Pelvic Girdle

[Hudson69]

Hola,
Any shooters out there train to put rounds into this area. It has come up with some of the people I shoot with as a potentially better place to effectively render a bandit immobile and less of a threat since body shots are hard to make into instant "man-stoppers" and head shots are harder to pull off. The thought is if you can take out a hip, even if the shooter is still semi-functional he/she is mostly immobilized.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Hola,
Any shooters out there train to put rounds into this area. It has come up with some of the people I shoot with as a potentially better place to effectively render a bandit immobile and less of a threat since body shots are hard to make into instant "man-stoppers" and head shots are harder to pull off. The thought is if you can take out a hip, even if the shooter is still semi-functional he/she is mostly immobilized.

It's an option, though I don't train for it specifically. Center of mass and head shots are my preference. In aiming situation, I trust my ability to hit the head. In a far more rapid point shoot situation, center mass is the way to go anyway, or if it's nearly punch out and touch them range, back to simply punching the gun in their face and squeezing the trigger.

Where pelvic girdle shots would seem to be most preferable is EXTREME close range (guy on TOP of you), where one cannot draw and get extension, merely draw and cant the gun forward at a downward 45 degrees and fire......repeat as needed until space is made.

 

[Skpotamus]

I've seen it talked about on other forums and pretty much thought of as a bad idea by most people.

First, their is a lot of doubt about a handgun actually being able to break the pelvis. There's been lots of people in 60mph+ car crashes that didn't break their hip bones (the lap belt goes right across your pelvis), if that amount of energy doesn't break it (enough energy to bend and snap steel that handgun rounds bounce off of), I doubt a pistol bullet will.

Even if it does work, and say the pelvis breaks and the guy drops like a sack of potatoes.... nothing has been done to immobilize his arms, so if he has a gun, he can still shoot you with it. Which is going to depend on the mindset of the guy shot. Some people might freak out at the sound of gunfire, or drop with a graze to the arm, others fight after taking shots to the head and body.

The general consensus I've seen on other forums was to pump as many rounds into the bad guy as you can until they are out of the fight. If the body doesn't put them down, transition to the head.

Personally, after some FoF training, I found head shots easier to pull off than I thought they would be. Realistic civilian engagement distances are typically close (well within 3 yards). Even the home invasion scenario isn't a long distance thing, take a look around your house and see what the longest straight line is. Now keep in mind it's your home, so you'll probably have a long gun available.


As always, YMMV.

 

[lklawson]

I don't think it's a bad idea. There are significant nerve bundles and arteries/veins running through the area. As stated earlier you might not be able to get a bone break. However, you still might get a knock-down due to balance disruption.

But I think there are better target areas for firearms. CoM is still the best target area, IMO. Lots of squishing things that bleed a lot when you poke holes in them or cause people to die when they stop working (due to having holes poked in them).

That said, I think Pelvic Girdle is as viable a target as the head. Just as hard to hit the target area (size). Plus, there seems to be lots of anecdotal stories of pistol caliber rounds bouncing off of skulls.

Nah. CoM 'till the threat is neutralized or you run dry.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Grenadier]

Adrenaline surges create tunnel vision, and for most of us folks here, I'm not so sure that we'd be thinking about going for the pelvis in the heat of the moment. Going for head shots if COM hits aren't working should already be ingrained in someone's mind, and if it isn't then practice, practice, practice.

Maybe repeated training on this could help condition someone, though, that it could become a response that's unconsciously done?

 

[Dirty Dog]

Having treated more gun shot wounds than I care to count, I would have to say that it is not a quick, easy, or reliable way to take an opponent out of a fight.

A handgun is unlikely to break the bones of the pelvis. Further, even if it does, most of the pelvic fractures I have seen fall into the non-weight bearing category; they will not stop the person from walking.

And although there are significant neural and vascular structures in the pelvis, they are not prone to damage from cavitation. Certainly a direct hit to the femoral artery will kill, and quickly. But if you can score a direct hit on an artery the diameter of your index finger, why aren't you going for the headshot? Or the chest, where the aorta is not only bigger than the femoral, but more prone to cavitation injury.

To quote my mother: Two in the chest and one in the head, leaves the target good and dead.

 

[Dirty Dog]

That said, I think Pelvic Girdle is as viable a target as the head. Just as hard to hit the target area (size). Plus, there seems to be lots of anecdotal stories of pistol caliber rounds bouncing off of skulls.

Nah. CoM 'till the threat is neutralized or you run dry.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

While the head and the pelvis are simliar sized, a gunshot to the head is an order of magnitude more likely to result in death or immediate disability than one to the pelvis.

As far as pistol rounds bouncing off skulls... In 30 years of EMS, I've heard them all. I've actually seen it twice. In both cases, they were .22 caliber, short barrel handguns, and the shot clearly hit the head at a significant angle. Twice. I don't care to try and count how many I have seen that did not bounce... And those certainly are not odds I'd like to count on.

