View Full Version : Accuracy and target size
The thread on Pointshooting has once again shown that most have no real understanding of just what it is that stops someone in a gunfight, and how big that target is. I believe that it is very important to have a basic understanding of anatomy, terminal ballistics, and shot placement in order to possess a realistic outlook on training and "real life". Those things are important because they directly fuel our weapon selection, cartridge selection, and our training and accuracy standards.
I took a few minutes to doodle a bit and snap some pictures that I hope will help. First- I am not a Doctor. I am a Shooter. In that vain I'm going to try to keep this KISS! (any remarks about me being simple and stupid will be punished!!! :D ) Any MD's are more then welcome to correct any mistakes....
What Exactly Stops Someone in a Gunfight?
Bullets can "stop" an adversary in several ways. The major ones include- disruption of the Central Nervous System (CNS), Hemorrhaging (bleeding), Asphyxia (suffocation), Physical (mobility), and Psychological. The only ones we can reliably effect are the first two. Notice, that those two result in death. While it may not be PC or fashionable in this day and age to point that out, the reality is, is thats exactly what we have to do to reliably "stop" someone.
Handgun rounds do not have the tissue disruption capability to effect the major structures that control our mobility, IE. the large bones of the legs and the Pelvic Girdle. Even if they could break them, it does little to make them less of a threat if the have a firearm. Additionally, I am told, it is not unusual for women giving birth to have a complete break of one of the pelvic bones, and then walk out of the hospital.
Psychological is even more out of our hands, in that it has absolutely nothing to do with us! It's all in the person being shot at saying-"Crap! I've been shot" and giving up.
Asphyxia can "stop" someone, but even with both lungs perforated can take a long time to occur. As in hours...
That leaves Disruption of the CNS and Hemorrhaging. Disrupting the CNS is excellent and probably the best place as it "turns the lights out"... NOW! Unfortunately, the target is quite small, as only certain parts of the brain and the upper Spinal Cord will result in an instant "stop". To compound the problem the skull is designed quite well to protect the brain and a significant amount of rounds that would otherwise be good hits, may be deflected by it.
From the front the only place that handgun rounds can reliably penetrate is the area surrounding the eyes and the nasal passage. Measure it. Your not going to like what it says (it's just a wee bit smaller then the head of an IDPA target). Like wise the upper spinal cord is also very small (less then 1in wide and 10-12in long) and lies within the center of the spinal column, which in itself can be hard to penetrate.
Hemorrhaging is caused by severing one of the major blood vessels or puncturing the heart. The biggest target is the heart (about 4.5x5.5 inches), and is also what most generally mean when they refer to "shoot COM". Even if you completely destroy the heart, that person can still function for several seconds.
Basically, for the purposes of this thread, in order to "stop" someone we must place a round or rounds in the CNS, or heart. So we got small and very small as targets. Being the heart is the biggest one I'll focus on it.
Terminal Ballistics
I'm not going to get into this much, but suffice to say that with handgun projectiles if it "don't touch it, it don't hurt it". Hitting within an inch of the heart will not "hurt" the heart. The bullet has to physically penetrate it to do damage. I don't want to beat that point to much, but it seems most think that bullets, if not the guns themselves, possess some kind magic that spreads pixie dust as they fly into anything near them, causing instant death. They're not! Close doesn't count here.
Shot Placement
The heart lies high (much higher then what most shoot for at targets), generally within the center left/right of the chest cavity when facing straight on.
Here's something I drew on a t-shirt for a visual-
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v609/CharlesArbuckle/P6260232.jpg
Not very big is it?
Here's the approximate size relative to my closed fist-
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v609/CharlesArbuckle/P6260236.jpg
Here is an 8in paper-plate for comparison, which is the size target most often used in training, and competition for "0 down"-
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v609/CharlesArbuckle/P6260237.jpg
The same plate with a rough cut-out of the heart on it-
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v609/CharlesArbuckle/P6260241.jpg
Training and an Acceptable Accuracy Standard
Look at those pictures again. How much does the "heart" cover on that paper-plate? 25%? Maybe 30? Not much. All those "perfect" A-zone and 0-down shots aren't so perfect anymore are they? Now throw in those C-zone or 1-down shots we except. Think those are doing you any good in a fight? Do you think it matters that the target is far enough away, giving us "the time to use our sights"? Or that they are so close you can smell their breath and you brain goes into panic mode.
