[German]

Few days ago I read a Chuck Taylor´s article in what he talked about the well known tactic of "keep shooting the target until he goes down". He explained about the possibility you get a "failure to stop" situation if the first hit cause a involuntary nervous-system shutdown eliminating the adversary´s susceptibility to shock (put the 1985 Dade County incident in which two FBI agents were killed despite the felon was deadly hit at least twice before he could engage until 5 FBI agents). In order to prevent this (as I understood), specially when you confront multiple adversaries he advocate for delivering a first round each one to center mass and while moving interpossing one of the odds between the other to immediately reevaluate the situation and deliver more rounds if necessary but not to the chest again, but as a ´failure situation´-to the head.

I never had thought about it from this point of view but I must saying I´m very agree with Master Chuck. Nevertherless, I know some of the greatest handgun masters come here and so I´d like earing from them and you about this topic.

Thanks

 

[Shane1911]

Yes, Chuck's theory is valid - to a point. I agree with one round initially to multiple threats. I disagree with subsequent rounds to the head. Various targets means that your gun is already travelling in an arc to cover all the BG's. Chances are you are (or should be) moving for tactical positioning and/or cover. The BG's are probably moving too - hopefully down because of your initial round, but don't count on it. So now we have movement on three planes - the gun, you and them. Now let's try to put additional rounds on a melon sized target while under extreme duress. Ain't gonna happen unless you are extremely lucky.

IMO follow-up shots should go to COM.

And yes, you do keep shooting until he goes down - and even then he may still get back up. People have a way of thinking that they should fall when hit. Once they realize that they are not as incapacitated as they have been conditioned to think they are, they just might get back up - and then you shoot again.





<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Shane Kropf on 2001-07-05 15:19 ]</font>

 

[Rosco Benson]

I once heard this approach called "boarding house rules" in that "no one gets seconds 'til everyone has had firsts". Of course, at close range, one can fire two-shot "hammers" on each of multiple targets for very little additional time expended. The additional round might well solve the problem on the initial "dosage" and obviate the need to take remedial action.

Personally, I'm not willing to sign on to any particular dogma in this regard. Each situation will dictate whether a one, two, or more shot response is called for.

One thing I WILL agree on is to go to "plan B" if "plan A" doesn't work. The notion that a failed approach will somehow get better if one simply continues that approach with increased fervor may be SOP for liberal democrats, but we should try to avoid it. If what you're shooting isn't solving the problem, then shoot something else.

Rosco

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Rosco Benson on 2001-07-05 15:17 ]</font>

 

[Guest]

One point that I do not see adressed very often these days is that the FBI, the USMC, the DEA and other Quantico based firearms divions began teaching the "double tap" as invariably only one of the two rounds usually hit anywhere on your advesary.

If you look at the statistics from the larger agencies like the NYPD, the LAPD, the FBI, and DEA.

If you look at the NYPD for example at the averages you will see that 2 of 7 rounds actually hit the attacker/advisary.

The "house" rules method has been tried by multiple agencies with poor success going all the way back to the mid 1980s as the number of shots fired per engagement has doubled and tripled in some cases.

You open a dangerous area for possible harm when you make the assumption of "hits" delivered.
This is especially true when we are already in a poor tactical situation having to rely only on our handgun as our primary fighting weapon.

 

[BillD]

On 2001-07-05 15:15, Rosco Benson wrote:


One thing I WILL agree on is to go to "plan B" if "plan A" doesn't work. The notion that a failed approach will somehow get better if one simply continues that approach with increased fervor may be SOP for liberal democrats, but we should try to avoid it. If what you're shooting isn't solving the problem, then shoot something else.

Rosco

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Rosco Benson on 2001-07-05 15:17 ]</font>

Rosco, you crack me up!!

 

[Pistolero]

Now let's try to put additional rounds on a melon sized target while under extreme duress.

"Melon size" on Chuck's copyrighted "Taylor Advanced Combat" Target is ca. 3" x 4", an accurate representation of the craino-ocular cavity.

