If you can hit the 12" torso at 100, geometry says
- Thread starter Hardin
- Start date
riddleofsteel
New member
The head is poor target....
the point is not if you can hit someone's head. the point is it is a poor target. the upper surfaces and sides of the human head have sloping bone angles and bullet deflections are common. the face and sinus areas contain air filled pockets and areas of heavy bone and again angled surfaces underneath. i have seen multiple suicide attempts come thru the ER in which people have tried to shoot themselves (at contact distances) in the head and failed to kill themselves.
i know there is a difference between killing and stopping or disableing but i submit that the real kill zone on a human head is the center forehead (or cranium from the back and sides), and a narrow straight line extending from the forehead/cranium down to the neck.
so in several posts you expell the concept that precision shot placement can not be counted on during stress/combat/defense situations and then you post twice about "head shots" and how cool they are.
i am no combat warrior wanna be. however i know that the only valid head and neck shots in a firefight is when no other target is available or an INSTANT kill is critical.
the point is not if you can hit someone's head. the point is it is a poor target. the upper surfaces and sides of the human head have sloping bone angles and bullet deflections are common. the face and sinus areas contain air filled pockets and areas of heavy bone and again angled surfaces underneath. i have seen multiple suicide attempts come thru the ER in which people have tried to shoot themselves (at contact distances) in the head and failed to kill themselves.
i know there is a difference between killing and stopping or disableing but i submit that the real kill zone on a human head is the center forehead (or cranium from the back and sides), and a narrow straight line extending from the forehead/cranium down to the neck.
so in several posts you expell the concept that precision shot placement can not be counted on during stress/combat/defense situations and then you post twice about "head shots" and how cool they are.
i am no combat warrior wanna be. however i know that the only valid head and neck shots in a firefight is when no other target is available or an INSTANT kill is critical.
instant stop is nearly always critical
Show me where I said that head shots are "cool"? You can't because I have never said same. Slugs that "only" hit jawbone, cheekbone, chin, etc, still deliver a VERY disorienting blow, unlike slugs to chest. Ribs and sternum have been known to deflect slugs, too, as have inkpens, pendants, notebooks, buckles, buttons, badges, etc. A minor jab to the chin will rock your entire world for a second or so, allowing OTHER hits to follow. Not true of same power blow to chest. So this topic is nowhere NEAR as simplistic as you THINK that it is, nor am I as ignorant as many kid themselves into thinking.
Show me where I said that head shots are "cool"? You can't because I have never said same. Slugs that "only" hit jawbone, cheekbone, chin, etc, still deliver a VERY disorienting blow, unlike slugs to chest. Ribs and sternum have been known to deflect slugs, too, as have inkpens, pendants, notebooks, buckles, buttons, badges, etc. A minor jab to the chin will rock your entire world for a second or so, allowing OTHER hits to follow. Not true of same power blow to chest. So this topic is nowhere NEAR as simplistic as you THINK that it is, nor am I as ignorant as many kid themselves into thinking.
jdthaddeus
New member
I have not been following this argument (which appears to have started before this thread), but let me add one thing.
As a Boxer and practicioner of the fighting arts for many years, I would like to point out that the head is a very mobile unit. Look at any person even while they are just walking down the street, and see how their head bobbles slightly with every step, and moves as they look around. Now amplify that when someone is in fighting mode and they are all over the place, running, ducking, looking, fighting. The head becomes a VERY ERRATIC and quick moving target. The torso on the other hand is a slow moving target. The hips and torso tend to move very slowly while the head and limbs move quickly, if you look at body mechanics and how people move.
I fully advocate head shots myself, and after shooting so many years and being able to easily hit targets with utter reliability at close range under all conditions, I do consider head shots at close range or on still targets to be very viable. And I think they are very effective.
I just think we need to remember the part of the equation about mobility of the head and the difficulty in hitting that small moving target. I don't consider the head to be that small of a target, but as a Boxer I do consider it to be a very erratic and quick moving target.
As a Boxer and practicioner of the fighting arts for many years, I would like to point out that the head is a very mobile unit. Look at any person even while they are just walking down the street, and see how their head bobbles slightly with every step, and moves as they look around. Now amplify that when someone is in fighting mode and they are all over the place, running, ducking, looking, fighting. The head becomes a VERY ERRATIC and quick moving target. The torso on the other hand is a slow moving target. The hips and torso tend to move very slowly while the head and limbs move quickly, if you look at body mechanics and how people move.
I fully advocate head shots myself, and after shooting so many years and being able to easily hit targets with utter reliability at close range under all conditions, I do consider head shots at close range or on still targets to be very viable. And I think they are very effective.
I just think we need to remember the part of the equation about mobility of the head and the difficulty in hitting that small moving target. I don't consider the head to be that small of a target, but as a Boxer I do consider it to be a very erratic and quick moving target.