There is a reason that Rogers Shooting School (and various units) use the same size targets and the same time standards no matter the distance, and no matter whether you only have one hand, both hands, the "weak" hand.... The bad guy doesn't care. He's not going to slow down because he's twenty yards away and he's not going increase the size of his vitals because he's five feet away and you don't have time to "aim". The only way your going to "stop" him, is to kill him, and to do that you have to hit vital organs- namely, the brain and/or heart.
There is no magic pill. There is no "weekend course guaranteed to cure all you problems", no super gun or bullet thats going to make up for your misses, and no excuses. The bad guy's aren't any easier to kill because your "just a normal person". There is only reality. And the reality is- it doesn't matter whether your a 'beginning shooter", pretty decent, or a SOF stud. Your task is the same one, holding you to the same standards, and with the same consequences. The best are the best because they realize this............
All those "perfect" A-zone and 0-down shots aren't so perfect anymore are they? Now throw in those C-zone or 1-down shots we except. Think those are doing you any good in a fight?
Yes, actually, I do. There's a pretty substantial amount of evidence to support the idea that a lot of people get shot and slowed down, reduced in effectiveness, and even stopped without being instantaneously killed.
Speed without accuracy is wasted opportunity.
Accuracy without speed is wasted time.
You've got neither to waste.
There is a reason that Rogers Shooting School (and various units) use the same size targets and the same time standards no matter the distance, and no matter whether you only have one hand, both hands, the "weak" hand....
You're referring to the 8" circles that Rogers uses, of course. :cool:
SIMPLYDYNAMIC
06-26-08, 18:58
Yes, actually, I do. There's a pretty substantial amount of evidence to support the idea that a lot of people get shot and slowed down, reduced in effectiveness, and even stopped without being instantaneously killed.
Speed without accuracy is wasted opportunity.
Accuracy without speed is wasted time.
You've got neither to waste.
Right on Todd, That's one of the best sayings I've heard. Some say accuracy is final?... I say its a perfect balance between speed and precision.
The goal is for each round to have an effect on the threat. I and everyone else here would love to hit a threats heart from the draw at 25yards in less than a second... but we know that there is this little thing called stress that enables us to do so. So thats why an 8in standard has come about. That area is acceptable for most proficient shooters to hit under stress.
Ask yourself what is better:
One well aimed shot to the heart that take 3-4seconds?
or
6-8 shots to the torso area in 3-4 seconds with an immediate effect on the threat within the first 1sec or so?
Right on Todd, That's one of the best sayings I've heard.
Thank you, thank you. It came to me last night on the range while watching someone ripping through magazine after magazine as fast as he could without hitting a damn thing.
Ask yourself what is better:
One well aimed shot to the heart that take 3-4seconds?
or
6-8 shots to the torso area in 3-4 seconds with an immediate effect on the threat within the first 1sec or so?
Deja vu all over again ... I had a very long conversation earlier this week with an FI from a major municipal agency in the midwest. He's been on the job there for three decades after a year and a half in Vietnam. He's a very big believer that putting rounds on the threat that "stun" him (for lack of a better term) for a second or two beats getting shot AT while looking for the perfect hit. How did he put it? "I want to put him on his ass or take him out of his happy place long enough for me to finish killing him," or words to that effect.
He was also of the opinion, based on the experience of his agency and the research he's undertaken, that all else being equal it was the higher velocity/energy pistol rounds which were more likely to cause that "stun" effect ... but that's perhaps an argument for another time. :cool:
Your heart is shown too high, decent description which is often visually applicable is between the two nipples. Usually some bias leftward there typically being three lobes to the right lung and two to the left lung to allow some space for the heart itself. Been long time since I had my EMT class but this is what I remember and what I quick searched also.
HeadHunter
07-02-08, 07:54
We had a surgeon in a class last year. He said that in the emergency room of his hospital they considered any puncture wound below the nipples as an abdominal wound and therefore much less life threatening than hits above the nipples.
I'm not a doctor so I will accept his word for it, which brought me back to the thorassic triangle targeting concept. For some reason, it's not often talked about anymore, but makes a lot of sense to me in the context of his statement.
