[Tangle]

This was the title of an interesting article in the 2005 August issue of Combat Handguns. The subtitle is "A hard look at a dangerous concept!" and was written by Chuck Taylor.

As suggested by the title and sub title, the article addresses the tactics that are available when the first two shots don't work. I thought it was a very good article. I don't normally rely on gun mags for training advice, but this particular article agrees with training and tactical advice I learned at Gunsite.

It's worth reading.

 

[P95Carry]

Haven't seen this yet but would tend to say ''Shoot 'til he stops''. Meaning stops any aggression - tho indeed chances are ''drop'' will be a consequence.

I wonder how many of us if faced with the extreme of situations would fire two and wait to assess? The luxury of thinking time would never be very likely and I daresay we would be getting into multiples before really seeing whether the threat had been properly negated.

I don't take this mag regularly but may try and dig one out.

 

[Bumper]

I really like Combat Handguns. I don't have a subscription but I do pick it up frequently at the newstand. Having not read the article in question, I can't really comment, but I agree with P95 on shooting until the agression is stopped. Dropping will certainly happen. :wink:

 

[Tangle]

Hmmm, I may have misled you a bit; it's not really about shooting 'til they drop; it's more about makin'em drop as fast as possible.

 

[LenS]

Hmmm, I may have misled you a bit; it's not really about shooting 'til they drop; it's more about makin'em drop as fast as possible.

And how are these two interpretations at odds with each other?? Sounds like one and the same to me.

 

[P95Carry]

Actually I still think for me emphasis has to be on STOP! Point being - you may hit the BG in the leg and he goes down - but he is still armed and still shooting!

If therefore he is on the the ground - technically ''dropped'', the threat may very well not have gone away.!!

For me a threat must be stopped and seen to be stopped.

 

[Bud White]

It was a good article i read it more on making him stop than drop as said just cause he drops from a leg shot dont mean he cant still shoot you

 

[RSSZ]

Just a thought that you guys gave me. A great thread would be ..... to shoot---or not to shoot,the BG after he,she,they,HIT THE GROUND. Of course if they was still slinging lead,I'd still be shootin'. BUT-------

 

[P95Carry]

RSSZ - bottom line has to be - THREAT - so if that still exists then whether a guy is on two feet, two knees or flat on his butt - we still have the two key words in play - THREAT (exists) & (need to) STOP.

There seems to be an old ''honor'' feeling perhaps that once a guy has dropped, it has to be seen as ''chivalrous'' per ''old school'' to cease fire. ''Don't a shoot a man when he's down'' etc. If indeed threat has ceased, reliably ceased, then for sure it is not gonna be too good after the event to try and explain ''x'' more shots fired for good measure!!!

Otherwise - continued threat from any position - game on!

 

[CLASS3NH]

I've been trained in the "Two to the Center Mass, and a third to the head" (The third round just in case they're still coming in my direction) Personally, I haven't seen anybody that has survived that third round. Puts the "lights out" for sure.

 

[Tangle]

For the benefit of those who won't get to read the article, the article addresses current methods that are taught to stop a threat if two COM hits don’t work.

According to the article, four methods are broadly taught as possible solutions when two COM shots don’t work. One is to continue shooting the COM; another is to shoot the pelvis; another is to shoot the femur or the femoral artery; and the last is to shoot the head.

The focus of the article is that rapid incapacitation is needed, and shooting them ‘til they drop can take too much time and may be ineffective. For example, continuing to shoot the COM shots may prove fatal, but not in time to effectively stop the attack. Another example would be a femur or pelvis shot that takes the attacker down, but doesn’t incapacitate him so he can still return fire.

The article considers the pros and cons of the various methods and strongly recommends one particular tactic. It’s the same thing Gunsite teaches by the way. It’s a good read guys, makes you think about how you want to train.

 

[CLASS3NH]

For the benefit of those who won't get to read the article, the article addresses current methods that are taught to stop a threat if two COM hits don’t work.

According to the article, four methods are broadly taught as possible solutions when two COM shots don’t work. One is to continue shooting the COM; another is to shoot the pelvis; another is to shoot the femur or the femoral artery; and the last is to shoot the head.

