I agree, a pelvic strike wull take the fight out of most folks. Center mass hits are great,, but with the growing use of body armor, they make less sense. If your target is armored up, a pelvic hit or even an inner thigh can bring rapid decapacitation. Remember where are the arteries are, inner thihg, inner upper arm. A round into an arm pit can bring considerable pain and immobility. Even a hit to ankel from under a car will bring a bad guy down. He will still be dnagerous, but in incredible pain.

 

Always shoot center mass till you get a satisfactory conclusion. Handgun bullets do not 'shatter' pelvic bones, they will just make holes and not shatter or significantly fracture them. That's only possible with rifle bullets. The only chance you'd have to instantly drop an attacker when shooting into the pelvis is to get lucky and hit an iliac artery. Center mass is where all of the necessary vital organs and spinal cord are. Pelvic shots are good to know as a back-up plan..

I agree, a pelvic strike wull take the fight out of most folks. Center mass hits are great,, but with the growing use of body armor, they make less sense. If your target is armored up, a pelvic hit or even an inner thigh can bring rapid decapacitation. Remember where are the arteries are, inner thihg, inner upper arm. A round into an arm pit can bring considerable pain and immobility. Even a hit to ankel from under a car will bring a bad guy down. He will still be dnagerous, but in incredible pain.

Is that the opposite of incapacitation? :upsidedown:

 

I'm far from a combat pistol craft expert, but two to the pelvis, then two to the head may be a viable solution also.


And a sad little part of me is thinking.....If he doesn't die he'll sue you.

 

Should prolly keep in mind that if the two to the pelvis worked, then the two to the head will get you twenty in the big house

 

I am a huge fan of this. When I worked as a reserve officer, we were taught this technique.

The entire body is supported by the pelvis and two major arteries run through the pelvis. The pelvis is also the last thing to move when a person decides to. We were taught that the best shot to take as a police sniper (no I was not, just there when they talked about that) was a shot in the pelvis. This dropped the target and most likely shatters the pelvis, destroying the arteries. This was followed by a kill shot to the body or head once the target was on the ground. The other thing mentioned that no matter what part of the pelvis that was pointed in your direction, if you shoot through the length of it you will drop the target and the target will bleed out in less than 30 seconds. Rather than wait for that in a hostage situation, it was suggested that a kill shot was put into the body or head of the incapacitated target to keep them from shooting while down.

With a pistol we were taught to shoot the pelvis and continue to shoot holding the same position. As the target drops your next two shots progressively hit the abdomen, chest, and head.

 

With a pistol we were taught to shoot the pelvis and continue to shoot holding the same position. As the target drops your next two shots progressively hit the abdomen, chest, and head.

That's not a bad effort...Two shots resulting in hits to the abdomen, chest and head.

Did you, by any chance, shoot JFK? :thumb:

 

As with everything, there are exceptions. In addition to the bone, there is connective tissue and muscle that holds the girdle together. A broken pelvis does not always mean an incapacitated bad guy. In addition, handgun rounds are not powerful enough to guarantee a broken bone.

Head shots are your best bet.

 

I agree with you but also for those that aren't that great a shot they would be more likely to hit something major in the pelvic area whereas they don't have good enough aim for a head shot especially if it's in a stressful situation.

Just my opinion.

 

Besides major arteries going through the pelvis there are also major nerves that go down into the leg from the spine and when the pelvec area gets busted up you might very likely pinch or sever those nerves. The legs don't work worth a damn when those nerves are not functioning well. The pain when those nerves are pinched or damaged is really bad.

 

To really shatter a pelvic bone, you almost have to be right on top of the guy being shot and shoot downward into the stomach area. The other option is to use a shotgun at close range loaded with buckshot, again, shooting at a downward angle.

The idea is that you really need to break the lower part of the pelvis to drop the bad guy to make him crawl around like a snake. That lower part, if it is shattered, is what will actually drop the guy. The destruction of the acetabulum is the part of the pelvis which really causes the dropping of the bad guy.

