Head Shot...would you attempt it???

[Ares45]

I am posing this question because of my response to a statement in another thread. My opinion on the subject differs from another TFL member's whom advise I have grown to respect.

The question is, if you find yourself in a situation where you have already engaged the BG with two shots COM and he continues to close rapidly, say from 15 feet, would you attempt a head shot next? In other words would you follow the saying, "two to the chest and one to the head" or would you continue to fire COM? Why or why not?

I believe I would continue aiming COM until I have fired several rounds (6-8) with no effect. Magazine capacity also plays a roll in the decision. If you've got a 6shot revolver then you might not be able to wait. If, like me, you carry hi-cap mags (in my case 12+1) with a spare mag you may feel differently.

Here is my response from the other thread:
"All that sounds well and good except under life threatening circumstances most of us will never make contact with a tennis ball sized target rushing us while our adrenine goes thru the roof. Won't happen unless your last name is Cooper or Leithem.

Your not aiming for the head, you're aiming at the bundle of nerves below the brain and at the top of the spinal cord. While the BG closes on you the target area is bouncing up and down and side to side as said BG moves. In addition, the firing angle changes because as the target moves closer the angle of elevation grows. Now add to that sweaty palms, tunnel vision, loss of hearing accuity and most of all loss of fine motor skills (trigger work and small muscle dexterity[aiming]) and the overall feeling that your life is in grave danger and you will die unless you hit the above mentioned target area. Won't happen."


Please share your thoughts.

 

[USP45usp]

The only thing that one has to remember is that BG's have access (and will continue to do so even if it's made "illegal" for them not to do so) to bullet resistant vests.

If one continues to try the same thing (shots to COM) and it's not working, it would be insane to continue to fire COM in hopes that you will get a different or desired result which is the stop of the threat.

In such a situation, even if it's a hard(er) shot, it would then become necessary to try something different, which is to take the head shot.

A person can cover alot of ground in just a short amount of time. If you continue to take shots that aren't giving you the desired results, i.e. stopping the threat, the battle will soon become hand to hand (here is where a knife would come in handy). Many who carry cannot afford or are unable to engage in a direct hand to hand combat situation and will then be at the disadvantage. That is why we (them) train for the 2 COM and 1 to the Head as best we can.

Having a firearm is not going to ensure the outcome of the battle that we may find ourselves, but with different types of training we can use it to our advantage as best we can until all the plans that we've trained for fail and then we have to resort to just survival instinct.

So the answer is yes .

Wayne

 

[Mannlicher]

This kind of stuff happens to me all the time. I would follow those accurate COM shots up with a load of 00 Buck to the head. (grin)

 

[pax]

Never been in a gunfight, hope I never will. But I've given this some thought.

The classic Failure-to-Stop drill involves very quickly putting two rounds to COM, assessing whether those have worked, then slowing down and carefully putting one aimed shot into the head. Assessing requires at least a brief moment to evaluate and decide whether the target is going down, or if he needs another dose.

If the classic move is a bad idea in the heat of battle, it would be only because of the time factor involved. The concept of firing two shots quickly and then carefully placing the next shot is probably sound, and being able to force yourself to change speeds while shooting is a very, very worthwhile skill even if you never use that particular technique in real life.

More recently, Failure-to-Stop has often been taught as two quick shots COM, followed by an immediate shot to the head. The third shot is trained as a reflexive action, and little-to-no time is taken with assessment before the third shot is fired.

Timewise, I think that's a much better idea -- but I also suspect that practicing it on a stationary target is going to cause some difficulty when it comes time to transfer it to real life. The problem is that you can expect someone to react to getting shot or shot at, even if it's only to tuck the head down & move faster. So repetitively practicing making an immediate, reflexive shot at a point that is always precisely 10 inches above your previous point of aim might have unfortunate consequences if in the real world. That third shot, being reflexively trained, might just go whistling over the shoulders of the hunched attacker. Or (worse!) it might land perfectly on a BG who was raising his arms and calling out his surrender.

