PDA

View Full Version : The "Center Mass" Myth and Ending a Gunfight



bryanr
03-05-10, 11:48
Wonder what DocGKR would say about this...

"Triggernometry"

The "Center Mass" Myth and Ending a Gunfight

Friday, February 12, 2010 12:10:07 AM

By Jim Higginbotham

Surviving a gunfight isn't what you think it is. Don’t let conventional wisdom get you killed. A well place round to "center mass" in your attacker may not take him out of the fight. Lots of people stay in the fight after "center mass" hits, and some even win it. If you expect to win your gunfight, you have to make sure that you have effectively ended the threat of your attacker. One, two or even several well placed "center mass" shots may not do what you think it will, and learning to recognize this before you gunfight may save your life.

There is a self styled self defense “expert” under every rock, and perhaps two behind every bush, these days. If you have a pet theory on what might work on the street then you can probably find a champion for that idea who actually charges people to teach them that skill. But few of the experts out there have ever been in gunfights, and even fewer have studied real gunfights to see how things really work out when the bullets really fly for blood.

There are more misconceptions out there than I can cover in one article but the one that probably gets to me the most, even over all the caliber wars that rage interminably in the print and cyber media, is the nearly universal acceptance that shooting a miscreant “center mass” with ________(fill in your favorite make, model and caliber) shooting _________ (fill in your favorite ammunition) hyper speed truck killer is practically guaranteed to get the job done.

Having studied in this field from a number of decades, I have run into plenty of cases where bullets did not do what folks would have assumed. And I have now collected enough of these that I think that rather than being anomalies, they are actually closer to the norm. Center mass hits in a gunfight do not in most cases end the fight. Erroneous assumptions can get you killed!

There is a well known video in training circles in which a Highway Patrol officer shoots an armed subject 5 times “center mass” (this is not my assessment but the statement of his immediate supervisors which are interviewed on the full version of the hour long tape) with his 4” .357 Magnum revolver firing hollow point ammunition. All 5 hits failed to do the job and the subject was able to fire one round which struck the officer in the armpit. That round wondered around in the chest cavity and found his heart. The officer unfortunately died at the scene and his attacker is alive today.

In a class I conduct under the title "Fire For Effect" I start out by showing a video of standoff in which a hostage taker is fired on by police with .223 rifles and .40 caliber handguns. Throughout the whole disturbing sequence, which lasts about 10 seconds, the bad guy is hit multiple times in the torso with both rifle and pistol rounds. You can see him place his non-firing hand to his chest, clearly a lung is hit. However he is able to shoot his hostage 3 times, not rapidly. The hostage, a trim female, is active throughout the scene but later died from her wounds. In this case both the attacker and the victim had “center mass” hits that had no immediate effect.

I have accumulated confirmed incidents in which people have been shot “center mass” up to 55 times with 9mm JHP ammunition (the subject was hit 106 times, but 55 of those hits were ruled by the coroner to be each lethal in and of themselves) before he went down. During training at the FBI Academy we were told of a case in which agents shot a bank robber 65 times with 9mm, .223 and 00 buckshot – he survived! These are not rare cases. The happen quite often.

If a gunfight ever comes your way, your attacker may fall to a hit to the liver and he may not. He may fall to two or three hits to the kidneys, intestines or spleen, but he may not. He will certainly be in bad health. He likely will not survive, but what he does for the next several seconds to a few minutes is not guaranteed because you hit him "center mass."

Heart and lung hits don't statistically fare much better. I have three students and three other acquaintances who were all shot in a lung at the outset of gunfights. The students came to me after their fights to learn how to keep from getting shot again. Last time I checked all of those people were still alive and the people who shot them are still dead. Every one of them was able to respond effectively after being shot “center mass”, one might even say they were shot in the “A-zone”. And they were shot with .38 Special (three of them), 9mm, .357 Magnum and 8mm Mauser, so it's not all about caliber. One of those was a Chicom 12.7 mm round! He lived next door to me for many years.

So, what’s a person to do? First off, realize that one shot, even a fairly well placed shot may not do the job so don’t set there and admire your handiwork or wait for it to take effect. But even two hits may not get the job done!

After years of trying to get a grasp on this I have come to look at the results of shooting a living breathing target – be it a human attacker or a game animal – as falling into 3 or 4 categories. They are :

1.Instant Collapse – this takes place 1 to 2 seconds from the shot being fired
2.Rapid Collapse – this can take from 3 to 15 seconds and is quite common.
3.Marginal Effect – this can even be a lethal hit but it takes from 15 to 300 (yes 300!) or even more seconds.
4.The 4th is simply unacceptable and is a total failure.

The last category we don’t like to discuss but happens too often . We saw it recently in Washington with a Center Mass hit from an officer’s pistol and the subject was still walking around the next day.

What is “effective” shooting? Sad to say, it is demanding. It is also, I think, variable depending on the conditions. For example, the robber armed with a scattergun who is standing 10 feet away must be stopped “right now!” If you do not bring about Instant Collapse someone may very well die…that someone may be you!

