the data and you will find that there are shooters who hit a high percentage and shooters who hit a low percentage. Box and whisker the data by shooter and you will see a difference.
 
win71 said:
Where? Did two to center of mass then one to the head come from?
Click to expand...

Originally referred to as "The Mozambique Drill," the concept was popularized by Jeff Cooper through his groundbreaking school in Arizona, which is now Gunsite Academy. To the best of my knowledge, Gunsite (founded in 1976) was the first defensive firearm training school for civilians. Cooper's work at Gunsite was also hugely influential on American law enforcement training, and is the source of many ideas that have filtered through LE over the years.

Here's what Cooper had to say about the concept:

Jeff Cooper said:
As time passes we discover that there are a good many readers who have not been to school and who are puzzled by our reference to "The Mozambique Drill."

I added The Mozambique Drill to the modern doctrine after hearing of an experience of a student of mine up in Mozambique when that country was abandoned. My friend was involved in the fighting that took place around the airport of Laurenco Marquez. At one point, Mike turned a corner was confronted by a terrorist carrying an AK47. The man was advancing toward him at a walk at a range of perhaps 10 paces. Mike, who was a good shot, came up with his P35 and planted two satisfactory hits, one on each side of the wishbone. He expected his adversary to drop, but nothing happened, and the man continued to close the range. At this point, our boy quite sensibly opted to go for the head and tried to do so, but he was a little bit upset by this time and mashed slightly on the trigger, catching the terrorist precisely between the collar bones and severing his spinal cord. This stopped the fight.

Upon analysis, it seemed to me that the pistolero should be accustomed to the idea of placing two shots amidships as fast as he can and then being prepared to change his point of aim if this achieves no results. Two shots amidships can be placed very quickly and very reliably and they will nearly always stop the fight providing a major-caliber pistol is used and the subject is not wearing body armor. However, simply chanting "two in the body, one in the head" oversimplifies matters, since it takes considerably longer to be absolutely sure of a head shot than it does to be quite sure of two shots in the thorax. The problem for the shooter is to change his pace, going just as fast as he can with his first pair, then, pausing to observe results or lack thereof, he must slow down and shoot precisely. This is not easy to do. The beginner tends to fire all three shots at the same speed, which is either too slow for the body shots or too fast for the head shot. This change of pace calls for concentration and coordination which can only be developed through practice.
Click to expand...

Note that it's not just changing your aimpoint that matters. The important part is mastering the change in pace required to get your hits when the size of the target changes.

pax
 
DMK said:
I just finished reading Combat Shooting with Massad Ayoob (free read on Kindle if you have Amazon Prime BTW). It's a great read and I highly recommend it, along with Deadly Force - Understanding Your Right to Self Defense, another free Prime Reader book.



An interesting point in that book though; Ayoob makes a case for shooting at the pelvic girdle if possible, instead of upper chest in a self defense situation. His rational is that a fractured pelvic girdle will cause an attacker to immediately collapse under their own weight, where even with a heart shot, an attacker might have enough blood in their brain to continue an attack for a few seconds (such as in a Tueller Drill situation).



He backed up his advice with commentary from medical experts and even talked of a police officer who was shot in the heart with a .357, killed her attacker and amazingly survived the gun shot. He also talked about criminals who were shot in the head and continued to fight. One attacker took 10 rounds from a officer at contact distance including head shots before he dropped from a pelvic shot. (He talks at length about the problems with head shots as well)



I have never heard anyone but Ayoob make this recommendation. Have any of you heard of this in your training or research?
Click to expand...



I had this SAME thought the other day.

I spoke with my girlfriend about the idea too. She got her degree in anthropology and is now doing physical therapy school. So she is "familiar" with biomechanics to say the least lol. The CONCEPT is VERY sound. BUT...it is also about as logical as shooting for the knee (that is my addition). The target is actually quite small. What you actually NEED to hit is very limited and if you DONT hit it...you likely did nothing other than piss the target off. Maybe you caused a slow painful death after weeks in government funded hospital care.

Aiming for the head makes more sense, as does the center mass of the target. For sure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
IMO, the pelvis shot does two effective things:

1.-Recoil and muzzle rise allow for more chances of a
vital hit at CBM, neck and head.

2.-Word gets out that we are shooting BGs in the jewels.
This may cause a drop in violent crime, overall.
 
IMO, the pelvis shot does two effective things:

1.-Recoil and muzzle rise allow for more chances of a
vital hit at CBM, neck and head.
Click to expand...
That would indicate very poor shooting.

2.-Word gets out that we are shooting BGs in the jewels.
This may cause a drop in violent crime, overall.
Click to expand...
That's absurd.
 
Thinking about non-fatal aftermath. It would seem to me that if you are hit in the chest and survive the long term repercussions are not as damaging as being hit in the pelvis and surviving.

Not a doctor.

Not sure if its important to the conversation
 
I don't see how the pelvis argument works. The supposition is a pistol is going to go through the abdomen and then break one of the hardest bone groups in the human body, but leaving them able to shoot you?

Whats the point of that?
 
Some years ago I separated my pelvis in a horse wreak. Your pelvis get's separated and I guarantee you, you will cease to move. I had to have a couple guy's lift me off the horse! Problem I would have with simply stopping the attack is the perp could end up suing you cause he was only kidding and you loose everything even if you win. If I were to shoot the pelvis first there would be a couple more shot's and the perp would die. A dead man can't sue you but his family might!