There are folks who advocate two quick shots COM, then transfering aim point to the pelvic girdle. Again, this can be done either thoughtfully or reflexively, so you've got the same two basic issues above: speed vs. accuracy.

Setting that question aside, you're getting into anatomical questions. I have heard some folks advocate shooting the pelvis because it is the platform for any useful bodily movement, and a shot that lands there is allegedly guaranteed to make it impossible for the BG to even get up -- let alone continue to run after you.

Assuming that is true (which it probably is, but see below), one consideration with the pelvic shot is that down doesn't necessarily mean out. Even if the shot lands perfectly, if the BG is armed with a gun, he can kill you just as dead from lying down as he could from standing up. In that case, you very possibly may need to transfer your point of aim and shoot him again even though he has gone down. On the other hand, if the BG was armed with a smashing or stabbing weapon, he's probably out of the fight as soon as he goes down.

With either the head shot or the pelvic shot, you've still got the question of shot placement on a difficult target. It is relatively easy to hit the stable pelvic region, and relatively harder to hit a head that is bobbing & weaving. But any shot, even a non-perfect one, which lands on the head is likely to cause the BG to go down at least briefly -- whereas a shot to the pelvic region that misses the relatively small break point of the massively sturdy pelvic girdle is not necessarily going to cause the BG to go down.

Another consideration is that a missed head shot will very likely send a bullet over the attacker's shoulder, on a trajectory that pretty well guarantees it will keep going until it hits something other than the ground. Though it will vary with distance from the attacker, a missed pelvic shot is likely to hit the ground just a few feet behind him. While nobody plans to miss, in a crowded environment the pelvic shot might be preferable.

I'm not saying any of these are always bad, and I'm not saying that any of these are always good. I'm saying that it's worthwhile to think about the benefits and drawbacks of practicing each method.

pax

 

[k9lwt]

I was trained (and currently train) 2 COM, then head shot/CNS/whatever you want to call it. I am not saying this is the way that you should train, it's just the way we do it.

There are many variables that you need to consider when taking a head shot-some of which you mentioned. Regardless of whether it a COM shot or a head shot, you need to be aware of what's behind the target.

 

[chunk]

yup, head shot

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Mark Wilson in Tyler continued with attempting COM shots, never transitioning to the head. According to a source I can't verify, he apparently did strike the shooter once below the vest as the shooter pivoted in reaction to the shots by Wilson.

The shooter then shot Wilson one or two times with his rifle, incapacitating Wilson. The shooter then walked over and executed Wilson.

Would I attempt the head shot? It is something I regularly practice and so there would be a good possibility of attempting it unless for some reason I deemed the shot too risky to others in the area.

If I can't make the head shot, then I sure as hell am not going to stand my ground firing into the chest of some guy wearing body armor. I may or may not attempt a lower extremity shot because it potentially has the same risks of a missed head shot, bystanders down range. So the other prudent option is flight.

Area45 said,

Your not aiming for the head, you're aiming at the bundle of nerves below the brain and at the top of the spinal cord. While the BG closes on you the target area is bouncing up and down and side to side as said BG moves. In addition, the firing angle changes because as the target moves closer the angle of elevation grows. Now add to that sweaty palms, tunnel vision, loss of hearing accuity and most of all loss of fine motor skills (trigger work and small muscle dexterity[aiming]) and the overall feeling that your life is in grave danger and you will die unless you hit the above mentioned target area. Won't happen."

Okay, so you follow Mark Wilson if you believe your only option for a stop is a brain stem shot that you can't hit and so you don't attempt it and just keep pumping rounds COM. Prudent shooters will transition to the cranium in hopes of producing brain damage to a much larger portion of the subject's head that in represented by the brain stem. They may transition to lower portions to stop the locomotion of the shooter so that at least they have the option of flight that the shooter won't be able to follow.

I have to know, where did you learn the purpose of head shots was only to strike the brain stem? Somebody has gravely misled you. There is another excellent option and it is much larger.