On the other hand, if there is a gang banger launching bullets in your general direction using un-aimed fire about 20 yards away then a hit that brings about Rapid Collapse might do the job.

I cannot imagine a Marginally Effective result being very desirable in any case, but it does buy you some time in some cases.

How does this relate to hits? In order to achieve Instant Collapse you must scramble the “circuitry” that keeps the bad guy on the attack. That means the brain or spinal cord.

The head is not only a fairly difficult target to hit in the real world – because it moves a lot – but it is also difficult to penetrate and get a pistol bullet into the place it must be to be effective. For normal purposes we might write off the head, keeping it in reserve for very special circumstances.

The spine is not that easy to hit either. It isn't large, and to be effective the hit needs to be in the upper 1/3 of the spine or at a point about level with the tip of the sternum. I think that is around T11. But of course the huge problem is that it is hidden by the rest of the body. We are the good guys, we don’t go around shooting people in the back. So the exact location is something that can only be learned through lots of practice on 3D targets. Your point of aim on the surface changes with the angle at which the target is facing.

The bottom of the spine isn't much use. I know of several people shot in the pelvis. It did not break them down as many theorize. I am not saying it doesn’t happen but in the only case I know of in which it did the person who was “anchored” with a .357 magnum to the pelvis killed the person that shot him – you can shoot just fine from prone.

A shot, or preferably multiple shots to the heart and major arteries above the heart (not below!) may achieve Rapid Collapse, but not always. Officer Stacy Lim was shot in the heart at contact distance with a .357 Magnum and is still alive and her attacker is still dead! Score one for the good guys…or in this case gals!

So now what constitutes Marginal Effectiveness? A hit to the lungs! Even multiple hits to the lungs. Unfortunately though, most often lung hits are effective in ending the fight because the subject decides to quit the fight, not because he MUST. A famous Colonel Louis LeGarde once wrote what is considered "the" book on gunshot wounds. 65% of his patients shot through the lungs – with rifles! – survived with the predominant treatment being only bed rest!

Effective Practice and "Dynamic Response"

The goal of practice, one would think, is to make correct, effective shooting techniques a matter of reflex, so that you don't have to think about what you are doing in a gunfight.

Most people will perform under stress at about 50 to 60% as well as they do on the range…and that is if they practice a lot! If they only go to the range once every other month that performance level decreases dramatically. Shooting and weapons handling are very perishable skills. Also folks tend to practice the wrong stuff inadvertently. I put this in the classification of “practicing getting killed” but that too is a topic for another day.

Movement and Variation doesen't mean innacurate shooting. In a real gunfight you and your adversary will most likely be moving. Click here if you can't see the video. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXk2WmBGY_M)

Let’s talks about a basic response, what I call "Dynamic Response." Situations vary and this is not meant to be a universal answer, just one that will work for about 80% of scenarios.

It is pointless to stand still on the range and shoot a stationary target, unless you simply want to polish up some marksmanship fundamentals. That is a necessary part of learning to shoot. But if you are practicing for a fight, then fight!

Some rules.

1. Don’t go to the range without a covering garment – unless of course you always carry your gun exposed (no comment).

2. Don’t practice drawing your gun fast – ever! – while standing still.

Part of the Dynamic Response is to step off the line of attack (or on rare occasions that are dependent on circumstances backwards or forwards) and present the weapon with as much alacrity as you can muster and engage the target with overwhelming and accurate fire! By the way, never assume a fight is completely over just because you canceled one threat. Don’t practice “standing down” too quickly. We have a video attached which will hopefully give you the right idea.

I wish there was a formula of how to stand and how to hold you gun but there really isn't. We don’t do “Weaver vs. Isosceles vs. Modern Iso vs. whatever”. We don’t do “Thumbs Crossed vs. Thumbs Forward vs. Thumb Up…never mind.” Those are things for you to work out on your own. You use what makes YOU effective not what works for a guy who practices 50,000 rounds the week before a big match (that is not an exaggeration). Competitive shooters will throw out advice on what works for them. It may not work for you.

There is also not “one true gun”. Your skill is far more important that what you carry, within reason. We are not really talking about “stopping power”, whatever that is, here but rather effectiveness.

I can find no real measure – referred to by some as a mathematical model – of stopping power or effectiveness. And I have looked for 44 years now! Generally speaking I do see that bigger holes (in the right place) are more effective than smaller holes but the easy answer to that is just to shoot your smaller gun more – “a big shot is just a little shot that kept shooting”. True, I carry a .45 but that is because I am lazy and want to shoot less. A good bullet in 9mm in the right place (the spine!) will get the job done. If you hit the heart, 3 or 4 expanded 9mms will do about what a .45 expanding bullet will do or one might equal .45 ball….IF (note the big if) it penetrates. That is not based on any formula, it is based on what I have found to happen – sometimes real life does not make sense.

Practicing Dynamic Response means practicing with an open mind. Circumstances in a real gunfight are unpredictable and the more unpredictability you mix up into your practice the more your brain will be preparing itself for a possible real gunfight.

