Mike Irwin
Staff
And that one incident proves what, exactly?
The magic one shot stop
- Thread starter Super-Dave
- Start date
- Status
Super-Dave
New member
Just an example of how being shot in the chest/body might not do much at all a stopping someone. Let alone someone determined to kill you at all costs.
I just fail to understand why people think shooting someone once in the chest is somehow going to stop an assalint, but shooting them in the head wont.
Last time I checked for an instant incapacitation shot, Law enforcement teaches their sniper teams to shoot for the head.
So it seems making a head shot at 100yds with a rifle and scope is realistic, but somehow shooting someone in the head at less than 15 feet with a pistol is just impossible and shound never be attempted.
I just fail to understand why people think shooting someone once in the chest is somehow going to stop an assalint, but shooting them in the head wont.
Last time I checked for an instant incapacitation shot, Law enforcement teaches their sniper teams to shoot for the head.
So it seems making a head shot at 100yds with a rifle and scope is realistic, but somehow shooting someone in the head at less than 15 feet with a pistol is just impossible and shound never be attempted.
Last edited:
There is no such thing as a Guarenteed ONE SHOT Stop
But reading these post reminds me of a story I heard in 1960 or 61 in Alaska.
There is a buffalo herd in the Delta Junction area. There was an old bull buff who didnt like motor vehicles and would charge them. He disabled several vehicles before he took on a semi truck.
The only ONE SHOT STOP, was the truck, the buff made it a couple hundred yards before he finely died.
I know, the story is not shooting related, but its stopping or not stopping related.
In the Sears Mall in Anchorage, there use to be a rather large Brownie that was killed buy an Air Force Col. It soaked up unteen 375 H&H rounds and was chewing on the Col. when his hunting partner finely killed it. (a unrelated happy note, the Col ended up marrying Miss Alaska).
But reading these post reminds me of a story I heard in 1960 or 61 in Alaska.
There is a buffalo herd in the Delta Junction area. There was an old bull buff who didnt like motor vehicles and would charge them. He disabled several vehicles before he took on a semi truck.
The only ONE SHOT STOP, was the truck, the buff made it a couple hundred yards before he finely died.
I know, the story is not shooting related, but its stopping or not stopping related.
In the Sears Mall in Anchorage, there use to be a rather large Brownie that was killed buy an Air Force Col. It soaked up unteen 375 H&H rounds and was chewing on the Col. when his hunting partner finely killed it. (a unrelated happy note, the Col ended up marrying Miss Alaska).
Mike Irwin
Staff
"So it seems making a head shot at 100yds with a rifle and scope is realistic."
It's only realistic from the standpoint that the individual you're shooting is less likely to see you, less likely to be reacting to your actions, less likely to be taking evasive actions based on what you're doing, etc.
When you're within handgun range, you're up close and personal. Your opponent can see exactly what you're doing.
It's only realistic from the standpoint that the individual you're shooting is less likely to see you, less likely to be reacting to your actions, less likely to be taking evasive actions based on what you're doing, etc.
When you're within handgun range, you're up close and personal. Your opponent can see exactly what you're doing.
Super-Dave said:
Not even close to the same thing. A precision shooter with a scoped long gun who isn't being shot at is an entirely different scenario than your goofy "what if you're being charged by a tweeked out meth head, oh wait now he has on body armor" scenario.
There's a good reason why everyone teaches shooting to center mass, and it's the same reason that everyone who's BTDT will tell you to shoot center mass.
Larry Vickers is probably the best small arms instructor on the planet, and he'll tell you emphatically in his classes that best case when under stress in a gunfight you're capable of 50% of your flat range accuracy. This means that if you can shoot your 5" group at 15 feet on a flat range, under stress it will be 10". That's a lot of margin for error. This knowledge comes from an instructor with impeccable credentials, and more BTDT experience that any other instructor out there. What exactly makes you qualified to dispute that?
One report I read said 5% survival rate for head wounds, the paper was rabidly anti-gun so I'm not even going to honor it with a reference.
Well dang, there goes the shot between the eyes with a large bullet theory. That's why us old competitive shooters with rifles and pistols grab for a shotgun at dark thirty in the night and the boogermen come calling.
If you are in a gun fight you have by now I assume, (always dangerous to assume but here goes anyway), you have taken cover, the initial flush of combat is out of the way, you are supernaturally calm as you carefully aim for that sweet spot on your moving targets head. He has of course not done anything distracting like take cover or wear obscuring head cover or is so inconsiderate that he is shooting at you in order to break your concentration. Now you line up those sights, squeeze that trigger and boom, magic shot. This script brought to you courtesy of Wild Wild Fantasy Film Company.
A few observations from the science lab that my community is. About 16 years ago, a tweaked out meth head at a seedy hotel took the night clerk hostage with a knife. PD got involved, tactical unit got involved, and eventually, the acting sniper was ordered to fire.