WalterGAII
Moderator
Not to mention the fact that most criminals are DemocRATs, who are known to have exceptionally hard heads.
since they arent talking about hitting
MOVING torsos at 50 and 100 yds, the moving head is mostly a red herring. I'd hate to have to head hit a guy beyond 10 ft with my pistol, but then I'd also hate to have to chest hit him beyond 20 ft. I have made and seen made by other Class A shooters, WAY too many misses of A zone at 7 yds, in good light, with match gear, muffs on, stationary target, no lethal stress, etc. All it takes is trying to go faster than you are capable of doing at the time. Given the incentive of trying to stay alive, you MIGHT tend to go a little faster than usual, dont you think?
MOVING torsos at 50 and 100 yds, the moving head is mostly a red herring. I'd hate to have to head hit a guy beyond 10 ft with my pistol, but then I'd also hate to have to chest hit him beyond 20 ft. I have made and seen made by other Class A shooters, WAY too many misses of A zone at 7 yds, in good light, with match gear, muffs on, stationary target, no lethal stress, etc. All it takes is trying to go faster than you are capable of doing at the time. Given the incentive of trying to stay alive, you MIGHT tend to go a little faster than usual, dont you think?
riddleofsteel
New member
my point exactly...
while the head is a vital target (duh). given the stress of self defense and the resulting marginal shooting of most of us old cowboys. don't you think the center of mass might just be a better target to instill our muscle memory with than a hard bobbing head, democrat or not.
LOL
oh yeah. a disclaimer. if i can talk the BG into standing still and letting me aim real careful i would submit to the occasional head shot. i particularly love the movie situation were the BG is holding a hostage with his melon sticking out big as day and the nimrod with the gun is talked into giving up his gun instead of taking the well aimed still head shot. PLLLLEASSSEE
while the head is a vital target (duh). given the stress of self defense and the resulting marginal shooting of most of us old cowboys. don't you think the center of mass might just be a better target to instill our muscle memory with than a hard bobbing head, democrat or not.
LOL
oh yeah. a disclaimer. if i can talk the BG into standing still and letting me aim real careful i would submit to the occasional head shot. i particularly love the movie situation were the BG is holding a hostage with his melon sticking out big as day and the nimrod with the gun is talked into giving up his gun instead of taking the well aimed still head shot. PLLLLEASSSEE
Hardin writes
Now, if I have a choice between shooting my opponent's torso @ 100 yds, or his head @ 50 yds, I'm going home. Since his head is 50 yards away from his torso, I figure I've already won that fight.
I do agree that the degree of difficulty of a 12 moa shot @ any range is roughly comparable to a 12 moa shot at some other range, provided that neither of the ranges is so extreme as to require adjustment for the wind, or compensation for the "back side" of the ballistic curve. I just don't see how that justifies making a harder shot. Circumstances dictate head shots. Theoretical capability of making your desired head shot is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for attempting one.
TB., NC
I'm not sure who they are since this debate seems to be continued from another thread. The point about the moving head is that for any given distance, with an animated target, the head will likely move more than the torso. It's not for nothing that wide receivers use a head fake.
Now, if I have a choice between shooting my opponent's torso @ 100 yds, or his head @ 50 yds, I'm going home. Since his head is 50 yards away from his torso, I figure I've already won that fight.
I do agree that the degree of difficulty of a 12 moa shot @ any range is roughly comparable to a 12 moa shot at some other range, provided that neither of the ranges is so extreme as to require adjustment for the wind, or compensation for the "back side" of the ballistic curve. I just don't see how that justifies making a harder shot. Circumstances dictate head shots. Theoretical capability of making your desired head shot is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for attempting one.
TB., NC
John Marshall
New member
A small but important point: Geometry has got not a d*mn thing to do with firerarms, shooting or anything else that moves being, as it is, a study of statics.
If you are moving while you are shooting (and if you are holding a firearm when it goes off, you are moving), you had better concern yourself with physics. Or you might just try shooting and let the math take care of itself.
If someone can do X at one distance, then he/she should be able to do Y at some other distance just has too many variables built into it.
If you are moving while you are shooting (and if you are holding a firearm when it goes off, you are moving), you had better concern yourself with physics. Or you might just try shooting and let the math take care of itself.
If someone can do X at one distance, then he/she should be able to do Y at some other distance just has too many variables built into it.
This thread is starting to sound silly.
The geometry argument holds only for stationary targets, and equal stress conditions. After watching the Waco news footage of cops blasting at windows from behind their squad cars, I am firmly convinced that the stress level goes DOWN the farther the threat is positioned from you.
However, adding movement makes the longer shots disproportinately difficult. But if the target is moving, doesn't that make the target less of a threat to you, too? Whatever.
And as far as crowing all the reasons why the head is such a poor target, does that justify a failure to train for those circumstances where the head will be the ONLY target presented? Yeah, makes as much sense as taking the seat belts out of the car because the "vast majority" of collision incidents are at low speed and result in no injury.