The purpose of head shots are for a CNS disruption or shutdown. This can happen well from any CNS strike from the cervical vertebrae and upward. Disruption and/or shutdown may be temporary or permanent depending on the insult.

I am always amazed when people claim they are aiming at targets they cannot see. Area45 says we are aiming at the bundle of nerves between the brain and spinal cord. He is referring to the brain stem, more specifically to the portion of the brain, consisting of the medulla oblongata, pons Varolii, and midbrain, that connects the spinal cord to the forebrain and cerebrum. The brain stem per se isn't below the brain is part of the lower portions of the brain. The stalk of the stem down extend below the brain where it transitions into the spinal cord. If he was referring only to the stalk itself, then his target size is much smaller than the tennis ball-sized target he suggested as that includes those portions of the lower portions of the brain.

The brain stem is a fairly small target and he is correct in that it will be hard to hit on a moving person. Then again, being as he can't see the brain stem, I have trouble believing he or anyone can aim at it. One may aim at the location where the perceive the underlying anatomical structure exists, but once the bullet is launched from the barrel the best aspect of the aimed shot is that it hit the exterior landmarks in the appropriate manner (angle, no deflection, etc.) so as to continue through to hit the buried underlying structure. Passing through bone and soft tissue, slugs do not necessarily continue in the original trajectory path.

I find it strange that Area45 has deemed the goal of head shots to be brain stem shots, especially given that depending on the angle, the shot may actually have to pass through part of the cranium and other areas of the brain to hit the larger areas of the brain stem, or pass through a lot of soft tissue and vertebrae to hit the terminus of the stalk as it transitions to spinal cord. A brain stem shot is NOT the only way to disrupt or shutdown the CNS. It is one way, but not the only way.

Sure, some folks survive shots to the head, even shots penetrating into the cranium. Of course, many facial shots are nothing but painful cosmetic disruptions that don't involve CNS damage and such shots may to little to stop an attacker. Some survive cranial penetration and are fully conscious. There are instances of shots entering the skull and missing the brain. However, the brain itself is a much larger unseen target than the brain stem and most folks have a pretty good idea where the brain is inside the skull. Many folks are not terribly sure exactly where the brain stem is, especially if the person whose brain stem they would like to disturb is facing anywhere other than directly at the shooter. Pivot the intended victim and their certainty of the location of the brain stem will diminish especially if the intended victim is pivoted in more than one plane.

People are much better at aiming at regions, not hidden internal organs. Try asking a half dozen people to pinpoint their own pancreas, gall bladder, or even their liver. Most will be hard pressed to get all three locations.

Put the victim in a hooded sweatshirt, and unless straight on, all landmarks that might be used to indicate the location of the brain stem are gone, but the shooter will still have a pretty good idea of where the brain is.

I always like the comments on how because of adrenaline that we won't be able to hit squat because our fine motor skills have gone to hell. This seems to be a pat excuse that provides the complete justification for a variety of things people can't do under stress, only people do them under stress quite often. No doubt you may have problems attempting to do things under stress that you don't normally do, but practiced skills are another matter. That is where training and practice come in to the equation.

As noted as another sort of pat answer, folks revert to their training while under stress. They will repeat what they have practiced in an almost mindless manner and accomplish the task as a result of what folks refer to as "muscle memory." MM is a horrible misnomer as the muscles don't have memory. Instead is it a CNS issue. As with tasks such as walking or running, trained folks can accomplish trained tasks without a lot of conscious thought dictating each specific action.

 

[Dwight55]

Head shot, . . . yessir, . . . and not just one.

If 2 COM don't work on this bg, the next 7 will be flung in the direction of the dead center/lower half of his head.

My training is it is just a transition matter, . . . first 2 com, . . . no real pause, just an observation, . . . and if there is no change in the threat to me, . . . the next 7 are headward bound.

May God bless,
Dwight

 

[The British Soldier]

Double tap to the head every time.

I was trained to shoot by people who knew what they were about and had been there, unlike many army skill-at-arms instructors who have read it in the instructional manual and teach a style of combat shooting more akin to the range. We all know the two are different beasts.