He blew the guy's lower jaw half off. Fortunately, the surprise of having his face flash before his eyes made him drop his knife and run around yelling things like
"UHHHHH! AHHHHH! OWWWWWW!" until he was taken into custody.
I wonder how long it had been since the sniper checked his zero.
The second observation was that an old couple in a community south of here were both in poverty, and at the end of their lives. The husband was despondent, and couldn't stand thinking of the two of them losing each other, and they couldn't take care of each other. He shot his wife, killing her. he then sat down, put the pistol to his forehead (not temple) and fired a round. the bullet went right between the lobes of his brain. After a few minutes, he called police.
Last I heard, he had obviously survived that wound, still had cancer, and was awaiting charges of 1st degree murder. That was just plain tragic. Who'd have ever imagined that you could hit someone square between the eyes, and have him still able to call 911?
A third case, an older woman was hit in the brain with a bullet by a home invader, again, a bit south of here. She called 911, fixed a cup of tea, and sat down to wait. She never really seemed to understand that there was a bullet in her head, an investigating officer said, as all she seemed to care about was her anger at the perp.
All true stories. All from within 30 miles of my home.
I think that most people will agree with me on one point.
I'm not going to shoot at some peckerwood's head until I'm tired of shooting him in the chest.
He blew the guy's lower jaw half off. Fortunately, the surprise of having his face flash before his eyes made him drop his knife and run around yelling things like
"UHHHHH! AHHHHH! OWWWWWW!" until he was taken into custody.
I wonder how long it had been since the sniper checked his zero.
The second observation was that an old couple in a community south of here were both in poverty, and at the end of their lives. The husband was despondent, and couldn't stand thinking of the two of them losing each other, and they couldn't take care of each other. He shot his wife, killing her. he then sat down, put the pistol to his forehead (not temple) and fired a round. the bullet went right between the lobes of his brain. After a few minutes, he called police.
Last I heard, he had obviously survived that wound, still had cancer, and was awaiting charges of 1st degree murder. That was just plain tragic. Who'd have ever imagined that you could hit someone square between the eyes, and have him still able to call 911?
A third case, an older woman was hit in the brain with a bullet by a home invader, again, a bit south of here. She called 911, fixed a cup of tea, and sat down to wait. She never really seemed to understand that there was a bullet in her head, an investigating officer said, as all she seemed to care about was her anger at the perp.
All true stories. All from within 30 miles of my home.
I think that most people will agree with me on one point.
I'm not going to shoot at some peckerwood's head until I'm tired of shooting him in the chest.
ScottRiqui
New member
You're talking about Gerald Curry (you can Google the incident). Curry's wounds were in the neck (grazing), arm and shoulder, so the shooter didn't even get a clean torso shot. Hardly surprising that Curry was still moving around. Even so, how effective would he have been if he were trying to fight back?
And note that this happened at much less than five yards, plus the shooter had the advantage of surprise. Still think that a head shot at fifteen feet is a sure thing?
Mike Irwin
Staff
"Curry's wounds were in the neck (grazing), arm and shoulder, so the shooter didn't even get a clean torso shot."
In other words, not applicable to the scenario posited here.
In other words, not applicable to the scenario posited here.
I think you may be misunderstanding what people here are calmly telling you.
Personally, I think a shot to the head is more likely to stop an attack than a shot to the torso. I also know that it is a lot harder shot to make under stress and at speed. One is more likely to miss a shot to the head at speed and in the swirl of a fight and I don't want to miss in a situation where every shot counts and standers by may be shot.
Also, there is no "magic one stop shot". Most folk here are not going to rely on one shot stopping any attacker.
Some comments on your home invasion scenario...
You saw them coming at you while they were still outside. You recognized their armament, body armor and intentions. You allowed them to get into your house without opposition or interference of any type. You allowed them to get into your bedroom without interference. You had no plan on how to keep them out or slow them down. These early success emboldened them and gave them confidence. You had no lights, dogs, airhorns, no alerting of the neighbors, etc. to give them pause and raise the stakes against them. Now you are trapped in the bedroom with only a handgun.
At this point the concrete situation in that bedroom, where the door is, the lighting, field of view, etc. would be more important to me than head shot or torso question. I'd take the shots I could that seemed best in the actual conditions.
I think you are being abstract Dave.
tipoc
lucky-gunner
Inactive
rounds on target
Super Dave
I would lean towards getting "rounds on target" before trying to aim for the improbable head shot. I would fire a 2 and 1 (2 body & 1 head), in a scenario where I felt it was appropriate. That would have as much to do with the situation, distance, firearm (if I'm carrying my snub head shots are pretty much out of the question), layout of the area, etc. As much as I train, I can feel comfortable being able to hit a moving body but not the head. I'd also worry that with aiming for a head shot exclusively you could go into a tunnel vision and give up too much of your field of view to be effective.
