This is a discussion on "Mozambique" versus "Failure to Stop" within the Defensive Carry & Tactical Training forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by 40Bob It is child's play to place an aimed headshot at 7 yards on a paper target from the weaver or isosceles ...
"The pistol, learn it well, carry it always ..." ~ Jeff Cooper
"Dilgentia Vis Celeritas"
The theory behind the Mozambique drill, as I understand it, was that if two shots to center mass did not have the desired effect, than there was no reason to think two or three more shots would. Jim Cirillo and the others in the stakeout squad certainly had good results with pelvic shots (granted some of them were using M1 carbines) and there have been many accounts of BG's taking a large number of torso shots and matters finally being settled with a head shot (or two). While combat shooting may be evolving, I see no reason to discount the tried and true Mozambique drill.
I understand the theory, I am not advocating shooting 2 shots, reassess fire 2 more. I am saying shoot them to the ground, whether that takes 2 shots or 15.
The idea behind the head shot as well was an instant incapacitating shot. The pelvis is however a great area of the body due to the massive amount or arterial bleeding produced. In a stressfull situation i would have to agree on taking the pelvis shot as well. However, i think that if you continue to shoot center mass until the BG is down, it is quicker and easier under pressure.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk
Disclaimer: At the Tactical Shooting Academy we don't teach you when to shoot, we teach you how to shoot, once the decision to use lethal force has been made...by you.
As far as whether to assess or not goes, we offer the "Dealers Choice" option. This is where YOU decide how many C.O.M shots to deal out to the Bad Guy(s) before going for the head(s).
But a lot of this really depends on how fast you can shoot while moving.
Assuming that we are talking about the fight starting at "Bad Breath Distance" (possibly the most common, worst case scenario), the whole idea of shooting at C.O.M. 1st is to get shots on target FIRST, which hopefully will buy you enough time to make some distance (even if it's just a few steps off line to the side or to the rear).
Once you have enough space (so that you can safely extend the gun up and out to eye level without being disarmed) then hopefully, you can use the sights on the smaller, moving, more difficult head shot, to finally stop the threat from being a threat...Well...that's the plan anyway.
But as always, let the situation dictate the tactics.
Last edited by DRM; March 2nd, 2012 at 09:51 PM.
Excellent point, DR. It can be easy to "overestimate" your ability to get precision shots on a threat on a square range when failure just means you're "off the blue". Starting at "Bad Breath Distance" alone will throw a wrench in a default in-close/low ready to high ready transition by compelling movement.
Hick's Law + Murphy's Law = Streamlined Problem Solving
Good shooting. And thanks for sharing the video.
I'd steer clear of either technique. While they work for the military... explaining either one could too easily tranlate to an exicution. Not saying I wouldnt do it... Just saying I wouldnt use either technique.
So, how long does should it take to access the situation anyway?
Never understood the point. If you are so good that you can pull off the 3rd shot... Why not make 1 shot to the head? Lol
Shoot 2 in his chest 'oh he's still moving, headshot! '
Just put 1 bullet in his head and you saved 2 bullets...
Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk
The head is a bit more difficult to hit than you might think, just ask a boxer.Just put 1 bullet in his head and you saved 2 bullets...
Last edited by DRM; March 18th, 2012 at 06:43 PM.