 

[KenpoTex]

I don't buy the whole incapacitation thing...I've seen too many articles by medical professionals (e.g. Dr. Martin Fackler of the IWBA) to be convinced that specifically targeting the pelvis is a viable tactic. As others have pointed out, pistol rounds are VERY unlikely to do enough damage to the pelvis or femur to actually render the person mechanically unable to move/stand.

Obviously, I'll shoot whatever is available. If they're behind cover or partially obscured, I'll shoot what I can see until they either give up or another target becomes available. However, I'm not going to specifically target the pelvis if the upper torso or head is available.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Having treated more gun shot wounds than I care to count, I would have to say that it is not a quick, easy, or reliable way to take an opponent out of a fight.

A handgun is unlikely to break the bones of the pelvis. Further, even if it does, most of the pelvic fractures I have seen fall into the non-weight bearing category; they will not stop the person from walking.

And although there are significant neural and vascular structures in the pelvis, they are not prone to damage from cavitation. Certainly a direct hit to the femoral artery will kill, and quickly. But if you can score a direct hit on an artery the diameter of your index finger, why aren't you going for the headshot? Or the chest, where the aorta is not only bigger than the femoral, but more prone to cavitation injury.

To quote my mother: Two in the chest and one in the head, leaves the target good and dead.

I'd say that's pretty spot on............probably nothing short of a shotgun would get the predicted 'Pelvic Girdle' response.

Handgun rounds are simply anemic man-stoppers.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Exactly. In fact as I had heard of it the pelvic-girdle technique was to be considered a shotgun technique *only*.

 

[Deaf Smith]

I kind of see both sides of the issue.

The head is hard to hit. It is also armored with bone that is shaped to make things glance off it. But a hit there tends to turn the lights out.

And the pelvic region, while not as vital or immediate, it does then to force the opponent to collapse to the ground (but they still can shoot!)

If, say, in a crowded place where a head shot, if missed, would endanger many people, then the pelvic shot would be indicated. And if the range was very short, and a good opening for a head shot, well that would be the first choice.

Our real problem is we train to shoot COM so much we tend to forget the possibility of bullet proof vest.

At the Tyler Texas Court House shooting, the killer, Arroyo had both a flak jacket and bullet proof vest on. Wilson kept shooting COM several times and Arroyo fell to the ground. Wilson, not realizing Arroyo got up, turned around and went behind the truck. Arroyo followed and shot him in the back with an AK.

If Wilson had just fired twice COM, and as Farnam says, ‘assess’, then maybe he would have realized COM wasn’t doing anything and went for the head shot.

Deaf

 

[sgtmac_46]

I kind of see both sides of the issue.

The head is hard to hit. It is also armored with bone that is shaped to make things glance off it. But a hit there tends to turn the lights out.

And the pelvic region, while not as vital or immediate, it does then to force the opponent to collapse to the ground (but they still can shoot!)

If, say, in a crowded place where a head shot, if missed, would endanger many people, then the pelvic shot would be indicated. And if the range was very short, and a good opening for a head shot, well that would be the first choice.

Our real problem is we train to shoot COM so much we tend to forget the possibility of bullet proof vest.

At the Tyler Texas Court House shooting, the killer, Arroyo had both a flak jacket and bullet proof vest on. Wilson kept shooting COM several times and Arroyo fell to the ground. Wilson, not realizing Arroyo got up, turned around and went behind the truck. Arroyo followed and shot him in the back with an AK.

If Wilson had just fired twice COM, and as Farnam says, ‘assess’, then maybe he would have realized COM wasn’t doing anything and went for the head shot.

Deaf

It's true, and why training only COM is in error.........the good Col. invented the 'Mozambique Drill' for a reason.........when COM fails, go to the head.

 

[lklawson]

As far as pistol rounds bouncing off skulls... In 30 years of EMS, I've heard them all. I've actually seen it twice. In both cases, they were .22 caliber, short barrel handguns, and the shot clearly hit the head at a significant angle. Twice. I don't care to try and count how many I have seen that did not bounce... And those certainly are not odds I'd like to count on.

I'm not a fan of head shots in any case. Like I said, CoM until either the threat is stopped or you run dry.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

Our real problem is we train to shoot COM so much we tend to forget the possibility of bullet proof vest.

I've search high and low in vain to find even semi-reliable statistics on how many civilian self defense firearms exchanges have the BG in armour.

I still have not found any. To date, I've collected a tiny handful of anecdotal stories in which the BG was armoure up. But for every anecdote of BG in armour, I can point to more than 100 which do not. Therefore, at the moment, I must conclude that the odds of the BG in armour is unlikely in the EXTREME.