The focus of the article is that rapid incapacitation is needed, and shooting them ‘til they drop can take too much time and may be ineffective. For example, continuing to shoot the COM shots may prove fatal, but not in time to effectively stop the attack. Another example would be a femur or pelvis shot that takes the attacker down, but doesn’t incapacitate him so he can still return fire.

The article considers the pros and cons of the various methods and strongly recommends one particular tactic. It’s the same thing Gunsite teaches by the way. It’s a good read guys, makes you think about how you want to train.

Personally, my theory is to limit the number of rounds expended, thus ending the confrontation early as possible. The second is to use the least amount of rounds possible to end the threat, period. Third is to limit the amount of rounds that may miss the aggressor, yes, we DO miss, in the heat of the battle, and Innocents may be in the vicinity of the altercation. :biggrin:

 

[Tom357]

In my experience, shots to the pelvis only disable in theory, unless the shot is lucky at actually hits and destroys the hip joint. I've seen several shots to the pelvis, none disabling, most through-and-through. Most caused organ damage that required surgery.

I would think that under the stress of a real shooting, that trying to take out the femur or femoral artery would be difficult, at best.

Haven't seen the August issue, yet. I'll be looking for it.

 

[Q-ball]

I don't see anything wrong with shooting two to three times COM and then bringing the sights up to the enemys face. If you see his face in your sights, let em have it. I think this is faster than the Mozambique drill of two to the chest, gun to low ready and assess (I think that's how it goes).
Why bring the weapon down just to jerk it back up to head level when it's a shorter distance to bring the weapon from COM to head shot. If the heads not there, don't shoot (obviously) and if it is, shoot. I don't think I want to fool around with pelvic shots if the other guy is shooting back.

 

[CLASS3NH]

2 or 3 to the COM is good, but if the agressor hasn't stopped by then <and you believe he's wearing body armor> as some BGs do now-a-days, then one final round to the head will put out the power for sure. Pelvic/ hip shots are good for disabling your opponent, but when it comes down to life or death decisions, I'm gonna stick with a "lights out" shot :biggrin:

 

[TwoRavens]

I've been trained in two approaches to this:

From Jeff Gonzales:
He teaches a non-standard approach of 1 to 5 shot to COM, then 1 to 5 to head if needed.
According to Jeff the most probable reason for a failure to stop from 2 COM shots is that you missed. He also stated that the head is a difficult shot because its smaller and more mobile than the COM, and is armoured; further regular IIIA vests will not stop 4 or 5 successive hits within a 4" group (if they have a traume plate this wont work!). Five shots to COM, even if stopped by armour should sufficiently stun them to allow a head shot(s)
He regards pelvis shots as a last resort.


Stu Nakamura teaches 'Four no more' to COM follwed by same to head and then shoot the pockets or pelvis.

FWIW there have been cases of people surviving headshots...


I do think that just training for double taps is a bad idea, especially if they happen to have body armour: Tyler Shooting

Be nice to have stats on the use of body armour by bad guys

 

[TwoRavens]

On another note, the SAS SOP is for each guy in a stick behind the point man to put a head shot into every BG they go past... made getting IDs on the Iranian embassy terrorists difficult :wink:

 

[KC135]

I still like 'find them, fix them, fight them, finish them'.

The reason for the pelvic shot is 'fix them'. Much easier to finish the job (stop agressive action) if the person is 'fixed'...non mobile.

Way too many misses of the magic triangle in head shooting, even at close range in training, and more so if you are shooting on the move. Add that the other guy is shooting at you and may also be on the move.

I will continue to shoot as long as my opponent is agressive. I will stop to evaluate when I lose the sight picture.

 

[P95Carry]

when I lose the sight picture.

Hopefully KC that is NOT due to loss of consciousness!! :smile:

 

[TwoRavens]

The reason for the pelvic shot is 'fix them'.

Unfortunately that is not going to happen unless you nail one of the hip joints, which are only 2" in diameter. Handgun rounds tend to pass thru the pelvis without breaking it.