Your heart is shown too high, decent description which is often visually applicable is between the two nipples. Usually some bias leftward there typically being three lobes to the right lung and two to the left lung to allow some space for the heart itself. Been long time since I had my EMT class but this is what I remember and what I quick searched also.
Robb Jensen
07-02-08, 08:17
This discussion reminds me of what Rob Leatham said when interviewed on the 2005 Limited Nationals video by Saul Kirsch. I just watched it a few days ago. Saul asked what advice did Rob Leatham have for all shooters. Rob said that everyone should learn to shoot better and that the speed will come later. Rob said that he didn't beat the younger faster guys because he himself is faster than those guys. Rob said something to the effect that he's an old fat guy who can just outshoot them all. Rob was 100% right.
It takes much more time to make up a bad shot/miss than it does to get it right the first time..............Oh and Rob Leatham won the 2005 Limited Nationals.
Robb, I'm sure you've seen the same thing I have as pertains to that when shooting a head-to-head stage on steel. We do this all the time in our club with pepper poppers set as the stop plate for each shooter that fall to overlap to indicate the winner (winner on bottom). I have beaten a TON of shooters that are much better than I am simply by taking my time and hitting the LARGE plates that we're shooting at. Some people just can't miss fast enough.
I found my last class with Louis Awerbuck to be very interesting as it pertains to this subject. We were lucky enough to have actually HAD a surgeon in the class that took the time to give us a good briefing on what you want to hit, given that you have the chance (time and innocents being the limiting factors). What I came away from that class with is that given an IDEAL situation you want to hit a little golf ball that's floating behind the eyes and between the ears, and a little baseball that's floating inside the chest. Louis stressed that you may not get the opportunity to hit these targets, and in that case you should "go for meat" and get shots on him as fast as possible, but that ideally you want to hit that golfball and baseball (the golfball and baseball analogy are my own way of thinking of the concepts that Louis and the Dr. went over).
HeadHunter -- I don't know why the thoracic triangle has gone out of vogue, either. It was (and is) still the best simple anatomically correct target. I can't even count the number of times I've been dinged at matches because I keep defaulting to the upper chest as my aiming point.
Re: Rob Leatham, as anyone who has talked to him about this one on one can tell you he is absolutely forthright in saying he doesn't have the fastest draw, the fastest splits, the fastest reloads, the fastest footwork, etc., etc. What he has is absolute mastery of shooting fundamentals and an outstanding mindset. Where other competitors will burn down one stage then crash & burn on the next, Rob plugs away consistently from bay to bay at a match. Whereas most other top shooters try to push everything at 110% hoping to compensate for any mistakes they make along the way, Rob just keeps an even keel and doesn't make mistakes.
IMHO..... The head is a much bigger target than the heart and ANY head shot with a high velocity rifle round is sure to disrupt an adversaries train of thought if not outright introducing him to his maker.
AwaySooner
09-03-08, 02:47
Sure if your target doesn't move. Your head can turn and move a lot quicker and at different angles than your chest. You don't always need to bullseye the heart, plent of arteries and nerves in the area to shut off the motor function.
IMHO..... The head is a much bigger target than the heart and ANY head shot with a high velocity rifle round is sure to disrupt an adversaries train of thought if not outright introducing him to his maker.
Sure if your target doesn't move. Your head can turn and move a lot quicker and at different angles than your chest. You don't always need to bullseye the heart, plent of arteries and nerves in the area to shut off the motor function.
Guess it al boils down to wether we're discussing range work or a fight..... Last head shot I had to make was attached to a moving two legged body @ about 30 feet away, that was shooting at my partners, all after a short foot pursuit.
I have met a lot of GSW survivors, including one crook to took 5 rnds in the upper body in a shootout with L.A. area cops (including one center mass 10 ring). I have yet to meet a survivor of a head shot.....
It is impossible to understand fighting something with a serious will to survive by fighting with paper targets. One must understand that the challenges to putting down a subject with an elevated physiological state and a serious will to survive is significantly different than that of someone who is in a low key physical state. Proof positive (Thank God) is to look at how grevious of wounds our troops are surviving in combat, all do to their will to survive and fight for life.
John_Wayne777
09-03-08, 07:46
I have met a lot of GSW survivors, including one crook to took 5 rnds in the upper body in a shootout with L.A. area cops (including one center mass 10 ring). I have yet to meet a survivor of a head shot.....