In real life, your gunfight may be dark, cold, rainy, etc. The subject may be anorexic (a lot of bad guys are not very healthy) or he may be obese (effective penetration and stopping power of your weapon). There are dozens of modifiers which change the circumstance, most not under your control. My only advice on this is what I learned from an old tanker: “Shoot until the target changes shape or catches fire!” Vertical to horizontal is a shape change, and putting that one more round into his chest at point blank range may catch his clothes on fire, even without using black powder.

We tell our military folks to be prepared to hit an enemy fighter from 3-7 times with 5.56 ball, traveling at over 3,000 feet per second. This approach sometimes worked, but I know of several cases where it has not, even "center mass."

With handguns, and with expanding bullets, it is even more unpredictable, but through years of study I have developed a general formula, subject to the above mentioned unpredictable circumstances.

•2-3 hits with a .45
•4-6 with a .40
•5-8 with a 9mm

With a revolver, the rounds are not necessarily more effective but I would practice shooting 3 in a .38or .357 merely because I want 3 left for other threats. Not that those next three won’t follow quickly if the target hasn’t changed shape around my front sight blade. A .41, .44 or .45 Colt I would probably drop to two. Once again, they are not that much more effective than a .45 Auto but I don’t have the bullets to waste.

In any case, I want to stress the part that it is more about how you shoot than what you shoot, within reason. It is also more about the mindset and condition of the subject you are shooting which is not under your control. Take control – buy good bullets and put them where they count the most! And remember “anyone worth shooting once is worth shooting a whole lot!” (but please stop when the threat is cancelled, we don’t advocate “finishing shots”).

Gunfights are ugly things. I don't like to talk about the blood and guts aspects of defending life any more than the next guy. But it is our lives we are talking about here. By researching how gunfights are fought, and more importantly, how gunfights are won, it may give both of us the edge if a gunfight ever comes our way. I hope to cover many of the points I have learned and learned to train others in over the coming months. It isn't as easy to write about it as it is to teach it in person, but you can only succeed if you are willing to try.

I hope you enjoy the ride.

Press on!

Jim

ForTehNguyen
03-05-10, 11:48
pistol overall is a poor man stopper. If you know youre gonna be in a fight, hope you have a long gun. I read somewhere the death rates for knife wounds are greater than handgun wounds.

mr_smiles
03-05-10, 11:57
Hell, just hit the aggressor a few times with a truck, that'll knock him down :D

Either way if you hit the CNS any aggressor is going down, they have no choice in the matter.

El Vaquero
03-05-10, 12:10
Always amazes me how bad guys and drunk drivers. . . somehow they survive while the good guys and innocents don't.

John_Wayne777
03-05-10, 12:22
Always amazes me how bad guys and drunk drivers. . . somehow they survive while the good guys and innocents don't.

Scumbag survival syndrome is a very real phenomenon.

dbrowne1
03-05-10, 12:24
If you know youre gonna be in a fight, hope you have a long gun.

Or better, bring a long gun, armor, a plan, and well-trained friends with long guns and armor who are on the same plan.

Or better still, don't show up at all if you know there's gonna be a gun fight (unless your job title makes that unavoidable, in which case - see above).

citizensoldier16
03-05-10, 16:08
I don't know about anyone else, but I train to shoot two to center mass, and one to the head...in a close-range scenario. I know that under stress the head is hardest to hit and most people fire into center mass, but a round (.22 or .45) to the fatal T is the only thing guaranteed to stop an attacker. It's been defended in court many times, and it works. For longer range scenarios or multiple targets...shoot to kill, but run to live. No CCW civilian should ever stay in a gunfight longer than necessary to preserve his or her life.

There's a member on here...I can't remember who...but he's got a saying: "shoot it in the face and it stops...animal or human" So, whoever you are...credit to you!

Take a look at the LA shootout footage. When the bad guy's gun goes off (cops claim he shot himself) he drops instantly. That's a shot to the fatal T. No motion, no trigger finger squeeze...just a sack of potatoes.

Smuckatelli
03-05-10, 16:42
Center Mass is an instruction tool to get as many people to hit the target as possible. The article is good but we should keep in mind that it is easier to teach someone Center Mass and hit the target than it is to teach head shots.

For CPC type shooting they teach two to the chest and one to the head. Even at Sniper school we were taught to aim center mass.

BrnttNW
03-05-10, 17:52
Center Mass is an instruction tool to get as many people to hit the target as possible. The article is good but we should keep in mind that it is easier to teach someone Center Mass and hit the target than it is to teach head shots.

And furthermore I would imagine for your average gunfight participant (someone who doesnt participate in gunfights regularly), controlling your body enough to score a headshot can be very difficult. Given this all depends on range, training, and other situational dynamics surrounding that shoot.

While this article/study does provide some very good information as to individuals who took outstanding amounts of solid hits and stayed in the fight, there is also just as much information on the flipside. Sometimes a couple of center mass 9mm hits will stop somebody, sometimes its nowhere near enough.

I know an individual who dropped a 40x46 MM grenade on an NVA soldier's shoulder in vietnam, and was astounded to watch the guy (or what was left of him) get back up, grab his AK, and run 40 yards before dropping.