So, let's include the difficult and the unlikely in our training, okay? It seems only prudent to be prepared so that we are more likely to perform the difficult, if the difficult is the only reasonable option for that moment. Just realize that like any battle plan, it may not survive first contact with the enemy. But train for it, so you at least have a ghost of a chance of having it work!
The geometry argument holds only for stationary targets, and equal stress conditions. After watching the Waco news footage of cops blasting at windows from behind their squad cars, I am firmly convinced that the stress level goes DOWN the farther the threat is positioned from you.
However, adding movement makes the longer shots disproportinately difficult. But if the target is moving, doesn't that make the target less of a threat to you, too? Whatever.
And as far as crowing all the reasons why the head is such a poor target, does that justify a failure to train for those circumstances where the head will be the ONLY target presented? Yeah, makes as much sense as taking the seat belts out of the car because the "vast majority" of collision incidents are at low speed and result in no injury.
So, let's include the difficult and the unlikely in our training, okay? It seems only prudent to be prepared so that we are more likely to perform the difficult, if the difficult is the only reasonable option for that moment. Just realize that like any battle plan, it may not survive first contact with the enemy. But train for it, so you at least have a ghost of a chance of having it work!
Why not both?
Both shots should be considered in our repertoire of self defense. Two shots to the torso, as a higher percentage likelihood of a hit under stress; if not a stop, take a shot to the head. I've read cases of police who put all their shots into the torso of the bad guy without a stop, and then were killed themselves. Maybe their training should include a head shot if they fail to stop after a couple of torso shots.
For a mouse gun to be effective at point blank range,a head shot might be in order.
Both shots should be considered in our repertoire of self defense. Two shots to the torso, as a higher percentage likelihood of a hit under stress; if not a stop, take a shot to the head. I've read cases of police who put all their shots into the torso of the bad guy without a stop, and then were killed themselves. Maybe their training should include a head shot if they fail to stop after a couple of torso shots.
For a mouse gun to be effective at point blank range,a head shot might be in order.
Deaf Smith
New member
Actually, old Hardin, they are not the same shots. Due to little things like ballistics (bullets do drop after leaving the barrel), sight radius of the weapon, bullet calibur (a .45 puts a larger hole than .22, and you will notice at 50 yards the angle that one may miss would be just a bit smaller with a .45 than a .22, in short, a 1/2 inch miss at 100 yards might be a hit with a .45 at 50, while it would not with a .22). Also, like the guy said before, eyesight, wind deflection, mirage. Lots of things make 100 yard shots harder than 50.
Nice seeing ya,
Deaf Smith
Nice seeing ya,
Deaf Smith
Harden, the only thing I see as "undeniable" is that you have the same amount of experience under fire as most of us here, zero. Shooting under stress at a BG's head is a whole lot different than a COM shot, even if the range is cut in half. In addition, as has already been pointed out, the kill zone is actually a lot smaller than you might imagine.
DAVID NANCARROW
New member
M-2, thats a cranial injury to liberal. Otherwise, a pretty quick bleed out on a normal male. Lots of academics in this debate. Personally, I'm going for the first piece of the bad guy I can point at-assuming I have no way out, and I'm going to keep shooting until the target is prostrate-head/chest/abdomen/arms/legs/toenails and not necessarily in that order. Sure, I wanna one stop encounter, but my DI taught me not to take my finger off the trigger until the object was incapable of return fire, and thats always made sense to me
David
The only prob w/ keeping your finger on the trigger is the body's natural reflex. Should something cause your non firing hand to tense your firing hand could also tense unconsciously. This is known as a sympathetic nerve response. Also, the adrenaline dump causes a tensing of the nervous system that could cause and AD. This is the reason that most schools and trainers preach the indexing of the finger along the frame, just above the trigger. This is enough of a safety margin, but extremely fast into action. Another thing that also occurs with alot of people when they continue to engage the trigger is that tunnel vision sets in, which is very bad news. Fire shots, remove finger, come to low ready, and scan for threats. This is not intended as a flame, just a caution. On the job, I have seen a few AD from people who have failed to take these measures.
Be Safe
Mike
The only prob w/ keeping your finger on the trigger is the body's natural reflex. Should something cause your non firing hand to tense your firing hand could also tense unconsciously. This is known as a sympathetic nerve response. Also, the adrenaline dump causes a tensing of the nervous system that could cause and AD. This is the reason that most schools and trainers preach the indexing of the finger along the frame, just above the trigger. This is enough of a safety margin, but extremely fast into action. Another thing that also occurs with alot of people when they continue to engage the trigger is that tunnel vision sets in, which is very bad news. Fire shots, remove finger, come to low ready, and scan for threats. This is not intended as a flame, just a caution. On the job, I have seen a few AD from people who have failed to take these measures.
Be Safe
Mike