Terror Attack: Head Shot?

[Mr. Glock]

http://blog.suarezinternational.com/201 ... p5Bx4Rh3Vp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I enjoy reading Gabe Suarez's writings, as he is a thinker. And this is a good article to mull over.

The nutshell is that, looking at the Paris nightclub attack, the terrorists used more advanced tactics, where one terrorist shot innocents and one partner terrorist covered the shooting terrorist. So, they have started to use combat partner tactics. Plus personal armor that prevents center-of-mass shots from being effective.

I think we can assume that, as terror attacks continue to rise, the terrorists will become more sophisticated. ISIS, for one, appears to be a learning organization.

Taking the main point of the article, the ability to effectively administer head shots at 25 yards with a pistol, I went to the range yesterday (outdoors, but even 11 degree cold and wind and snow does not compare to a swirling nightclub terror attack).

I placed an empty 50 round pistol ammo box on a stick, and marked off 5/10/15/20/25 yards. That ammo box is smaller than the area mentioned in the article, but no one was shooting an AK at me either.

First, I haven't shot my carry pistol for awhile (been working the rifle over the last few months, and I have to make time to shoot like most of us) so I put up two cardboard boxes on a log, which would represent center-of-mass size. Frankly, center of mass hits were ok, but were low and left- probably a slight miss or a lower jaw hit for a head shot. A key learning, reminder actually, don't neglect working with your carry gun on a regular basis..I tend to shoot low left if I don't practice. Well, and that I'd probably be dead too, since those were head shot misses.

Second, I started working on shooting the empty ammo box. Three shot strings. Five yards was no problem, 10 yards was highly consistent with all 3 hits, 15 yards was still consistent averaging 5 hits out of 6 strings.

Problems started at 20 yards, where I dropped 2 out of 3 off the target. And 25 yards, I'd only hit the box by luck.

I then re-shot the course doing double-taps to the two center-of-mass boxes on each side of the stick, and then shot the ammo box on a stick. I only had one stick, but I'd suggest that two ammo boxes on sticks would be a better training aid. So, two fast double taps and three slower accuracy rounds at each distance. The results held to be the same as just shooting the ammo box alone. Shooting the ammo box also made those CoM shots easy by comparison..no misses at any distance.

I've shot the standard IDPA targets in the past, but this was more difficult. Picking out the ammo box against the range backstop was more difficult. And probably more realistic too, in a dark nightclub.

My thoughts:
1. This is a good training exercise for me, especially the speed vs accuracy shots in the final evolution, with non-traditional targets.
2. I'm good to 15 yards (and that is mighty close to an AK-welding terrorist) if I can use both my hands.
3. I obviously need accuracy work past 15 yards. Some folks here will be able to surpass that easily, but that is obviously my level.
4. I was using a Glock 32...with a smaller 9mm or a 380 pocket gun or a 38 snub, there is no way I'd be able to put accurate rounds on the ammo box at longer ranges, both harder and less ammo on board. My next test is to see if I would be able to be more consistent at longer ranges with a 9mm. Same grain weight, but 1400 fps vs 1050 or so. Recoil is personal though, and can't be generalized.
5. Frankly, even if I work up to 25 yards over time, that would be my best day. An actual terror attack is not your best day.
6. I hope I'm never up against 2 terrorists who know how to use an AK, the 7.62x39 is a very effective anti-personnel round and the AK is very easy to head-shoot at 25 yards. Running is my favorite option, but that option is not always available.

I also learned a bit about gloves, another recent topic, as I had heavy mechanic-wear type gloves on. In 200 rounds, I did inadvertently lock the slide back twice, which never happens with lighter gloves or bare hands.

I enjoy the learning process, so it was a good day for me.

Thoughts/Suggestions/Criticisms accepted below, I'm tossing this up for dissection.

[Brian D.]