I also know of a local woman who managed to touch off a little 22 auto into her thigh muscle (through and through) and nearly die from shock. A wound that otherwise could have been treated with a bandaid.

sff70
03-05-10, 23:34
Some people are very resilient. Charlie Beckwith survived a 12.7mm round in the chest and was triaged as expectant. Mickey Block survived 19 rounds of .50 BMG. Peter Soulis shot his assailant center mass with 17
rounds of .40 SXT and five more that hit him elsewhere.

jtb0311
03-06-10, 00:40
I've never heard of anyone teaching single center mass shots.

strambo
03-06-10, 05:05
Great article...like others, I have never heard of anyone teaching single hits (or even 2) to center mass as being all you need to do. I've just been taught that center mass of whatever is exposed is where you aim to have the greatest chance of getting a hit.

Move off the "X", shoot (I should say fight) until they are no longer a threat. Maybe you move offline, shoot 3 and by now you are at bad breath range and beat him to death (if he's still standing) since the bullets didn't work (yet).

Selftest
03-06-10, 07:33
I have always been taught, and always trained, to "shoot until slide lock... and then reload and shoot more."

Boils down to one simple sentence


"Fight until there isn't one."


Edited to say: I understand the original post, and I understand what he is saying, and agree with it. I would like to believe that ANYBODY, especially here, understands that "Center Mass" training is simply instilled in us because it is A) the biggest area B) The area with the least amount of movement. I think we all, every one of us, understands that you shoot until your attacker is dead. Center mass is just the easiest to teach and train for, unless you have a target with a bobble head.

LockenLoad
03-06-10, 08:30
I not hearing the mantra that one bullet center mass is a sure stopper, I hear just the opposite more, can anyone link me to an article that says one bullet of your choice center mass will stop even most attackers? I think this is just another article parroting what is already out there, for self legitimization?

CarlosDJackal
03-06-10, 09:33
I not hearing the mantra that one bullet center mass is a sure stopper, I hear just the opposite more, can anyone link me to an article that says one bullet of your choice center mass will stop even most attackers? I think this is just another article parroting what is already out there, for self legitimization?

I was thinking the same thing. I have not heard anyone mention the mythical "One Shot Stop" in a very long time (moe than a decade).

In fact, most of the shooting classes I have taken in recent years emphasize NSRs and shooting an attacker until they stop their aggression. JM2CW.

Jay Cunningham
03-06-10, 09:42
I not hearing the mantra that one bullet center mass is a sure stopper, I hear just the opposite more, can anyone link me to an article that says one bullet of your choice center mass will stop even most attackers? I think this is just another article parroting what is already out there, for self legitimization?

You know, you phrased this very well.

I sort of halfheartedly read through it and watched the video. Like you and several others in the thread, I was trying to figure out when anyone has ever told me these bad things that this guy claims.

Jay Cunningham
03-06-10, 10:37
I read the article again, and watched the video again and watched another video of the same guy. I know I've heard of this fella before but I don't don't think I know anyone who has trained with him.

This brings up an interesting point in the civilian training industry. If you consider yourself an instructor and you make money doing this thing, it (IMHO) is your responsibility to keep up to date on what is being taught out there. If you base all of your assumptions on what you knew 10 years ago, you are doing yourself and your students a disservice.

I am not really criticizing the fella who wrote the article, other than to wonder if he has trained with any other instructors in the past few years? Making assumptions from gun magazine articles or your last Gunsite class back in 1998 may not not jive with current reality.

lil'Zeus
03-06-10, 11:45
I thought it to be a very interesting read. Especially since I have just made the decision to go from a 40 to a 9 for my CCW and training platform. I guess a few extra squeezes are in order...

trio
03-06-10, 12:03
i dont see how this is revolutionary at all

the poster above who said "fight til there isn't one" is what I've always been taught...

you shoot until the target is done...if that's 2 rounds or 17 rounds of whatever caliber, that's what it takes.....

i don't know that I buy the 1-2 with .45, 5-8 with 9mm thing, etc....

go ahead and shoot your 1-2 with .45...when the guy is still shooting back you can start shooting again....i'll just keep shooting my 9mm until he's down or slide lock...at which point i'll reload as fast as my old, slow rearend can, and start shooting again...

Jay Cunningham
03-06-10, 12:23
I thought it to be a very interesting read. Especially since I have just made the decision to go from a 40 to a 9 for my CCW and training platform. I guess a few extra squeezes are in order...

Because of one internet article?

kjdoski
03-06-10, 13:50
I also don't know of any credible trainer out there who's teaching single shots COM. I don't know Jim personally, though I've conversed with him extensively in the past, and he's a pretty knowledgeable guy who is honestly passionate about teaching his students to win gunfights. I THINK the MAIN point of his "argument" is that what most people consider "Center of Mass" isn't adequate to ensure a fight-stopping hit.

What I took away from this article is something I whole-heartedly agree with - if you want the fight to stop NOW, you have to be more precise, rather than less. Making the banging noise very fast isn't the answer. Making rapid, PRECISE hits is.