I would say that there are too many scenarios for there to be a one size fits all mentality. I think Colin Powell said it best "No battle plan survives contact with the enemy."
Super Dave
I would lean towards getting "rounds on target" before trying to aim for the improbable head shot. I would fire a 2 and 1 (2 body & 1 head), in a scenario where I felt it was appropriate. That would have as much to do with the situation, distance, firearm (if I'm carrying my snub head shots are pretty much out of the question), layout of the area, etc. As much as I train, I can feel comfortable being able to hit a moving body but not the head. I'd also worry that with aiming for a head shot exclusively you could go into a tunnel vision and give up too much of your field of view to be effective.
I would say that there are too many scenarios for there to be a one size fits all mentality. I think Colin Powell said it best "No battle plan survives contact with the enemy."
Super-Dave
New member
What I am trying to argue is that:
If you must have a one stop shot, you are better off making a head shot than a torso shot.
If you must have a one stop shot, you are better off making a head shot than a torso shot.
Super-Dave,
I think the problem is that your basic premise is flawed since a "one shot stop" is a statistical anomaly in the first place.
As a purely intellectual exercise, yes a direct noggin hit would be the most likely to cause an instant stop. However as a real world tactic there are a lot of additional factors that make this a poor tactical choice and drastically raise the likelihood of failure since a missed headshot would utterly fail to "stop" (not to mention the whole topic of where did that bullet go).
ScottRiqui
New member
Yes, if you frame the scenario so narrowly that only an "insta-kill" will save your life, then a head shot is preferable. That's trivially obvious.
But for any realistic SD scenario except for one in which you know the BG is wearing body armor, a torso shot is still the best course of action, which is why any reputable training program recommends them.
That has been totally discredited. a head shot does not mean an instant stop. Even a brain shot does not mean an instant stop. Only a deep, ripping, mush making hit to the brain will without fail make a direct, immediate stop. The brain is armored, and with some circumstances, bulletproof without a good solid hit. It is also not as fragile as people believe; a hit to the brain must destroy or disconnect all of the sections of the brain that are needed to make decisions and carry out activities like this. Unless it destroys important tissues or causes serious hemorrhaging, the brain shot is actually much less damaging than a serious heart shot.
I'd like to point out that your assumption that a chest hit cannot possibly equal the stopping power of a head shot is also fatally flawed. As I said before, you have 18 inches of spine that start at your neck and go to your hips, and a hit on that will, without a doubt, put that assailant on the ground, probably with no possibility to further attack.
A shot to the chest that hits arteries can send a jolt of blood pressure into the brain that can disable the brain temporarily. a hit to those same arteries will shut down the brain in less than 40 seconds if blood flow is interrupted, and that person was engaged high aerobic activities.
The only time that I would ever be in a situation where I must have a "one shot stop" would be if I have foolishly forgotten to bring the magazine along with my pistol, that is why we invented magazine firearms. So that we don't have to worry about making that "one shot"
In sum:
A shot to the head, even a hit to the brain, even a serious hit to the brain, is NOT a certain, cast in stone, gold plated guaranteed one shot stop. This is a fallacy.
On the other hand, shots to the chest DO, frequently, end gunfights with a single hit. There are targets there that are instantly incapacitating. even a crazed polar bear will be taken down if you put a round through his sternum into his spine. Nobody will continue to fight if his hear arteries are no longer carrying blood. And as has been mentioned before, sometimes, even with a crazed bomb wielding terrorist, you don't even have to kill them to stop them. Sometimes they just give up.
Do you really want a majic one stop shot? Drop the gun and fire a taser.
Double Naught Spy
New member
No, it really needs to be a high CNS shot, not just face shots or ancillary head areas, and as noted, even CNS shots are not absolute.
Even Wild Bill" Hickok once said something to the effect(look it up) if you have to shoot a man shoot him in the belly, near the navel. It may not be a fatal wound but it will paralyze the arm and brain so that the fight is all but over. This was a man that killed more than a couple of men in his day and was using a cap and ball revolver with solid lead round balls for ammo.
HITTING a person in the chest has a much better chance of stopping an assailant than MISSING an attempted head shot.
It's not impossible, it's just much harder.
You can attempt it if you don't mind missing.
As I've already pointed out, I've seen video of more than one shootout that took place at ranges closer than 15 feet with no hits scored AT ALL. It's really easy to miss with a handgun when someone's shooting at you.
Making a torso shot is hard enough under the stressing conditions of a gunfight. Making a head shot under those conditions is much more difficult.
You're looking at this like it's a choice between a hit in the torso or a hit in the head. In reality the choice is more like a decent chance of hitting the torso vs. a really good chance of missing the head.
If you MUST have a one stop shot, you are better off making a HIT than missing.
- Status