Good on you for starting this discussion. There are obviously scenarios other than body-armored terrorists when you have to shoot, at not much visible target. Saving the life of a loved one being used as a shield could happen anyplace including one's home.

[TSiWRX]

I agree, this is a most timely topic - thanks, Mr. Glock!

To me, the mechanics of shooting is the least of my worries. Rather, it is a GIVEN.

Anyone who has seen me shoot knows that I'm not that great of a shot. Conversely, anyone who knows me also knows that I do keep trying...and I really, honestly, think that's what's important: that I - we - keep trying to do better. That we are not satisfied with just "combat accuracy."

Here's why

In Suarez's article, he speaks of an 8 x 4-inch "kill zone."

I would pose that in-reality, it's much smaller than that. That while the target that Suarez suggests is a great starting point from which to sharpen and hone our skills, we need to strive for better.

The real problem is that we live in a three dimensional world. Even before we take into consideration the factor of movement - and wow, if a mover is harder to hit, that moving head is the devil for those of you in NE-Ohio, I heartily recommend both Andrew Blubaugh's Apex Shooting and Tactics (http://www.apexshooting.com/?ckattempt=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; - video of his mover setup here: https://www.facebook.com/ApexShootingTa ... _video_set" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and https://www.facebook.com/ApexShootingTa ... _video_set" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) as well as the Campbell family's Commence Fire Training Academy (http://www.commencefire.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; - video of their very unique mover track here: https://www.facebook.com/14806135854175 ... _video_set" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) as two excellent schools that bring out moving target systems for various classes - the simple fact that as a target rotates through space will mean that the target can be much more refined than we would have anticipated, given our square-range, paper-target training and practice.

That 8 to 9 inch paper plate makes for a great flat target - simulating the high-center-chest area that we're all taught to bullet-dump as fast as possible into because of the organs and great vessels that, when the body presents full-on, resides there. But how big is that target when a person is sideways?

If you get a chance, watch the late Louis Awerbuck's stuff on Panteao Productions. The DVD is great, heck, even the free YouTube stuff is good enough to get us started for this discussion.

That vital zone really shrinks and does weird stuff in real-life when angles and movement comes into play.

In addition to the body-size metric Awerbuck presented in the free Panteao Productions "Tactical Tips" segment (abstracted from his full-length DVD, from the same source - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ivoDD6_m0I" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;), we are reminded by him that the actual "vital area" for a human target, high-center-mass, is really no wider than 9 inches, full-frontal, no matter how big the person. That this "breast-plate," as he calls it, essentially shrinks when the target is presented to the shooter at an angle.

You can visualize this "shrinkage" quite easily simply by holding up any two-dimensional printed target tilting it away from you. For example, the width of an 8 and 1/2 inch wide sheet of common notebook/copier paper becomes an apparent 6 inches, with only about a 20-degree shift. Additionally, Awerbuck points out that shooting at a side-profile of a person, you only have a 4-inch wide target to work with, that by the time a target is bladed away from you by 45 degrees, this is all you have of their vital zone (this is alluded to when he presented the "folded" printed target in the "Target Selection" free "Tactical Tip" from Panteao - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_h3oQDUWO4U" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;).

Additional complications arise from anatomic concerns when the body is rotated in space, and these considerations are not visualized with standard 2-dimensional targets.

Look at the "CNS shot" - typically portrayed in various two-dimensional targets as the "eye box."

We are reminded by Awerbuck that this "eye box" zone is only valid when the target is directly facing us in much the same manner that we view a flat-range 2-dimensional paper target. Why? Look at the anatomy - look at what we are actually shooting: we're not shooting "the brain" as a whole - that critical "eyebox" delineates an area not only of material weakness in the bony structure that is our skull, but also has further implications in terms of the areas of the brain which govern the vital functions that keeps us, as humans, alive. To-wit, Representative Gabrielle Giffords was "shot in the brain."