I know LOTS of people, including a lot of the staff at FLETC, who are enamored of "reactive" shooting with "flash" or no sight picture - in other words, speed at nearly any cost. The targets they use to "train" this technique have an ENORMOUS "five" ring - basically base of the throat down through the nipples to about belly-button level. This is absurdity at its finest, where we changed the qualification target to ensure that results from the new shooting technique were effective!

I know Jim's a big fan of the .45 ACP, and I think he's a little over-confident in its ability, based on his "2-3 45s = 5-8 9mms" math, but, we all have our biases, so I'll give him that one.

You also have to give credit to a guy who consistently concealed carries TWO full size 1911s - that is dedication!

Thanks for posting this, bryanr!

Regards,

Kevin

Shawn.L
03-06-10, 14:16
I have heard the mantra in every training class I have been in so far "expect no response".

xfyrfiter
03-07-10, 12:52
i dont see how this is revolutionary at all

the poster above who said "fight til there isn't one" is what I've always been taught...

you shoot until the target is done...if that's 2 rounds or 17 rounds of whatever caliber, that's what it takes.....

i don't know that I buy the 1-2 with .45, 5-8 with 9mm thing, etc....

go ahead and shoot your 1-2 with .45...when the guy is still shooting back you can start shooting again....i'll just keep shooting my 9mm until he's down or slide lock...at which point i'll reload as fast as my old, slow rearend can, and start shooting again...


AMEN.

Sudden
03-07-10, 16:35
It's not enough to shoot someone until you think he's dead.
You have to shoot him until he knows he's dead.

Jay Cunningham
03-07-10, 16:42
It's not enough to shoot someone until you think he's dead.
You have to shoot him until he knows he's dead.

I think we're getting off topic here and into some cliche territory. As a civilian, my intentions are not to shoot a threat until I know he's dead. If I need to shoot I am going to keep shooting until the BG is no longer a threat. Whether he lives or dies is immaterial.

The rules may be different for those with different "missions."

Smuckatelli
03-07-10, 16:46
I've never heard of anyone teaching single center mass shots.

Boot Camp, SOI (ITS), Scout Sniper School....yes, as I said it is about getting a hit on the target.

Specialized training, no...CPC, MSG, FAST, Security Forces...center mass first shot followed by head shot.

John_Wayne777
03-07-10, 18:32
I've never heard of anyone teaching single center mass shots.

I have encountered it personally, but it was a long time ago and the guy saying it wasn't much of an instructor.

Every other instructor I've ever had has taught pulling the trigger until the hostile actions of the bad guy cease. If that's one shot, fine. If it's a dozen, so be it.

The whole X number of shots with caliber Y thing is fruitier than Elton John skipping through a strawberry patch for a number of reasons, not least of which is the idea that people are going to be counting rounds fired in a close range gunfight. Handguns are handguns, and with modern ammo differences in caliber matter less than they ever have in the history of firearms. Whether you're packing a 9mm or a .45, the prescription is the same: Shoot the bad guy until he stops doing whatever it is he was doing to make you shoot him in the first place. Then see if he has any friends around who are in need of similar treatment.

Shadow1198
03-07-10, 20:01
I not hearing the mantra that one bullet center mass is a sure stopper, I hear just the opposite more, can anyone link me to an article that says one bullet of your choice center mass will stop even most attackers? I think this is just another article parroting what is already out there, for self legitimization?

Ditto. Considering that Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness (http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf) by Urey Patrick came out in 1989 (an excellent resource to be thankful for), I'm not seeing anything new here.

In all my research I've come to the conclusion that the accepted norm, with modern and competent instructors on this matter, is dynamic. "Shoot to the ground" is not a new concept. Those preaching one shot stops, parroting magical calibers, and clinging to archaic methods, I would say, are the minority, not the majority and have been for a good ~10-15+ years. Thankfully there are just enough of "them" out there to remind us all to stay on the ball with training and always strive for more, lest we fall into their category. ;) I'm still young so I might be incorrect, however it seems to me the training industry as a whole has completely transformed over the past 10-15 years....significantly for the better. Hell I, for one, feel fortunate at all the high quality training opportunities and training resources available to us.

Motel Bravo
03-07-10, 21:10
Technically the guy is correct........

They don't teach center mass aiming for quicker stops, THEY TEACH CENTER MASS TO GIVE YOU A MARGIN OF ERROR ON THE TARGET!!

You aim at the center of whatever your target presents you as a target, if it is just a portion of his head then thats what you aim at the center of, for a MArgin of error to overcome trigger jerking under stress or if your target starts to move one or another you are still more likely to hit something on them anyway.

THERE IS NO MAGIC BULLET OR PLACE TO HIT FOR INSTANT STOPS EXCEPT THE CEREBRAL CORTEX!!

DacoRoman
03-07-10, 23:04
and the only thing I'll add, that some of you might have already brought up, is that a B27 target type of COM generally corresponds to high abdomen, low thoracic hits, a suboptimal targeting area considering where the heart and great vessels are located (mid to high chest), so no wonder "COM" hits can be more ineffectual than good hits ought to be

HowardCohodas
03-07-10, 23:24
What am I missing here?