 

I agree that a pelvic wound will most likely put somebody down but...

My first thoughts on this are:

front on I am not sure it would work - maybe a side shot

If you are close enough to hit the pelvis - why not take the head shot

If you are good enough to hit the pelvis - why not take the head shot

people carry things in their pockets, there is a possibility you may hit a wallet, a zippo lighter, a cell phone, ammo magazine, etc

 

If you are close enough to hit the pelvis - why not take the head shot

If you are good enough to hit the pelvis - why not take the head shot

That's why. Pelvic area is larger than the T-box. Head shot isn't as guaranteed to stop someone as people like to think. A T-box shot however will (depending on the angle) most likely destroy the medulla oblongata which will result in instant and complete incapacitation.

Pelvic area won't instantly kill or eliminate the threat but it SHOULD immobilize the target and make follow up headshots easier if need (remember just because they can't walk doesn't mean they can't still kill you)

 

Maine-Marine ~ look at the gentleman in the photo on the right who's not wearing a baseball cap.. Notice all of the equipment he's carrying on his chest rig and the body armor underneath? Besides taking a head shot, where else would you effectively shoot at him using your handgun? It's a viable back-up plan for a handgunner to aim for the pelvis.

 

I agree that a pelvic wound will most likely put somebody


people carry things in their pockets, there is a possibility you may hit a wallet, a zippo lighter, a cell phone, ammo magazine, etc

 

x2 heart x1 in the head is the best plan for folks that are unarmoured

 

Head shots are difficult on an adrenaline-pumped, dodging, moving bad guy. What if the bad guy/enemy combatant is wearing a helmet?

 

first two go in the chest and then the 3rd the face who cares where an a brain bucket does not cover your face only your brain

 

I practice a triple tap, one pelvis, one center mass, one head. This was one of the techniques taught me several years ago by our range instructor, we have a different one now and he does not teach this, but I still do it. We use a .40 cal 180 gr SXT JHP and it hits pretty hard. In several Officer-involved shootings, it has been pretty effective, incapacitating the perp in every case. Two to the chest will not work if the guy is wearing body armor, and we increasingly have confrontations with armor-wearing perps. As one of the above guys said, the head is moving and hard to hit, in a dynamic confrontation. A miss is not so effective either, you might scare him to death but I doubt it. We do practice moving and shooting as we move, and shooting moving targets as we move too. This helps.

 

I`m not that good of a pistol shot, and the average guy isn`t either.......the chest area of a male is the widest area on that target, and the vitals are located there......just like the white-tails I hunt......

It would NOT be a common place event for the average concealed carry permit holder to run into a bad guy wearing body armor.......

Center mass shots, and if they don`t seem too terribly affected, throw shots at the head area......no one is going to have rounds going by their head, even if not hit, and maintain any focus......

 

Clint Smith of Thunder Ranch also teaches to shoot the pelvis, along with CM and head. I figure if its good enough for him, good enough for me.

 

Not exactly.... He makes the point its a shot if you can't hit the chest or face. The third option if you will, and he has stated several times pistols wont cut it in the pelvis very well.

He states chest, then head, then pelvis, then appendage. if you get him in the knee and he falls out of cover hit his head, not his pelvis kinda deal.

 

Fackler ML: "Shots to the Pelvic Area ". Wound Ballistics Review. 4(1):13; 1999.