Similar implications carry over to the vital organs and large vessels in the "high center chest" critical area - that depending on how that target actually presents in real-time, in 3-dimensions, taking that "high center chest" shot may actually no produce the result we want (i.e. incapacitation) - that maybe the shot needed to have instead entered through the abdomen or even the crotch, or, in the above CNS example, maybe through the neck area in order to reach the anatomy that we need to disrupt.

http://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/v ... ts-008333/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

^ I don't often cite Pincus, but this is a very good video which takes a look at what happens when that target is three-dimensional. Similarly, while Tatiana Whitlock does not have the cachet of the operational or instructional background that someone like the late Louis Awerbuck or Claude Werner (whose article "Why I hate the -3 Zone" also applies here, in-spades: https://tacticalprofessor.wordpress.com ... he-3-zone/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) does, and one could even say that her advice is not selfless (as she is the owner of IDTS), nevertheless, that neither invalidates the science nor the reasoning behind the advice she puts forward below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHnicUST3js" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Marksmanship is never a bad thing.

In addition to the above anatomic/physical considerations, Awerbuck also reminds us that the physical circumstances of the fight can also be used to explain why even trained shooters miss at even close range - that the inverse proportions and simple angular geometry can demonstrate that a dynamic, moving target can well be easier to hit at 13 yards than it is to hit at 3, and that furthermore, at closer range, that angular deviation will open up more of the backdrop, making Cooper's "Rule 4" all that much more important when shooting "in the real world." [ Having a hard time grasping these concepts? I did, too, but a very good way to visualize the concepts being discussed here is to review what we know about angles and shooting from cover, and here's an excellent instructional by XDTalk's mbquimby - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqYbpezrzR8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ]

It's all too easy to say that "combat effective" shooting is more than sufficient for "the real world." But that flat-range 2-dimensional target we're shooting at is far from "the real world," and getting "combat effective" hits on it does not translate to what we know of either anatomy or physics.

No-one ever wished they shot slower or were less accurate.

Yes, shooting more rounds, faster, inherently biases the BSA template and compromises accuracy.

That is true for everybody from the completely-fresh-to-shooting novice all the way to the most badass of ninja-killers and even top-tier competition shooters.

But each and every one of those individuals - myself included - could shoot faster and more accurately if only we practiced to do so: if we only realized that with proper instruction and practice, we can go faster, we can be more accurate.

Train longer distances so that you can be confident that you can make those long-distance shots (because in the real-world, who knows, maybe you're put into the same kind of situation that Vic Stacy or Sgt. Adam Johnson or even that Chicago Uber driver found themselves in - in the real world, you don't get to dictate the conditions of your gunfight) . A lot of shooting is mental, and there's nowhere that mindset is tested more, in terms of the fundamentals of marksmanship, than at-distance. As I wrote at the start, everyone who's shot with me knows that I'm the first to admit that when I start pushing yardage is when I start to fall apart. But hey, I keep trying!

And now that we've back-tracked to the start of my post, despite my going on and on (and on) about marksmanship here, I wrote that it should be a given.

I think that proficiency and confidence in one's mechanical skills are necessary because of this:

http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/t ... st-attacks" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

^ That came through on Greg Ellifritz's Active Response feed yesterday.

It's about virtually everything -BUT- the mechanical act of shooting, and, at least to me, there were LOTS of things that I either did not think much about or, I will admit, that I was completely ignorant of, but which are clearly tremendously important.

Indeed, what if, as Ellifritz wrote, I had taken that shot?

- What is your backstop in the event you miss? A crowd of several hundred people. Still want to take that shot?
- See the backpack on his chest? It’s full of home made bombs and grenades. If you hit it, they will probably blow up. Where are you aiming? Center mass? Boom. You’re dead. You are inside the 15 meter “break even” zone. Game over.
- What you don’t see is the two other terrorists in the crowd behind you. As soon as you engage this guy, you get shot in the back of the head. Bang. Game over.
- If you happen to not hit any innocents, avoid shooting the bomb, take out the shooter and his two accomplices, you think you are the hero. Wrong. You didn’t see the sniper on the roof. Game over. Again.