If a man can continue the fight for 3-5 seconds with one in the heart, is there any question left in your mind about what to do?

I've not been at this for as long as most of you, so keeping it simple is my only recourse. Until the gun is out of the BG's hand, there is danger. While there is danger, the fight is ongoing.

What am I missing here?

Teufelhunden
03-08-10, 08:29
i don't know that I buy the 1-2 with .45, 5-8 with 9mm thing, etc....

go ahead and shoot your 1-2 with .45...when the guy is still shooting back you can start shooting again....i'll just keep shooting my 9mm until he's down or slide lock...at which point i'll reload as fast as my old, slow rearend can, and start shooting again...

While the dimensional physics of the fact that a .45cal bullet is wider than a 9mm bullet can't be denied, the difference in application with modern JHP's is negligible.

Though he seems to initially say you should shoot until the threat is gone (Shoot until the target changes shape or is on fire), by quantitatively measuring the calibers against each other, and saying I need to shoot someone once with the mighty .45, and five times with a 9mm to achieve the same effect, he has highlighted his personal biases and makes me believe he is less progressive then he would have us believe...

Lumpy196
03-08-10, 12:36
True, I carry a .45 but that is because I am lazy and want to shoot less. A good bullet in 9mm in the right place (the spine!) will get the job done. If you hit the heart, 3 or 4 expanded 9mms will do about what a .45 expanding bullet will do or one might equal .45 ball….IF (note the big if) it penetrates.


Uh....

CarlosDJackal
03-08-10, 12:48
I've never heard of anyone teaching single center mass shots.

There's nothing wrong wth teaching center of mass shots as long as it is one in the proper context. You way not have the luxury of having a UCOM to aim at based on the situation. How many of us can honestly say that they can see the UCOM of a BG at 300-meters with an unpowered RDS? JM2CW.

bryanr
03-08-10, 13:08
Uh....

Lumpy, that quote is part of the original author's commentary. You may want to go back and re-read it. Please don't take it as my personal view.

Bryanr

Rated21R
03-08-10, 14:16
Boils down to one simple sentence: "Fight until there isn't one."

Pretty much sums it up.

Lumpy196
03-08-10, 17:18
Lumpy, that quote is part of the original author's commentary. You may want to go back and re-read it. Please don't take it as my personal view.

Bryanr


I didn't.

skyugo
03-08-10, 17:41
I thought it to be a very interesting read. Especially since I have just made the decision to go from a 40 to a 9 for my CCW and training platform. I guess a few extra squeezes are in order...

a few extra squeezes were in order with the 40 too, now you've got less recoil and a bigger mag though :D

HowardCohodas
03-08-10, 21:13
I find this discussion quite entertaining considering that even experienced LEOs involved in a gunfight frequently cannot recall how many shots they fired.

Motel Bravo
03-08-10, 21:35
Ya' got a point there Howardcohondas............IT'S ALL ACADEMIC UNTIL YOU HAVE TO PERSONALLY PUT TORPEDOES IN THEIR BOILER ROOM AND THEY GO DOWN!!

There really is no such thing as true fight stopping power in ANY handgun round...except maybe a .500 S&W. Any hangun instructor worth the money he was paid will tell you this, the power factor just isn't there for handguns.

Thats why even Clint Smith says "A handgun is used to fight your way to a rifle you never should have put down in the first place!!!"

BushmasterFanBoy
03-08-10, 21:36
Never been there, haven't done that, and I'm still saving "tactical" points to mail in for a T-shirt, but I'm going to say that everything I've seen in videos, from actual accounts, etc. indicates that its a pretty scary event, and you're going to be very busy trying to get behind something to save your life, moving fast to get there, and shooting when you can, as often as you can, in any position that you can muster, at any target (or portion thereof) that presents itself. This is likely going to be compounded by sheer panic, which is why its prolly a good idea to have your marksmanship and manipulations down pat, with no brainwork needed.

Again, this is kind of common sense, but I don't think it can be stated often enough. About the only thing in common I've seen between range training and videos of shootouts is that both involve gunfire.

The author seems to think the training community has the single shot drop idea, in addition to a static range mindset. This is certainly not the case, most instructors hold "shoot til its not a threat" and "multiple shots" as gospel. (For good reason)

Jer
03-12-10, 14:58
One word: Mozambique (another word on the end... drill :D ) aka Failure Drill. If two center mass don't stop the attack then you should be on the head taking a more aimed shot to neutralize the threat.

JonnyVain
03-12-10, 18:33
I'd just shoot what's available... I've heard of people getting shot center mass multiple times without going down, and I've heard of people getting shot in the head and the bullet (9mm and .40) bouncing off the skull.

HowardCohodas
03-14-10, 01:09
Perhaps some scientific research can inform us on this topic.


Excessive" shots and falling assailants: A fresh look at OIS subtleties

A new look at why officers often fire controversial "extra" shots after a threat has ended has been published by an independent shooting reconstructionist and certified Force Science analyst.