Yes, but as you know a head shot under gunfight conditions isn't exactly easy to pull off. Destroying the CNS is the only guaranteed way to shut down a bad guy instantly. Everything else is trying to play the statistics.
john,
i've seen a ton of people shot over the years. one thing i've noticed is that shots to the upper torso or the triangle as some refer to it seem to be pretty effective. the are many variables when it comes to shooting people, do not expect much from handguns when it comes to putting people out of the fight. we need tp program ourselfs to shoot people to the ground or shoot them till they stop which ever comes first.
Yes, but as you know a head shot under gunfight conditions isn't exactly easy to pull off. Destroying the CNS is the only guaranteed way to shut down a bad guy instantly. Everything else is trying to play the statistics.
I totaly agree, but it is possible given enough training, and the Cerebral Cortex is the foundation of the CNS. I will always try to use good tactics to afford myself the time and ability to make the head shot. On our range qualifications we only train for the head shot (hangun, rifle and shotgun), because they work. An upper thorasic cavity CNS shot is a preferable 2nd choice if time and getting off the first shot is the priority. My priorities differ also depending wether I am training for that quick "traffic stop" gunfight, or training for the active shooter response. In martial arts there is always the prefered response to a given attack, but always a half dozen options to that response. The biggest mistake one can make is to lock ourselves into one given option only to hesitate or freeze when that plan goes amiss.
I think one must consider that the definition of what an effective shot placement is differs between say battlefield conditions and a close quarters gunfight or hostage situation. In a hostage situation a Cerebral Cortex shot is likely the only option.
i've seen a few head shots in my day. as long as the round penetrates the skull they are very effective. but i have seen situations where the bullet just rode around the skull under the skin while ugly they are not to effective.
HolyRoller
09-03-08, 09:51
I have yet to meet a survivor of a head shot.....
I have. The lieutenant I used to work for is walking around with bullet frags in his head. It took him a year to fully recover, but even as it was happening, he was able to shoot back and win the gunfight. FWIW, the bad guy took two .45 hollowpoints center mass and was still able to run back to his truck and drive away. He too survived. I'm sure everybody else in federal prison thinks highly of him.
It is impossible to understand fighting something with a serious will to survive by fighting with paper targets. One must understand that the challenges to putting down a subject with an elevated physiological state and a serious will to survive is significantly different than that of someone who is in a low key physical state. Proof positive (Thank God) is to look at how grevious of wounds our troops are surviving in combat, all do to their will to survive and fight for life.
Which would explain the foregoing.
Failure2Stop
09-03-08, 10:41
It is a difficult position to argue that chest shots are more effective than head-shots, but a lot more people are dropped by good upper torso hits than by headshots. Not to say that the chest shots are more effective per se, just that a lot more people get shot there than in the grape.
The head is a mobile, small target, requiring more precise and fluid aiming than upper torso shots at the same distance under the same time constraints. The desired impact point is not simply somewhere in the head, the bullet must sufficiently penetrate the cranial vault to ensure CNS destruction. Of course the T-Box is the impact point of choice, and there is some leeway upward when talking about high-velocity rifle rounds.
The actual impact point necessary to be highly probable of an instant stop for a fully frontal head position is a rougly 4.5" circle that has the tip of the nose at the bottom of the circle, the inside of the eye-sockets at the outside edge, and stops midway up the forehead (Rob S' golfball analogy is right on). However, to train the skill to sufficient competency, the target size should be reduced so that skill-fade and stress do not make the shooter ineffective- I have used a Copenhagen can for a template since it is about 70% the size of the CNS destruction zone and is readily available from my pocket. It also underscores the importance of knowing and applying your offset to achieve correct shot placement. Introduce target and shooter movement to the equation and you quickly see why few people are successfully intentionally shot in the head during gunfights.
The head does not suffer (or benefit, depending on what side of the muzzle you happen to be on) from the near-miss damage that the heart and major vascular structures do. Even if you miss the rougly 6" circle that ensures perforation of the heart or big pressurized blood tubes, the permanent cavity of reliabily fragmenting rounds still have lots of meat, vascular structures, and lungs to rip up, bleed out and shut down. Not so for the head. It sure won't make the bad-guy feel any better to catch a bullet through the jaw or graze his side-burn, but any incapacitation will be due to psychological break-down, not physiological shut-down. While not a high percentage, there are pleanty of survivors of head-shots and brain-piercing injuries to indicate that "any" headshot is not necessarily a threat reduction, T-Box sure, but still not 100%.