“I welcome the chance to refute the belief that the pelvic area is a reasonable target during a gunfight. I can find no evidence or valid rationale for intentionally targeting the pelvic area in a gunfight. The reasons against, however, are many. They include:

-- From the belt line to the top of the head, the areas most likely to rapidly incapacitate the person hit are concentrated in or near the midline. In the pelvis, however, the blood vessels are located to each side, having diverged from the midline, as the aorta and inferior vena cava divide at about the level of the navel. Additionally, the target that, when struck, is the most likely to cause rapid and reliable incapacitation, the spinal cord located in the midline of the abdomen, thorax and neck), ends well above the navel and is not a target in the pelvis.
-- The pelvic branches of the aorta and inferior vena cava are more difficult to hit than their parent vessels -- they are smaller targets, and they diverge laterally from the midline (getting farther from it as they descend). Even if hit, each carry far less blood than the larger vessels from which they originated. Thus, even if one of these branches in the pelvis is hit, incapacitation from blood loss must necessarily be slower than from a major vessel hit higher up in the torso.
-- Other than soft tissue structures not essential to continuing the gunfight (loops of bowel, bladder) the most likely thing to be struck by shots to the pelvis would be bone. The ilium is a large flat bone that forms most of the back wall of the pelvis. The problem is that handgun bullets that hit it would not break the bone but only make a small hole in passing through it: this would do nothing to destroy bony support of the pelvic girdle. The pelvic girdle is essentially a circle: to disrupt its structure significantly would require breaking it in two places. Only a shot that disrupted the neck or upper portion of the shaft of the femur would be likely to disrupt bony support enough to cause the person hit to fall. This is a small and highly unlikely target: the aim point to hit it would be a mystery to those without medical training — and to most of those with medical training.

The “theory” stated in the question postulates that “certain autonomic responses the body undergoes during periods of stress” causes officers to shoot low, and that apparently this is good in a gunfight because such shots cause “severe disability.” I hope that the points presented above debunk the second part of the theory. As for the “autonomic responses” that cause officers to shoot low, I am unaware of anything in the anatomy or physiology of the autonomic nervous system that would even suggest such an occurrence. Most laymen do not understand the function of the autonomic nervous system. It is simply a system whose main function is to fine tune the glands and smooth muscles (those in the walls of organs and blood vessels) of the body. During times of stress such as perceived impending danger, the autonomic nervous system diverts blood from the intestines and digestive organs to the skeletal muscles — in the so-called “fight or flight” response. The effects of this response are constantly exaggerated by laymen who lack an adequate understanding of it — most notably by gun writ-ers eager to impress their readers. Interestingly, the human body can get along quite well without major parts of the autonomic nervous system. During my professional life as a surgeon, myself and colleagues removed parts of thousands of vagus nerves (mostly in treating peptic ulcer disease) -- thus depriving the patient of the major part of the parasympathetic half of the autonomic nervous system. We also removed many ganglia from the sympathetic half of the auto-nomic nervous system, in treating such things as profusely excess sweating and various problems caused by spasm of the arteries. I am unaware of any evidence that these operations produced any significant effect on the future capacity of these patients to react appropriately in times of impending danger.

Unfortunately, the pelvis shot fallacy is common. This fallacy, along with other misinformation, is promoted constantly by at least one gun writer who is widely published in the popular gun press. Because of this, I regularly debunk this fallacy by including some of the above rationale in my presentations to law enforcement firearm instructor groups.”

 

Pelvic incapacitation may work to keep someone from closing distance with speed but as long as their arms, hands, and fingers still work they can still shoot you if they're armed with a firearm.

If I think I've got a good shot I might just go for the goods; Grey matter and that big cord coming out the bottom. However, odds are I'll not know what kind of shot I'll have for a good second... meaning I'll aim center and fire until the dynamics change.

It may be a good drill to run if someone is making a mad dash at you; then odds are they've just got a knife... Still it seems that hitting the pelvis in an effective way is only slightly easier than a central nervous shot... so I dunno, I'll have to do some thinking on this one.

 

I have a hard time believing shooting a man in the pelvis won't end a fight. Back in my young and wild days I dropped a good sized guy like a bag of rocks with a hard palm strike to his pelvis. And I do mean his pelvis not his balls. He was laying on the ground, curled up in a ball throwing up when I left. So having seen what I did, it seems impossible to believe that a bullet (pistol caliber or otherwise) wouldn't be 10x worse. Just my .02

 

neutralize your threat what ever to takes good post and a great idea......