Researcher Alexander Jason reports that even under benign experimental conditions brain programming compels roughly 7 out of 10 officers to keep discharging rounds after being signaled to stop shooting. "In a real gunfight, under extraordinary stress and threat of death, an even much higher percentage would likely deliver extra shots," Jason asserts.

On average, additional findings show, officers may "reasonably" fire 6 rounds or more into suspects who initially are standing and then begin falling and who, in fact, may already be mortally wounded. And that's 6 rounds per officer involved in the confrontation.

"Understanding why this occurs can be critical in shooting investigations and in criminal proceedings and civil lawsuits that allege excessive force by officers for firing 'too many' shots," says Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science Institute. "As Jason explains, so-called 'extra' shots are generally beyond an officer's control. They're more likely to be an involuntary reaction under stress than a conscious decision with malicious motivation."

About 7 years ago, Lewinski performed widely cited experiments in Tempe, AZ, that documented the tendency of officers to "over-shoot," that is to discharge 1 or more additional rounds after perceiving a stop stimulus during rapid-fire discharges. (Click here to read about the study.)

Jason's work, conducted in California, essentially confirms some of the Tempe factors and adds important new elements. His full report appears in the current issue of Investigative Sciences Journal, a peer-reviewed professional quarterly, and can be downloaded free of charge in pdf format at www.investigativesciencesjournal.org. Click on the paper, "Shooting Dynamics: Elements of Time & Movement in Shooting Incidents."

Background

A crime scene analyst specializing in shooting analysis and reconstruction, Jason heads the Anite Group in Pinole, CA, and has been involved in a number of high-profile cases, including New York City's Sean Bell incident in which a prospective bridegroom was killed shortly before his wedding in a fusillade of 50 rounds fired by undercover and plainclothes officers.

Jason, formerly with the San Francisco PD, told Force Science News that he has sporadically conducted research tests related to officers and shooting dynamics across a number of years, but decided to compile and publish a summary of results only after graduating last year from a certification course in Force Science Analysis. He included his latest experiment, performed just a few months ago, on how long it takes a human body to fall from a standing position. This is a subject that the Force Science Research Center is also investigating.

Time to Stop

The core of Jason's paper is his research on how long it takes an officer in rapid-fire mode to stop shooting once he perceives that he should do so.

The test subjects were 32 officers (30 of them male), ranging in age from 23 to 56, with the median age 33. They averaged nearly 11 years' service, but ranged in experience from less than a year to more than 2 decades.

Using the semiautomatic pistols and leather gear they normally wear on duty, they one at a time faced a "hostile man" target at a distance of 5 ft. Hands at their side, they were told to draw and "start shooting at the buzzer. Shoot as fast as you can," and stop shooting when 2 100-watt spotlights pointed at them flash on. An electronic shot-timer provided the start signal and the "stop" lights came on at random intervals, after a minimum of 4 intended shots.

"Most of the officers were unable to immediately stop shooting at the stop signal," Jason reports. Indeed, 69% fired at least 1 "extra" shot, with 17% firing 2 extra and 8% firing 3. Fewer than 1/3 were able to stop fast enough to prevent discharging surplus rounds.

Although the shooters "reacted as quickly as they could," Jason writes, most continued to pull the trigger past the stop signal "because the brain-to-trigger finger impulse was still 'in motion.' " In other words, they could not perceive the light signal, transmit that perception to the brain, have the brain interpret it, and send back a "stop" command before the trigger finger was already proceeding with subsequent shots based on the mental program that had been put in action by the start buzzer.

Benchmark findings by other researchers, cited by Jason, suggest that as a rule of thumb the brain may need about 3/10 of a second to evaluate an incoming stimulus, and then at least 16/100 of a second minimum to "inhibit (cancel) an anticipated action (like firing the next shot)."

Such reaction times, of course, vary among individuals. And if an officer does not instantly see a stop signal because his visual attention is narrowed and intensely concentrated on his sights and/or the target, the delay in responding can be much longer, Jason explains.

Extra Shots on the Street

Jason writes: "It is important to compare and note the different effects on performance between the conditions facing a shooter in [the] safe and relatively stress-free [experiment] with an urgent, life-threatening and highly stress-inducing situation [of] a real-life shooting incident.

"The shooters in the test only had one, clearly defined stimulus to stop firing.... A shooter in a genuine shooting incident will [experience] both a higher level of physiological arousal (stress) and additional choices (Should I take cover? Is the target person no longer a threat? Should I look around for other threats? Are there others who may be exposed to my gunfire?, etc.).

"Human performance research has determined that as the number of choice alternatives increases, reaction time (including perception, decision, and action) will increase. The elevated arousal and multiple-alternatives effect will likely cause the shooter to fire additional 'extra' shots--more than [were] measured in this test study."

Lewinski found in the Tempe study that the more motivated a shooter was to shoot, the longer it took before he was able to stop shooting. "And an officer firing to save his life is about as 'motivated' as a human being can be," Lewinski says. "Once the human dynamics of ceasing shooting under stress are understood, the less sinister the connotation of 'extra' shots generally will seem."