And we really don't have to play the "what if" game all that much. For one, this not so long ago incident served as reminder to all of us that "the second man" is a very real concern:

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/crime ... ting-spree" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Similarly, with the issue of that backdrop and Rule 4, let's revisit the distance-to-target paradox of that "law of inverse proportions" that Awerbuck spoke of. That miss ain't gonna be pretty, and I know what kind of rather dismal hit-percentage I'm getting at the 25...when the target isn't even moving.

Don't get me wrong. I still think that the mechanical skill of being able to execute such shots is important. But I think that, oftentimes, we in "the gun world" tend to get too hung up on the hardware side of the equation, and to think of it purely as a shooting equation (reading the Suarez post, Mr. Glock, I could not help but think back to that Carson City, NV, IHOP incident and the controversy that their posts stirred up: http://blog.suarezinternational.com/201 ... p7md1KOeW4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and http://blog.suarezinternational.com/201 ... p7mc1KOeW4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;), with perhaps not enough thought into the "what ifs" that truly, given today's threat context, can be just as relevant, if not more.

All this is my way - the loooooooooooong way - of saying that mindset matters. I will admit to the fact that I've played more ninja than most, but I don't necessarily think that would suggest that I'm somehow better (or worse, for that matter) equipped than anyone else here. Take a look at this:

http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/2016/01/ ... /78655818/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In that initial scenario, Mr. Hardin - with easily twice the number of hours logged in training as the other shooters who participated in the test - failed to recognize that the shooter wore body armor. He delivered excellent center-mass shots, but under the rules of the scenario, they were ineffective, and what's more, his stand-and-deliver tactic, even if it won the fight for him, still likely would have meant that he wasn't going home to his loved ones. I honestly can't help but see me in his shoes.

What concerns me less is skill. To me, I *must* attain that skill.

What worries me more is whether or not I will have the proper mindset to actually do the right thing, under such dire circumstance.

This is a great thread you started, Mr. Glock, and I hope that others will add to the discussion.

[TSiWRX]

Oh, and to balance things out, I wanted to stress that it's simply just all about the BSA template.

That one needs to have a feel for the need for speed, versus the need for precision/accuracy.

The exact situation will dictate the BSA template that needs to be shot.

http://hcstx.org/2016/01/16/active-shoo ... -training/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

^ In this article, the author presents the following as his concluding point:

Understanding Combat Shooting

Always Stay Realistic when you are doing these types of drills; yeah you may not be able to shoot the “bullseye” out, but Remember: We are talking about “Combat Shooting” here, NOT “Target Shooting” your goal is to hit the target with combat effective hits while not being hit yourself; in short, to kill the enemy. Now typically “Combat Effective” hits means Center-of-Mass or Head shots, but not always. In the Philly Officers case, shooting the attacker in the butt was “Combat Effective” because it slowed the attacker down long enough for other officers to arrest him. Now should we train to shoot our attackers in the butt? Of course not, my point is that every Situation is going to be different, Bottom Line: ANY Hit on the Attacker is going to be GOOD for You and BAD for them, but always shoot to KILL and not to WOUND when your life is at stake.

The question is always "what do I need to do to get the job done?"

Do I just need to slow down the threat? Or do I need to shut that threat down, right now?

And similarly, I also wanted to point out this article because it again counterbalances my post above. The author presents some very good points regarding the need to learn and develop specific techniques.

[Bama.45]

I have been practicing head shots as well at 25 yds, it's tough to do with a handgun... Thats why handguns suck in a firefight lol.. But it is what we have to work with so we have to as one of the Marines motto is: Improvise, Adapt and Overcome... You can also go for pelvic girdle shots. While pelvic shots will most likely not be as effective as a head shot.. You do have a bigger target with lots of tender organs that would most likely slow an attacker and may take their mobility away and if you hit a femoral artery that could end the fight pretty quickly due to blood loss..