 

I have to ask a couple of questions here.

-Is a shot to the pelvis as easy to make as a shot center of mass in a combat situation?

-On average, do shots to the pelvis do a better job of incapacitating someone than center of mass shots?

I really don't know, but I suspect that the answer is probably "no" to both those questions. If the answer really is no, then center of mass is probably the better route to go.

On another note, one reason I don't buy gun magazines a lot is because the writers always have to write something new. That's good to an extent, and there is always something new to learn. But I often question just how important, relevant, or realistic a lot of the stuff is.

 

I don't doubt that a pelvic shot would disable somebody immediately, but hoping you hit the pelvic bone seems just as likely as hitting the heart or throat when aiming at the thoracic triangle. As far as the speed of hitting the pelvis over the chest goes, it all depends on your mechanics. If you extend your arms immediately after your draw and then raise your arms up, the barrel will line up with the pelvis faster than the chest, but if you raise your arms after the draw, then extend them, the chest is a faster acquisition. The fundamentals that I learned taught me the latter.
I think that if you are a civilian intending to shoot somebody, it should be because you or somebody else is in immediate danger. If you are preventing somebody from hurting or killing another, you are aiming to kill. A kill shot should be directed for the thoracic triangle. Under pressure, it is unrealistic to expect your performance to reflect your drills, but the closer you can get due to muscle memory, the better.

 

Shoot them in the pelvis, and yes they will go down and in allot of pain, but doesn't mean that you will not still take fire from the individual. The "only'' truly incapacitating shot that will render an attacker totally defenseless is open to the "T" box.

I don't mean to say its not something good to practice, but it doesn't incapacitate a thing but the attackers ability to move.

 

The more I think about this less I want to think about it... The point made above about what you are trained or train to do is excellent...

The less you THINK and the faster you act the better off you are... so for me

no body Armor - center mass - bang bang split second pause and either bang bang or hold aim on suspect laying on ground and kick weapon away or engage next target

Body Armor - Head - bang bang - - split second pause and either bang bang or hold aim on suspect laying on ground and kick weapon away or engage next target

perfect practice makes perfect and the less you have to think the better

 

A pelvic shot might put them down, but it isn't as effective at eliminating their ability to return fire. I'm more concerned with them returning fire than I am with their mobility. But I can see it's usefulness under certain circumstances. Years ago I used to train for it, but I've done a lot of rethinking it and now I'm back to training chest/head shots.

 

you aim center mass and shoot into the thorasic cavity you will hit something vital heart lungs liver ect is all in the upper half of the body

you shoot the pelvis you hit penis pelvic bone bladder and intestines

if it were me id rather take your important organs offline than some others that will cause a much slower death but thats just me

 

Frankly, I would still shoot center mass, even if the person I'm shooting at is wearing body armor. Getting shot, even with armor, is no joke. Oftentimes people who are shot genuinely don't even know if the bullet went through or not. That's the amount of "discomfort" we're talking about. Hitting them in the armor is better than missing them entirely.

 

getting hit by a bullet in the armour is like getting hit in the chest with a sledge hammer and just because the vest stops the bulet doesnt mean you wont get ****ed up by the blunt force trauma

 

If you want "expert" advice, talk to those in your department who have actually been in a shoot, fatal or non-fatal and find out the environmental conditions, where they aimed, where it landed, and the effect. It may surprise you.

In my department I have spoken to 4 officers who have been in good shoots and lived to tell about it. One of them had to use a "vehicle assault" tactical placement to protect a woman and her child immediately behind the attacker.

As a police officer we have to be even more concerned about our shots and the backdrop than the general public.

Also as a police officer keep in mind it can go from 10mph to 100mph in less than a second. This is very conducive to immediate tunnel vision as you assess the threat and respond in those first few critical moments. At that time when you see the gun it is most likely going to be more center mass than at pelvic height, unless they are a trained shooter and it's a close distance.