You need the aptitude and attitude to head shoot; those who still teach shooting centre of mass are back in the dark ages of shooting. Our traditional targets for military shooting have us aiming for the stomach of the target - it is unrealistic. It was not until I began to train for Northern Ireland the first time round that we encountered targetry that depicts people and you do not have a pre-determined point of aim; you are re-training to shoot where it will kill not to shoot to pass a shooting marksmanship test.

 

[jcims]

What about groin/pelvis shots? Obviously a well placed head shot is hard to beat, but relatively speaking, the pelvis area is going to be roughly as mobile as the COM and probably not covered. Wouldn't a shot to the hip stop most people from running?

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

DNS and Pax - excellent posts!

At the NTI, there were specific targets designed such that you need head shots after COM to bring them down. Excellent targets.

Of course, stress may screw up anything. Thus, practicing such under stress manages some inoculation against stress and does indicate that it can be done at reasonable distances.

One can play the stress angle so much, that why shoot at all - you will just miss. A COM shot doesn't guaranteed you will put a shot through an important hidden aspect of the blood supply.

TX just had another police vs. BG in vest incident. It's not going to be unknown.

While FOF isnt' BTDT, it is the closest we 'surburban' ninjas can get. In one intense exercise, I had my strong hand carrying a long arm hit with a paint round. I abandoned the gun and pulled an Airsoft BUG with my weak hand and from behind cover, bounced a pellet off the face mask of an opposing participant.

 

[Weeg]

*Sigh*



--------------------


How many forum posters does it take to change a light bulb?

1 to change the light bulb and to post that the light bulb has been changed

14 to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the light bulb could have been changed differently

7 to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs

27 grammar Nazis to point out spelling/grammar errors

53 to flame the spell checkers

41 to correct spelling/grammar flames

6 to argue over whether it's "lightbulb" or "light bulb"

6 to condemn those 6 as anal-retentive

2 industry professionals to inform the group that the proper term is "lamp"

27 to post URL's where one can see examples of different light bulbs

14 to post that the URL's were posted incorrectly and then post the corrected URL's

12 to post to the group that they will no longer post because they cannot handle the light bulb controversy

4 to suggest that posters request the light bulb FAQ

44 to ask what is a "FAQ"

4 to say "didn't we go through this already a short time ago?"

143 to say "do a Google search on light bulbs before posting questions about light bulbs"

1 forum lurker to respond to the original post 6 months from now and start it all over again…

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

:Sigh - who you sighing it?

Anyway, about the groin shot. I've read some medical folks saying that if the shoot merely punches a hole through the large bones of your pelvis, you don't destroy enough structural strength to necessitate a fall. You really have to whack the joint and that, of course, is hidden!!

Sigh, yawn, groan, toot! eek:

 

[Dwight55]

British Soldier, . . . what you have said is very much correct in a scenario where one is faced with a determined enemy that does not care for their life, yours, or anything else really, . . . just doing their "mission".

I advise folks to think COM first, . . . for 2 reasons: 1) I really know very few folks I would want trying a head shot from much more than 5 feet, . . . and 2) I really don't see the percentage chance of one of us coming across a bg with armor.

Yes, it happened in Texas last year, . . . but that was one out of how many shootings in the US last year???

I still believe 2 COM and an immediate move to the head is the proper response for most people as it should offer a better chance that the shooter will hit the bg, . . . and if it becomes necessary, . . . even the shortest of revolvers still leave 3 for head shots. Just MPO, . . . worth a British farthing, . . . maybe.

May God bless,
Dwight

 

[Ares45]

What about groin/pelvis shots?

Someone earlier made mention of body armor, here' my thoughts (also from previous post):
"...unless the target proves to be wearing body armor. Body armor requires shots to the groin and upper thigh and then head shots."