This is in no way intended to imply that head shots should not be taken, just that they must be rigorously trained to be relied upon.
I see no reason or data to indicate that headshots should be the immediate response to a lethal threat, though I have seen sufficient data as well as personal experience to indicate that maybe we should be training to hit the heart (upper torso) hard and fast a few times before switching to the head- especially when shooting on the move.
A really easy way to test this out is during force-on-force trying only for head-shots. Humbling to be sure. I am not questioning the integrity of the individual sharing his experience with shooting someone in the head, but that experience is not the norm. The more common experience is several upper torso hits leading to incapacitation or surrender. Well, actually the most common is several misses with a lot of scurrying about until someone makes a lethal mistake. Most gunfights are a matter of who loses first, if you know what I mean, and generally the guy with the most friends with guns in the fight wins.
John_Wayne777
09-03-08, 10:53
I think a good bit of this depends on whether or not you are the one picking the time and place of the fight. If you're kitted up with the level IV Paraclete vest and the red dot equipped long gun, kicking in the door and making entry after you've banged the room you probably have a better shot at successfully making a head shot than if you're joe average trying to respond to some nutcase who opens up on you in a mall while you're having some lunch at Sbarro.
Of course, I'm not a gunfighter so that observation may be out in left field.
Scoring a brain-penetrating hit is a low probability shooting problem, but a high probability of ceasing hostility if successful. An upper torso hit has a vastly higher probability of landing, but does not have the same likelihood of causing nearly instantaneous cessation of not-niceness.
The math is pretty simple, then. If you've got the time, position, and clear path to the target then a brain box shot is great. In a dynamic environment with both sides trying to kill each other, the time for that level of precision may be non-existent. Hits to the torso are way better than misses to the head.
Those head shots depend alot on angle. We have a retired Captain that was hit in the forehead with a .45 (ball) enough angle to where the bullet zipped along the skull and out the side. Another street thug takes 5 in the head with a .45(ball)and they where a ball, in a knot in the back of his head.
Funny one-50 or so .177 pellets point blank in the temple, no workie, determined fella
.25 ACP in the head--use a Ballpeen hammer instead
Plenty of others that actually worked though
John Hearne
09-03-08, 23:21
I look at it like this. There are two groups of people I'm worried about - thugs that want to fight and thugs that don't. Thug's that don't want to fight are going to flee when facing a real threat and will certainly stop when shot anywhere.
The other crowd is scary. They aren't afraid to fight, they've probably been shot before and aren't going to be impressed with peripheral hits because they've already had them. These people will have to be CONVINCED that the fight is over and that they lost. Names like Platt and Twining come to mind.
These people will fight until they physically can't fight any more. They will stop fighting when their is no more blood feeding their brain or their brains are on the sidewalk. This means good hits that affect the major vasculature structures or go between the eyes.
The other ugly fact we need to consider is that we will shoot worse under stress than we do on the range. When you talk to people who have the experience, they geneally relate that your group size doubles. If you're shooting 8" groups - that will be 16" in the middle of a fight. 16" is enough to cleanly miss somone standing sideways.
I have a friend that had done a lot of trainups for SF guys since 9/11. He is constantly modifying his program based on what is reported back to him. His current training target features a 6" thoracic circle and a old-style IPSC head box. He then runs 2" masking tape down the center of the target to simulate the spine. For a chest hit to be good, it has to be in the 6" circle or breaking the masking tape. That's what his people are reporting back works with the greatest reliability. He also reports that he's had the best luck teaching people to shoot for the spine - it's easy to visualize and it you miss, you're still getting something good.
IIRC, this is anothe version of the target he uses for his courses. Note the small hit zone, high in the chest and a small ocular window.
http://www.letargets.com/images/riposte-1.jpg
Well put John....I like the two inch masking tape idea and plan on using it, I also us the trap/skeet clay pigeons with the orange centers as my standard target. While I train for head shots, I also do so knowing that if I can at least hit a small target under no stress, my "stress" group size will still be workable. I also train to start low on the centerline (spine) and work up to the head if time is of the essence.
In my last shooting I remember, among other emotions, being disappointed with my shot placement. I realized however that at least my rounds were on target and accounted for, while my partners wild shot hit about 3 feet from ME!!