I drove interstate truck's for a lot of years and have made a lot of trip's in less than nice places. Had a cop in NYC tell me that if I had to shoot someone just leave him lay and leave. Said they would find him and there would be a whole lot less paper work than if we called. Think about it, best if there's as few less to sue you as possible!
 
I don't see how the pelvis argument works. The supposition is a pistol is going to go through the abdomen and then break one of the hardest bone groups in the human body, but leaving them able to shoot you?

Whats the point of that?
Click to expand...

Only small portions of the pelvis are cortical (hard) bone and most of that is in the pubis and ishium, and then around the acetabulum for the ilium. The illium, which is your largest bone of the pelvis, is full of spongy bone. It is not part of your skeletal support system as much as it is about muscle support for the abdomen and back. By comparison, the pubis and ischium are quite small. The acetabulum is quite small.

You can, and people have had broken ilia and still been able to walk around. Moreover, projectiles will sometimes just punch nice holes through the ilium without actually fracturing it into pieces.

Some years ago I separated my pelvis in a horse wreak. Your pelvis get's separated and I guarantee you, you will cease to move.
Click to expand...

The pelvis includes two innominates. Each is made up of 3 bones (ilium, ishcium, and pubis). The two innominates are joined at the pubis at the front at the pubic symphysis and via the sacrum in the rear. There is a lot that can be broken on the pelvis without it being incapacitating. It just depends on where the break is and how severe.

About 2-3% of vaginal births result in pubic separation. It is painful and can cause it to be extremely difficult to walk or climb stairs, but they do it.
www.birthsource.com/scripts/article.asp?articleid=189

Also see...
http://www.moveforwardpt.com/symptomsconditionsdetail.aspx?cid=1388924b-8118-4182-b8e9-247463af00bf
 
I would go for the knee (although a smaller target). There is too much chance of making a lethal hit by shooting for the pelvis.
 
Sigh - the thread is getting ridiculous. Can we please stop posts demonstrating ignorance.

The pelvis shot is not to avoid lethality. It is a failure to stop drill that attempt to reduce opponent mobility. Thus saying that you would avoid a pelvis shot as it might be lethal implies lack of knowledge of the use of lethal force.

I would suggest if one is actually able to carry a gun, one studies up a bit before posting such.

Second, we have been seeing folks blithely suggesting a knee shot and that they could easily do it and not miss.

That is horsepoop and again a sign of not understanding shooting dynamics under stress. Have posters of such tried excercises or competitions where one has to make small target shoots under stress and movement.

I suggest steel challenge and see if you always can make the small plates or various disciplines like IDPA or USPSA with steel poppers. They can be 4 inches across (larger than a knee) and see how reliably you can hit them on the move. I see plenty of misses.

Please, please study up before just blabbing. I also deleted some pure noise.
 
I saw "The Accountant" the other day which had some very abnormal weapon use. One item of interest was the use of the pelvis shot. I can't remember seeing it used so clearly in a movie previously. Maybe someone in LA is reading here...

I'm not recommending the movie. Ben Afleck obviously has Bourne envy. The movie overall was lackluster.

I'm sure one of the members here has access to some coroner info on the effects of pelvic shots.
 
John Williamson noted:
I saw "The Accountant" the other day which had some very abnormal weapon use. One item of interest was the use of the pelvis shot.
Click to expand...

And he shot a 6" canteloupe at a mile in one 1/3 MOA shot, out of a 1.5 MOA .50 BMG rifle. Yea, right. But it is a good movie. :)

(on the other hand, any body hit with a .50 BMG is going to result in very rapid exsanguination. )
 
suggesting a knee shot and that they could easily do it and not miss.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was easy. I said it was a smaller target, making the knee harder to hit (especially if the guy is running at you). It would be difficult, especially under stress with a shaky hand.

Again, it would work but it would be hard!
 
The pelvis shot is not to avoid lethality. It is a failure to stop drill that attempt to reduce opponent mobility. Thus saying that you would avoid a pelvis shot as it might be lethal implies lack of knowledge of the use of lethal force.
Click to expand...

You are attempting to reduce mobility, but (this assumes they are armed) you are not stopping the threat. Again I am trying to figure out, why?

I am not arguing for knee/hand or anything tacticool, but the bog standard upper torso / Mozambique (depending on circumstances). Apologies if you are arguing for that as well.

Again, my point is that I don't see how a pelvis shot, even if done correctly despite a high stress situation, does the job of "stopping the threat."
 
The knee shot, as discussed before, is silly. So why bother to post it or defend it. Let's move on.

Pelvic shots are to interfere with mobility. The exact target to interfere with mobility is small if you research it and/or practice such. Interfering with mobility does not guarantee (not that any shot does but some better than others) that an opponent will not be able to return fire.

There are are reactive targets that will demonstrate to you the difficulty of the Mozambique head shot and the critical area shots in COM. Try them moving and at a distance. Then one can opine.

Again:
I would go for the knee (although a smaller target). There is too much chance of making a lethal hit by shooting for the pelvis.
Click to expand...

I don't want to belabor this but the statement has two flaws:

1. A very difficult shot with a low probability of success
2. A very strong misunderstanding of the use of firearms and lethal force.

There are very good books and videos and courses to bring one up to speed on such issues. When one actually carries a gun, at least studying the first two (if courses are not possible) is a necessity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top