Maybe it's just me but I think some people here are either fooling themselves or are over confident in their abilities to perform under severe duress. There is documented proof that suggests even trained individuals are far less accurate in real life shootings. Police officers who routinely qualify above a 90% hit rate fall well below 40% in real life shootings. Some statistics point to numbers as low as 10% hit rate. Anyone who thinks that adrenalene, stress, the monkey on your back, whatever doesn't play a role in in your capabilities has never been in a situation necessitating lethal force. Training or no.

As far as tennis ball sized brain stem I'm quite aware that it's much smaller. Just making the point that a human uses roughly 15% of his/her brain to function. Blowing away the other 85% could statisticly proove pointless.

I stated that this engagement began at 15ft. Remember the 21ft rule? This is point shooting range once the BG begins to close. So we go from point shooting back to cafefully aimed head shots as the target comes closer??? This is a charging BG not a casual sauntering BG. He's running full out and attempting negate your existance.

I DO see the point. I just don't believe that 2 to the chest means an automatic transition to the head. Quite a few people are still walking around after being shot in the head and even brain. A shot in the skull may be just as fruitless as the two in the chest. If you're not aiming for immediate incapacition why take the chance on a much smaller moving target?

 

[roy reali]

Other Option

If you used a flame thrower in a HD situation, the aiming point would be pointless. Make sure your spouse backs you up with a good extingusher.

 

[Tim Burke]

I've practiced transitioning to the head long enough that I will do it without thinking about it. I've been given a silhouette target with a hidden steel plate, and been told- "shoot it until it falls, the plate is COM." The plate wasn't center of A-zone, it was center of mass. Despite the instructions, on the 3rd shot I transitioned to the head.
The head isn't guaranteed to work, but if COM is failing because of armor, even a poorly placed head shot will likely have more effect than another round COM.

 

[John2]

Shoot him in the balls! His heart and mind will follow!

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Ares45, we are talking about scenarios without real data on the probablities and factors involved. It is all speculation.

Given an incident population where two COMs didn't seem to work and:

1. There was a transition to the head
2. COM was continued

What was the breakdown of the outcomes?

In a Tueller situation, one could speculate that if the COM didn't work, only the header could actually stop the person before they get to you.

Also, if you think that training in stress innoculation or has Tim points out with targets that are responsive won't override stress - why bother to train at all with anything but COM?

 

[USP45usp]

You shoot as you practice and you practice as you shoot.

In order to NOT mess up any conflicting views in my CNS, I've chosen the 2 COM and 1 head mode of practice. May not be the best, but as been pointed out, it becomes a non-thinking mode of action.

Yet I am not going to be able to expand on DNS's post, I find it well thought out and vastly true for the point of discussion.

Pax beings up good points as well.

As for missing and then what may happen after that, the bullet striking an innocent or destroying what you didn't wish to be destroyed, that's a tough one. I guess that's one of the bad things with carrying or even owning a gun for self defense. Unfortunatly, once that bullet leaves the barrel there is no recall and no self destruct option to it, it goes until it is either stopped by an object that won't die or one that will/may.

It's all a what if situation that we have to overcome, deal with, and then decide what course of action we believe is best for us, our family and those around us. When we, our family, or another is being targetted and we feel the need to protect ourselves or them, many things may or may not happen which may hinder us from the use of or thinking of the need of, a firearm. As soon as we feel the need to pull our firearms, anything can happen from that point onward. The desired affect, the taking down of the BG or the worse thing, the accidental taking down of an innocent.

I've practice 2 COM and 1 head by firing twice at COM and then dropping down to one knee for the head shot. If it misses, then everyone at street level should be safe from the missed shot. The shot should continue at an angle that takes it above the head of the innocents and hopefully places the shot into the top of a building structure. But I may end up harming someone on the fourth floor of an apartment building.

Nothing is going to be 100% safe. If it were 100% safe then there would be no need to go armed, guns would only be used for hunting and hobby, and we'd all be having town hall meetings where we hug and sing.

The real world isn't a camp out and not everyone wants to sit around the campfire and sing in total harmony and with good feelings about their brothers and sisters that walk upon this earth.

Wayne