Train for perfection and end up shooting to a acceptable level. For those who just train to an accepable level, leave your "toys" (guns) in the safe.
I recently found these targets and plan I buying a bunch for personal use, focusing on the black area only.
http://www.letargets.com/estylez_item.aspx?item=BT5-OCPD
Failure2Stop
09-04-08, 05:08
In your training do not forget about angles. Virtually all targetry available presents a fully frontal exposure of the target, and rewards shooters for placing bullets into the correspondingly frontal and upright presentation of the heart, T-Box, and occasionally pelvic girdle and spine.
Unfortunately, not too many people in a gunfight stand upright and fully frontal.
It is important to have a rough idea of the 3-D anatomical layout and targets that are not applicable only to fully-frontal shot placement. This is one reason that the spine is not a preferred target, along with some ballistic issues. I think that instead of trying to buy targets with faded-out X-ray overlays the shooter would benefit more from initially learning how to shoot a pie-plate as fast as he can from muzzle contact to effective range, and then transfer that accuracy and speed onto 3-D or photo-realisitc targetry along with a healthy dose of force-on-force.
Most of the targets out there are what I think of as transitional targets- they lay the foundation for the shooter who already knows how to put bullets into a group to perfect shot placement/aiming skills in preparation for accurately simulated human targets (without precise visual reference of desired strike points other than anatomical landmarks) and force-on-force fighting skills.
Just my 2 wampum.
The manner in which we train can for the most part address many of the concerns over which is the best shot to take.
In a highly volitile situation such as a gunfight it is far more likely that one might develop (Tunnel Vision) where our focus is going to be centered around what the Bad Guy may be holding in his hand.
Making our training/practice a vital component to winning such an encounter so it becomes second nature as our Muscle Memory develops.
I practice what I refer to as (Pop,pop..Drop!) This is essentially a center mass sight picture and a quick Double Tap on the trigger to begin. Followed by a slightly delayed third shot to the head. (Magic Box.) If needed.
I was taught that proper bullet placement for a straight on headshot was an imaginary box approx 3 inches high by 4 inches wide (or roughly the size of a buisness card) originating on the bridge of the nose.
Many acknowledge this as a sure way to put someone down.
The logic behind it seems solid to me, and having a well practiced plan in place before it is needed is never a bad idea.
Great site BTW...Am enjoying it tremendously.
Robert McLeod
09-08-08, 15:00
IIRC, this is anothe version of the target he uses for his courses. Note the small hit zone, high in the chest and a small ocular window.
http://www.letargets.com/images/riposte-1.jpg
This is the target that I use in all of my department's training, with the exception of our state mandated annual qual which uses the FBI Q target. It really makes drills and standards interesting when using Vickers count scoring as we score them 5, 3 and 1, the O and A being the only 5 rings.
Can we talk about side of head/body placement? at that point I would think Head shots are best as they present the largest target without limbs and ribs to shoot through.
What should we aim at then? Center of ear?
Chris
Failure2Stop
09-09-08, 03:27
Can we talk about side of head/body placement? at that point I would think Head shots are best as they present the largest target without limbs and ribs to shoot through.
What should we aim at then? Center of ear?
Chris
The key here is not where to aim, but where to hit. Get the bullet into the cranial vault by correct application of offset.
There is a reason that the FBI ballistic testing calls for 12-14 inches of penetration. As long as you are using the recommended ammo, you too can benefit from the larger target area that is the upper torso- even if you need to get through some intervening people parts.
There is a great deal more to the concept of aim at a golf ball floating centrally behind the eyes and a softball just behind the sternum than just the idea of actual target size. It really is a simple concept of the internal 3D layout of the body's natural "off" switches.
F2S makes a great point.
Hitting with a gun is like hitting with a fist. You don't punch at skin ... you focus on landing a hit inches past that.
Furthermore, in a reactive situation when time isn't on your side, center of mass will usually be a pretty straightforward solution because from just about any angle, the things you want to hit will be there.
Louis Awerbuck talks about getting "deep hits" when aiming for that golfball and softball.
I talk about it to some extent in my AAR of his class (http://tacticalyellowvisor.net/8322/8901.html).
For example, hits as shown on this target are considered acceptable from front on(as this target was shot), but when you move to an angle (as where this picture was taken) then the hits should be more towards the outside of the target's left eye or just below.