I have heard that, down near the border, smugglers are beginning to make armour a standard accessory. But, first, I'm in Ohio and second, I take that with a grain of salt as being hear-say since I can't seem to find any official/semi-official reports corroborating the claim.

If anyone has actual statistics on armoured vs. unarmoured BGs in civilian (or even LEO) shootings, I'd be grateful.

In any case, if I determine that odds of me having to run against a bullet resistant vest go up to a point of serious consideration, I have a solution:

I figure I'll pattern load standard ball and XTPs from Reeds Ammo.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Deaf Smith]

Kirk,

One comes to mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler_courthouse_shooting

Even Bonny and Clyde had some! I think Dillenger did to!

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

They used vest to. In fact they were armored from head to toe!

Deaf

 

[sgtmac_46]

I've search high and low in vain to find even semi-reliable statistics on how many civilian self defense firearms exchanges have the BG in armour.

I still have not found any. To date, I've collected a tiny handful of anecdotal stories in which the BG was armoure up. But for every anecdote of BG in armour, I can point to more than 100 which do not. Therefore, at the moment, I must conclude that the odds of the BG in armour is unlikely in the EXTREME.

I have heard that, down near the border, smugglers are beginning to make armour a standard accessory. But, first, I'm in Ohio and second, I take that with a grain of salt as being hear-say since I can't seem to find any official/semi-official reports corroborating the claim.

If anyone has actual statistics on armoured vs. unarmoured BGs in civilian (or even LEO) shootings, I'd be grateful.

In any case, if I determine that odds of me having to run against a bullet resistant vest go up to a point of serious consideration, I have a solution:

I figure I'll pattern load standard ball and XTPs from Reeds Ammo.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Body armor is only ONE reason to train to place head shots........another far more likely and common reason is a BG partial obscured behind cover.......the fact is that BG's won't always comply by firing from the open........so you have to shoot off whatever they stick out.

 

[lklawson]

Kirk,

One comes to mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler_courthouse_shooting

Even Bonny and Clyde had some! I think Dillenger did to!

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

They used vest to. In fact they were armored from head to toe!

Deaf

Yes, thanks, I'm familiar with these instances and I can provide at least 100 others that didn't include armour for each.

I'm not looking for anecdotal instances, but rather for some sort of reliable statistics on how often it happens to compare against how often it does not.

If, for instance, if some reputable statistics generating organization released that for every 10,000 civilian SD encounters, only 1 had the BG wearing any sort of body armour, then we can pretty much dismiss it as a statistical aberration and focus our training and concern on far more likely scenarios. On the other hand, if the same statistics indicated that it was more like 1 in 100 then we might need to start thinking about it. 1 in 10 and it's a very real concern.

At the moment, based on media reports and other non-reliable information, which is all that seems to be available, BG's wearing body armour appears to be somewhere well over the 1 in 100 and approaching the 1 in 1,000 if not less.

In short, from everything I can tell, BG's wearing body armour simply isn't an issue for the average SD minded civvie. But I'd really like to have some concrete numbers to make a more informed decision on.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

Body armor is only ONE reason to train to place head shots........another far more likely and common reason is a BG partial obscured behind cover.......the fact is that BG's won't always comply by firing from the open........so you have to shoot off whatever they stick out.

I agree with that. But if the BG is not exposing CoM then the Double Tap/H-and-H is simply not on the table.

I'm not arguing against marksmanship. I'm arguing for highest percentage effectiveness.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[jks9199]

Body armor is only ONE reason to train to place head shots........another far more likely and common reason is a BG partial obscured behind cover.......the fact is that BG's won't always comply by firing from the open........so you have to shoot off whatever they stick out.

This is a common misunderstanding; everyone talks about "shooting center mass" as if the idea is to shoot the center of the body. And -- if the person is standing face on at you, it is. But if they're hiding behind a wall, with only the left side of their body exposed, the idea is to shoot the center of what you can see. Same thing if all you can see is the head. In either situation, you maximize your chances of a successful hit by shooting to the center of the biggest lump you can see.

 

[Skpotamus]

Body Armor? Every single incident where a BG had a shootout with police and was wearing body armor started out with them and civilians. The reason for the switch for law enforcement to the 357 magnum back in the day was that gangsters were wearing vests that could stop the lighter rounds they were using. This was the 20's and 30's.

I think that you need to look at head shots from the viewpoint of a "victim" and not a LEO. Our attackers will be CLOSE. Close enough to talk, close enough to grab you, stab you, etc. They don't want to be shouting out for your wallet for all the world to hear, they want it quiet so others don't come to help you. Pretty much conversation distance and closer. At that 3-10 foot range, head shots are easily doable, even by bad marksmen.

Police get to deal with the guys that are holed up behind a car, in a building, etc, and have to deal with longer shots than any civilian will ever have to.