Time to Fall

In his most recent study, Jason measured the amount of time required for a person to fall to the ground from a standing position and explored the implications of shots fired by officers at the falling figure, whether those shots are deliberate or involuntary because of reaction time.

During a confrontation with a standing armed offender, "the most commonly understood and accepted indication that the [suspect] is no longer a threat is when that person either releases the gun from his hand(s) and/or drops to the ground" from being shot, Jason states.

He asked 5 volunteers (4 males, 1 female) to stand "erect with hands out in front, as if holding a gun" and, upon verbal command, to drop to a padded mat "as quickly as possible." This, he concedes, was an imperfect attempt to mimic a rapid collapse ("dropping like a sack of potatoes") such as would occur from "a significant disruption of the central nervous system or sudden loss of consciousness." Genuine collapses from such causes, of course, cannot be tested in an experimental environment.

Thirty-five drops were recorded with a digital video camera and later analyzed on a computer. Timing began "at the first detectable motion initiating the movement of the body" toward the ground and ended when the upper torso was on the mat and "horizontal to the ground."

On average, the subjects took 1.1 seconds to fall down. During this amount of time, Lewinski's research has shown that "4 shots could be fired by an 'average' police officer," Jason writes. "A crumple fall [going to the knees first, then down] will take more time and could result in several more shots fired during the movement. Additional shots could also be fired until the shooter perceives that the person is no longer a threat and is able to interrupt his shooting sequence."

In all, Jason writes, "the total number of [rapid-sequence] shots fired at a person standing then going to the ground could reasonably be a minimum of 6 shots: 1 or more before the [suspect] begins to fall; 4 shots during the fall; 1 or more as the body contacts the floor" during the time required for the brain to recognize and process that the threat has ceased.

"In situations with more than one shooter firing, the total number of reasonable shots could be 6 x Number of Shooters; i.e., if 3 officers were firing simultaneously, then 18 shots (6 x 3) would be expected....etc."

Depending on a suspect's positioning through the fall, at least some of these shots may end up entering through his back, Jason points out, deepening the illusion that the shooting was an unjustified "execution." In his paper, he includes graphics showing how "posterior entries" can innocently occur under these circumstances.

Further Considerations

Apart from the reaction-time phenomenon, a falling assailant may invite continued gunfire because a collapse or crumple can be an ambiguous movement. Falling from incapacitating wounds cannot always be "distinguished from a deliberate tactical maneuver of someone who has decided to go to ground to avoid being shot or to assume a less exposed position while returning or preparing to return gunfire," Jason writes. "Even a mortally wounded person can fall to the ground and fire one or more shots before becoming incapacitated and/or unconscious."

Moreover, because of the nature of bullet wounds an officer may not know whether his rounds are hitting his assailant--another motivation to keep shooting. Jason explains:

"There is no significant momentum or 'push' from a bullet strike. This means that there would be no significant...motion effect of a bullet striking a standing or falling person.... Also...unlike the shootings seen in dramatic films and TV shows, it is most often not possible to visually determine if a shot has actually struck a target person. Bullet entry holes do not project large amounts of blood and the defect in the skin--always smaller than the bullet diameter--may not be visible at all if the shot was fired through clothing, particularly loose or layered clothing."

In short, Jason concludes, police shootings can be complex occurrences. For persons untrained in forensics and the science of human behavior to jump to conclusions in judging an officer's actions can lead to grave misinterpretations and injustices.

"Jason is to be congratulated on his work," Lewinski says. "More research is starting to be focused on street-level law enforcement issues, and with every effort our understanding of the dynamic interplay between officers and their assailants becomes that much clearer."

[Alexander Jason can be contacted at ajason@alexanderjason.com or through his website: www.alexanderjason.com]

rifleman2000
03-15-10, 13:17
His article is a lot of smoke screen.

Let me summarize:

One shot, or multiple shots, center mass; will not always stop a threat.

Summary complete.

He totally ignores, as others have pointed out, that center mass shooting is to increase hit probability. Center mass hits are far better than misses.

Sudden
03-15-10, 13:55
His article is a lot of smoke screen.

Let me summarize:

One shot, or multiple shots, center mass; will not always stop a threat.

Summary complete.

He totally ignores, as others have pointed out, that center mass shooting is to increase hit probability. Center mass hits are far better than misses.

I agree, but multiple COM hits may be more valuable than one or two.

rifleman2000
03-15-10, 13:58
I agree, but multiple COM hits may be more valuable than one or two.

I agree with you, but this is a very long article and thread to figure out what we discussed in three short posts!

Sudden
03-15-10, 14:00
I agree with you, but this is a very long article and thread to figure out what we discussed in three short posts!

Or knew already. :D

rifleman2000
03-15-10, 14:07
Or knew already. :D

Only too true. :)

HowardCohodas
03-15-10, 14:35
Last 5 posts in this thread??????????

Jay Cunningham
03-15-10, 14:42
This one has run its course.