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q111/rob_s/0805%20YFA/TD32.jpg
Littlelebowski
09-09-08, 08:44
All those "perfect" A-zone and 0-down shots aren't so perfect anymore are they? Now throw in those C-zone or 1-down shots we except. Think those are doing you any good in a fight?
Not sure about your experience but last year when I took a 230gr JHP to the elbow I was pretty worthless fairly quickly.
HolyRoller
09-09-08, 10:03
Wow, sorry about that, hope it's better now.
That seems like more evidence in favor of the ancient knifefighter's rule--cut what they give you, as our DT instructor was always saying. Fingers, elbows, ears, all are good to slice if you can't get to anything better. If you start enough leaks, the guy may eventually begin to feel lightheaded.
Littlelebowski
09-09-08, 11:34
Thanks, HolyRoller. Still healing.
toddackerman
09-09-08, 19:25
When we're talking about the balance between speed and accuracy (with a dose of Power thrown in) least we not forget....DVC!
John Hearne
09-11-08, 16:39
Can we talk about side of head/body placement? at that point I would think Head shots are best as they present the largest target without limbs and ribs to shoot through.
For head shots, I've been told to imagine Lone Ranger's mask and where it would wrap around the head. Anything that strikes that area will work the best.
Several years ago, I wrote an essay about target selection and included some anatomical pictures. Check out http://thecurmudgeon.freeservers.com/fa-index.html
This would be an ideal frontal head shot.
http://thecurmudgeon.freeservers.com/fa-essay-target-skull.jpg
I've also seen it argued that the bones immediately above the eyes are relatively flat and that pistol bullets have a fair chance of "sticking" when they hit there. The two pictures below show coverage of an 8" circle/3x4" head zone and 10" circle/4x4" head zone on a Tactical Ted target.
http://dvctargets.com/Images/hht_standard_plate_on_ted_sm.jpghttp://dvctargets.com/Images/hht_govt_plate_on_ted_sm.jpg
John Hearne
09-11-08, 17:12
This is the target that I use in all of my department's training, with the exception of our state mandated annual qual which uses the FBI Q target. It really makes drills and standards interesting when using Vickers count scoring as we score them 5, 3 and 1, the O and A being the only 5 rings.
That target was designed by Jim Higginbotham. Jim is now the "Small Arms Subject Matter Expert for the Commonwealth of Kentucky" and is head of training at a Ky National Guard Base. Jim was recognized by Jeff Cooper as one of the world's best marksman way back in the day and was an instructor for Gunsite in it's early days.
Jim has been thinking about these matters for years and you can see a lot of that thought in the rule book for the Polite Society. The Polite Society was started by some of the early influentials from IDPA in an attempt to make the competition more relevant to the real-world. It hasn't flourished and the only major event still held under the rules is the Rangemaster Tactical Conference.
The web site is still maintained at http:\\thecurmudgeon.freeservers.com/ps. There you will find the rule book and some excellent ideas on creating relevant targets. This is a part of a section:
Targets
Polite Society skills tests will not be limited to any one type target. While targets from other shooting sports may be employed if circumstance of supply dictates it is strongly suggested that the targets used adhere to the following principles:
Paper Targets: Scoring zones should correspond to actual anatomical zones (though they do not have to be exact facsimiles) differentiated in a logical manner. In short, there should be an Ocular Window in the head, which counts more than the rest of the head. The highest scoring zone in the Torso (other than the possibility of a “spine”) should correspond to the heart or the upper aorta (vena cava). Hits below the sternum should not be rewarded as highly. Hits in the lungs and/or diaphragm may be rewarded but the value should be no more than 80% of the value of the Heart/Aorta or more than 40% of a CNS hit. Suggested zones are “O” (ocular window) = 10 points, “H” (head) = 4 points, “A” (Heart/vena cava) = 5 points, “B”(Lungs/Diaphragm) = 4 points and “C” (the rest of the target) = 1 point (2/1 if some sort of power factoring is adopted). While individual Organizers may experiment with “power factoring” for the peripheral zones (H,B,C) this has not yet been addressed by the national body for regional and national Events. Feel free to experiment.