 

[Dane Burns]

Personally, I'm not willing to sign on to any particular dogma in this regard. Each situation will dictate whether a one, two, or more shot response is called for.

I agree. My thought process is this with a hand gun. A 9 round single stack 45 is a two person gun with the first mag. My 9x23 with 11 rounds is a 2 maybe a 3 person gun with the first mag.

Past that, how you serve up the menu is situationally dependant.

Head shots are a lot harder to do in a violent encounter than they are to talk or write about.

 

[Guest]

I definitely agree when it comes to the head shots topic.

A planned head shot in a shooting is the equivalent of winning the lottery, while it is and does happen in street crimes where the target/victim is very close and usually very still while pleading.

Very, very, rarely does it happen when planned as a part of an armed response with a handgun when any distance is involved unless you suprise the target and thet are also motionless as in prodicing a weapon from concealment rapidly thus suprising your attacker.

A careful trained marksman with an accurate handgun can make the shot provided he/she is behind cover and able to squeeze the shot, but I would not plan to depend on the head shot as your primary target.

 

[evanmarshall]

I taught the guys at Detroit PD SRT where I was the original training sgt, that when upper chest hits don't work, attack the pelvic girdle.

 

[gyp_c2]

Now there's a target rich environment...Big nerves, big veins, big arteries and big bones and sometimes big organs... :wink:

 

[Marty Hayes]

Hell, I think of two to the body doesn't work, why not just shoot the gun out of his hand?

Probably as easy as hitting the guy's head, and that way, if he is also facing you, if you miss the gun, you still hit the body!

Evan, if you are reading this, e-mail me at

[email protected]

 

[Guest]

On 2001-07-12 15:56, Marty Hayes wrote:
Hell, I think of two to the body doesn't work, why not just shoot the gun out of his hand?

Marty, you are kidding right?

 

[German]

I supose what Marty says is a joke isn´t it?

Seriously talking, I think the head shot choice will be an option always depending of the distance to the target and other few factores as well. You can try it when you are close enough to the target and you have spent a few thousand rounds practicing the modified "Mozambique drill". Of course your marksmanship is also very important.
But hitting pelvic zone isn´t easy either and you can´t expect hitting and broking bones so easily and if what you hit are not them, probably you get the exactly same effects that going on shooting the COM if the bad guy has already his nervous system down: NONE until he lose blood enough to get consciousness as well.

German

 

[Marty Hayes]

Of course it's a joke. Since I carry a .45, and we all know "they all fall to hardball", there is no reason to have to shoot for the head.

But then again, if you don't want to carry a .45, you can carry a .357 which has a 90% one shot stop ratio, and since we are going to always revert to the minimum standard response of a double tap, it 180% assured he WILL fall.

 

[Shane1911]

On 2001-07-13 00:17, Marty Hayes wrote:
But then again, if you don't want to carry a .45, you can carry a .357 which has a 90% one shot stop ratio, and since we are going to always revert to the minimum standard response of a double tap, it 180% assured he WILL fall.

You're joking again, right? :wink:

 

[gyp_c2]

Great stats!
...You have a much larger area avilable in the pelvis area than 3x4"...Look at the charts of the body sometime, all the major branches of the nerves and vessels are there and in greater numbers and size...as well as more area of bones..up to you...certainly...

 

[buzz_knox]

Somebody's in rare form today.

 

[Marty Hayes]

Who me, kidding? When I think of stopping power, I am reminded of the FBI study rating wounding value of certain handgun rounds. I don't remember the exact outcome of that study, but I do remember them rating COR-BON 90gr .380 with a negative value, because of it's lack of penetration. Since the higher the number, the better stopping power, one could only conclude that a negative value meant that one felt better after being shot with that load!

In all seriousness, the topic has been debated so much that all cogent arguments have been stated and re-stated so many times, that there isn't much new to discuss, hence the joking around.

 

[evanmarshall]

I taught pelvic girdle not because it was an easy shot, but because after a tour in homicide I'd realized that head shots usually didn't work.

 

[Guest]

Luaghing, :lol: Marty you made my morning!