Just my thoughts anyway.

[Mr. Glock]

The article makes a good point that a pelvic shot has its place in personal defense, but a combat-proven terrorist (or even a decently-trained one) will just keep shooting from the ground.

If you are elated at death, that changes the response to being shot. You expect it and plan to fight as long as possible. I think that point has some validity.

[TSiWRX]

I have been practicing head shots as well at 25 yds, it's tough to do with a handgun... Thats why handguns suck in a firefight lol.. But it is what we have to work with so we have to as one of the Marines motto is: Improvise, Adapt and Overcome... You can also go for pelvic girdle shots. While pelvic shots will most likely not be as effective as a head shot.. You do have a bigger target with lots of tender organs that would most likely slow an attacker and may take their mobility away and if you hit a femoral artery that could end the fight pretty quickly due to blood loss..

Just my thoughts anyway.

The article makes a good point that a pelvic shot has its place in personal defense, but a combat-proven terrorist (or even a decently-trained one) will just keep shooting from the ground.

If you are elated at death, that changes the response to being shot. You expect it and plan to fight as long as possible. I think that point has some validity.

The other issue with pelvic shots is that while a high-velocity rifle round will do some damage, handgun rounds have been argued to be rather inconsistent in how well they truly effect physical incapacitation in this area.

The way I see it, that argument could well last into infinity, with both sides presenting valid points. For me, though, there's a more practical concern.

I'm going to link out to a post of mine on XDTalk. I think even non-members will be able to see the images properly:

http://www.xdtalk.com/posts/4862524/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

For those of us who've shot targets with even a T-shirt draped over them, we know how deceiving even just that simple article of clothing can be: that "high center chest" shot becomes kinda a guessing game, and that's just with a cardboard target we all know and love, like a standard IPSC or IDPA. If we draped that T-shirt over a 3-dimensional target and started turning it about its vertical axis or tilted it in any manner, things just start to get crazy, don't they?

So we look at even those printed 2-dimensional targets that I cited in that XDTalk thread...for as difficult as it may be to judge exactly where the high-center-chest vital organs are, look at how just the few pieces of clothing start to really screw with where the pelvic girdle happens to be.

As with that head shot, I also don't think the pelvic girdle is as easy of a target as some trainers make them out to be.

The way I see it - and this is purely my most sincerely humbly ignorant I-play-ninja-on-the-weekend viewpoint here - instead of thinking of things in a regimented manner of "two to the chest and one to the head" or "zipper" from the crotch or "go for the pelvic shot to 'root' the threat," we've got to start looking at it as what some call an "NSR," a non-standard response. That we shoot-to-effect no matter where we start landing that first shot on the threat.

Looking back at that WFAA ABC8 news story above, Mr. Hardin, I think, did not fail in the first scenario so much in his shooting - rather, that he failed at the mindset. Had those shots been effected with a real pistol on someone with real body-armor, I think it's quite possible that his shots would have at least made *some* effect on-target. Now, whether or not that effect would have been sufficient to have caused the threat to in-turn be off-target - to have prevented the threat from shooting him, in-turn - that, I do not think that any of us can possibly predict, but it does lead me to ask the what-if of "what if Hardin had moved to a more advantageous point before starting to engage," like either Martin or Beeman did? That, if, for example, Hardin had taken Beeman's position in the darkened area across from the cubicles, would he then have had the time to realize that the threat he was actively engaging (now from the back) was wearing body-armor, and to then have had the time to shift his POA to accommodate for this piece of information that he obviously did not have time to analyze and act upon in having squared off with the threat?

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that I agree with both of you, Bama.45 and Mr. Glock. That we've got to take a page from our brave US Marines - to not only "Improvise, Adapt, and Overcome," but to take that motto to the fullest and also realize that the "viable target(s)" we've been taught to shoot at may, depending upon circumstances, not actually necessarily be desirable.