Paper Targets as Reactives: With the above references in mind, targets used only once during a string of fire may be used as a “pseudo reactive” target with a set number of points to be established to “neutralize” the threat. In no case should one hit to the lungs count as enough to bring this about and probably not one hit to the heart/aorta. If the above values are adopted then it is suggested that 9 points be required to “neutralize” a threat. This does not prevent the designation of a “super” threat in any match, in which a target may be designated as requiring a CNS hit to neutralize.
At present the target which encompasses most of the desirable features and scoring zones is the RangeMaster “Q” target.
Any IDPA or IPSC cardboard target may be suitably modified by fabricating a template to place penciled in scoring zones (ignoring the original zones). The dimensions for the template are*:
A Zone – 4.25” W X 5.5”H with 1.25” radius on corners, top of A Zone is 4” below neckline.
B-Zone – 8.5”W X 11”H with 1.25” radius on corners. Top of B Zone is 1” below neckline
O-Zone – 4.25” W X 2.75”H with 1.25” radius on corners, centered in Head, top 1” from top of target.
*These dimensions may be replicated quickly with a piece of typing paper. The A Zone is created by folding the paper on its X axis (horizontal centerline) then its Y axis (vertical centerline) and rounding the corners using a typical can of spray paint as a guide. The O Zone is created by folding the A Zone template in half by its height and rounding all corners with the same can (it will result in an oval). And the B-zone is simply a sheet of typing paper with the same radius corners.
Expedient: Use an IPSC target, scribing a line exactly half way through the vertical dimensions of the A-Zone, designating the area below that line as and the Former “C-Zone” as the P.S. “B-Zone” (it is overly generous so don’t use this for postal Events or standardized tests). The rest of the zones will be self-evident
You'll have to download the rulebook to see pictures of these designs.
Jay Cunningham
09-11-08, 17:46
For head shots, I've been told to imagine Lone Ranger's mask and where it would wrap around the head. Anything that strikes that area will work the best.
Several years ago, I wrote an essay about target selection and included some anatomical pictures. Check out http://thecurmudgeon.freeservers.com/fa-index.html
This would be an ideal frontal head shot.
http://thecurmudgeon.freeservers.com/fa-essay-target-skull.jpg
I've also seen it argued that the bones immediately above the eyes are relatively flat and that pistol bullets have a fair chance of "sticking" when they hit there. The two pictures below show coverage of an 8" circle/3x4" head zone and 10" circle/4x4" head zone on a Tactical Ted target.
http://dvctargets.com/Images/hht_standard_plate_on_ted_sm.jpghttp://dvctargets.com/Images/hht_govt_plate_on_ted_sm.jpg
This is excellent John; thanks for posting.
threeheadeddog
09-12-08, 19:07
Not to derail the conversation or anything but going back to the idea of imperfect shots that my help simply in terms of making the fight painfull for(or "stunning") whoever you are shooting at fast enough to make him/her loose their momentum and give you enough time to make the corect shot.
I currently carry a 10mm with the 135 gr 1600fps doubletap load. This is a combo that I am profecient with and is enough that I feel well armed but not so much that I feel like i am being slowed down by too much. For comparison it feels very much like shooting the current ipsc fad of .40's with very light slides and very fast slide velocity and just a tad more muzzle rise.
Doubletap's geletin tests numbers that were released stated 11'' of penetration with "frag-nasty" effect. I am not going to get into the 12'' rule except to say that I am confident carrying something with 11'' and wouldnt be with something that was say only 9''. My reasoning behind carrying this was actually 2 things.
1. The fragmentation of the bullet is something that is greatly preferred in rifle rounds and it makes me feel warm and fuzzy to have that in a handgun with a round that has ... to me ... exceptable penetration. Also with that fragmentation I feel that the broken pieces may help to create this pain/shock that was mentioned above. I also believe that since handguns are always referred to as simply not rifles and rifles are held in such higher respect because of the velocity and trauma that that creates it would be in my best interest to try and get as rifle-like as possible(not saying the 10mm at 1600 fps briges that gap well just saying that there has to be a bridge somewhere and I can at least try and go in the right direction).
2. If I ever do have to defend myself in court my choice of calibers is not a very good one. Having a round not designed to perforate an elk lengthwise shows a little bit of responsibility as I have no desire to hurt inocents that may be around.
While I relize this post was worded as a statement I am actually asking the "hive mind" and those that are much more knowledgble than I on their opinions.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.