Look at what ended the fight for Officer Gramins and Officer Reston. In each case, it was the deliberate realization of "hey, these are the shots I'm going to have to effect in order to end the fight."

Officer Harnett was gravely injured by his cowardly enemy's first volley, but he exited his vehicle and was able to, single-handed while severely wounded, shoot the suspect in the buttocks. I haven't seen the medical reports from this event, yet, but I'd wager to say that even if the wound was only superficial, that it may still have slowed him down physically or potentially disrupted his mental state enough that it facilitated his capture. In this case, maybe Officer Harnett was no longer capable of the marksmanship necessary to effect that head shot - but he did, nevertheless, make effective shots: he did his best to make sure that the suspect wasn't going to get far.

I think that both of you, Bama.45 and [/b]Mr. Glock, made excellent points - as did Brian D. for his very astute mention of that low-probability shot.

This is the kind of stuff that keeps me up at night........

[TSiWRX]

By the way....

This is just me talking off the top of my head.

I'm no ninja killer. I have never had any kind of military, LE, or security/protection experience. I'm just an average suburban dad.

I don't think I've even watched enough Homeland to qualify to critique that show (although I did catch every episode of 24!)......

If I'm grossly wrong about anything - heck, even if I'm just a little mixed up - I'd love it if someone, anyone, would come forth and correct me and/or engage me in a debate about the errors of my thinking.

[Mr. Glock]

The only error of your thinking is probably that you think too much. And I say that with love in my heart, Allen, as I enjoy your posts. If you hand't written a big post on this topic, I would have been personally hurt.

As the movie line goes, "When it is time to shoot...shoot. Don't talk"

[TSiWRX]

The only error of your thinking is probably that you think too much. And I say that with love in my heart, Allen, as I enjoy your posts. If you hand't written a big post on this topic, I would have been personally hurt.

I'm hoping that the right training and right practice and right meditation will help cut down on the the analysis paralysis of Hick's Law ( http://forcenecessarytv.blogspot.com/20 ... s-law.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ).

As the movie line goes, "When it is time to shoot...shoot. Don't talk"

+1. And emphatically so, at that!

[TSiWRX]

Greg Ellifritz's "Weekend Knowledge Dump" this past week is, as-usual, full of awesome reading - but also extremely pertinent to much of what has been discussed here in this thread.

I'd encourage y'all to check it out and subscribe, if you're not already on the list:

http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/w ... ry-22-2016" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Mr. Glock]

So, I was able to get out and run the same set up with a 9mm Glock 19, almost exactly 300 fps less with identical grain weight bullets (124,125...really, it is not that exact). No difference for me, I ended up with pretty much exactly the same results.

[TSiWRX]

^ Where's the "thumbs up" emoji for this Forum?

[TSiWRX]

Going back to what I mentioned above about marksmanship:

http://www.shootingillustrated.com/arti ... dd-angles/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[TSiWRX]

http://bearingarms.com/active-shootings-just-fast/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

^ I really need more scenario-based training......

Locally in NE-Ohio, the only instructor/school I know of that offers scenario-based FoF is Ron Lauinger, at StreetCombatives: http://www.streetcombatives.us/index.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; , specifically
- http://www.streetcombatives.us/reality% ... andgun.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
- http://www.streetcombatives.us/reality% ... 0light.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
- http://www.streetcombatives.us/cqc%20gun%20fighting.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I haven't been out to Ron's in quite a while, so I haven't taken his "reality-based," classes. I started off my training path with him when he held life-fire firearms classes, and I've also taken a couple of knife/ECQC seminars with him - it's great stuff, the latter of which I'm looking to get back to once my oral reconstruction (finally ) gets sorted out.

Are there any other Ohio schools/instructors that offer scenario-based force-on-force?