Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Center Mass Myth

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Toolbox X
    Veteran Member
    • Jan 2005
    • 2602

    Center Mass Myth

    This article does an excellent job of explaining how difficult it is to quickly stop a threat using bullets, in real life. I highly recommend everyone read it.

    Surviving a gunfight isn't what you think it is. Don’t let conventional wisdom get you killed. A well place round to "center mass" in your attacker may not take him out of the fight. Lots of people stay in the fight after "center mass" hits, and some even win it. If you expect to win your gunfight, you have to make sure that you have effectively ended the threat of your attacker. One, two or even several well placed "center mass" shots may not do what you think it will, and learning to recognize this before you gunfight may save your life. There is a self styled self defense “expert” under every rock, and perhaps two behind every bush, these days. If you have a pet theory on what might work on the street then you can probably find a champion for that idea who actually charges people to teach them that skill. But few of the experts out there have ever been in gunfights, and even fewer have studied real gunfights to see how things really work out when the bullets really fly for blood.


    The “Center Mass” Myth and Ending a Gunfight

    By Jim Higginbotham

    Surviving a gunfight isn’t what you think it is. Don’t let conventional wisdom get you killed. A well place round to “center mass” in your attacker may not take him out of the fight. Lots of people stay in the fight after “center mass” hits, and some even win it. If you expect to win your gunfight, you have to make sure that you have effectively ended the threat of your attacker. One, two or even several well placed “center mass” shots may not do what you think it will, and learning to recognize this before you gunfight may save your life.

    There is a self styled self defense “expert” under every rock, and perhaps two behind every bush, these days. If you have a pet theory on what might work on the street then you can probably find a champion for that idea who actually charges people to teach them that skill. But few of the experts out there have ever been in gunfights, and even fewer have studied real gunfights to see how things really work out when the bullets really fly for blood.

    There are more misconceptions out there than I can cover in one article but the one that probably gets to me the most, even over all the caliber wars that rage interminably in the print and cyber media, is the nearly universal acceptance that shooting a miscreant “center mass” with ________(fill in your favorite make, model and caliber) shooting _________ (fill in your favorite ammunition) hyper speed truck killer is practically guaranteed to get the job done.

    Having studied in this field from a number of decades, I have run into plenty of cases where bullets did not do what folks would have assumed. And I have now collected enough of these that I think that rather than being anomalies, they are actually closer to the norm. Center mass hits in a gunfight do not in most cases end the fight. Erroneous assumptions can get you killed!

    There is a well known video in training circles in which a Highway Patrol officer shoots an armed subject 5 times “center mass” (this is not my assessment but the statement of his immediate supervisors which are interviewed on the full version of the hour long tape) with his 4” .357 Magnum revolver firing hollow point ammunition. All 5 hits failed to do the job and the subject was able to fire one round which struck the officer in the armpit. That round wondered around in the chest cavity and found his heart. The officer unfortunately died at the scene and his attacker is alive today.

    In a class I conduct under the title “Fire For Effect” I start out by showing a video of standoff in which a hostage taker is fired on by police with .223 rifles and .40 caliber handguns. Throughout the whole disturbing sequence, which lasts about 10 seconds, the bad guy is hit multiple times in the torso with both rifle and pistol rounds. You can see him place his non-firing hand to his chest, clearly a lung is hit. However he is able to shoot his hostage 3 times, not rapidly. The hostage, a trim female, is active throughout the scene but later died from her wounds. In this case both the attacker and the victim had “center mass” hits that had no immediate effect.

    I have accumulated confirmed incidents in which people have been shot “center mass” up to 55 times with 9mm JHP ammunition (the subject was hit 106 times, but 55 of those hits were ruled by the coroner to be each lethal in and of themselves) before he went down. During training at the FBI Academy we were told of a case in which agents shot a bank robber 65 times with 9mm, .223 and 00 buckshot – he survived! These are not rare cases. The happen quite often.

    If a gunfight ever comes your way, your attacker may fall to a hit to the liver and he may not. He may fall to two or three hits to the kidneys, intestines or spleen, but he may not. He will certainly be in bad health. He likely will not survive, but what he does for the next several seconds to a few minutes is not guaranteed because you hit him “center mass.”

    Heart and lung hits don’t statistically fare much better. I have three students and three other acquaintances who were all shot in a lung at the outset of gunfights. The students came to me after their fights to learn how to keep from getting shot again. Last time I checked all of those people were still alive and the people who shot them are still dead. Every one of them was able to respond effectively after being shot “center mass”, one might even say they were shot in the “A-zone”. And they were shot with .38 Special (three of them), 9mm, .357 Magnum and 8mm Mauser, so it’s not all about caliber. One of those was a Chicom 12.7 mm round! He lived next door to me for many years.

    So, what’s a person to do? First off, realize that one shot, even a fairly well placed shot may not do the job so don’t set there and admire your handiwork or wait for it to take effect. But even two hits may not get the job done!

    After years of trying to get a grasp on this I have come to look at the results of shooting a living breathing target – be it a human attacker or a game animal – as falling into 3 or 4 categories. They are :

    Instant Collapse – this takes place 1 to 2 seconds from the shot being fired
    Rapid Collapse – this can take from 3 to 15 seconds and is quite common.
    Marginal Effect – this can even be a lethal hit but it takes from 15 to 300 (yes 300!) or even more seconds.
    The 4th is simply unacceptable and is a total failure.
    The last category we don’t like to discuss but happens too often . We saw it recently in Washington with a Center Mass hit from an officer’s pistol and the subject was still walking around the next day.

    What is “effective” shooting? Sad to say, it is demanding. It is also, I think, variable depending on the conditions. For example, the robber armed with a scattergun who is standing 10 feet away must be stopped “right now!” If you do not bring about Instant Collapse someone may very well die…that someone may be you!

    On the other hand, if there is a gang banger launching bullets in your general direction using un-aimed fire about 20 yards away then a hit that brings about Rapid Collapse might do the job.

    I cannot imagine a Marginally Effective result being very desirable in any case, but it does buy you some time in some cases.

    How does this relate to hits? In order to achieve Instant Collapse you must scramble the “circuitry” that keeps the bad guy on the attack. That means the brain or spinal cord.

    The head is not only a fairly difficult target to hit in the real world – because it moves a lot – but it is also difficult to penetrate and get a pistol bullet into the place it must be to be effective. For normal purposes we might write off the head, keeping it in reserve for very special circumstances.

    The spine is not that easy to hit either. It isn’t large, and to be effective the hit needs to be in the upper 1/3 of the spine or at a point about level with the tip of the sternum. I think that is around T11. But of course the huge problem is that it is hidden by the rest of the body. We are the good guys, we don’t go around shooting people in the back. So the exact location is something that can only be learned through lots of practice on 3D targets. Your point of aim on the surface changes with the angle at which the target is facing.

    The bottom of the spine isn’t much use. I know of several people shot in the pelvis. It did not break them down as many theorize. I am not saying it doesn’t happen but in the only case I know of in which it did the person who was “anchored” with a .357 magnum to the pelvis killed the person that shot him – you can shoot just fine from prone.

    A shot, or preferably multiple shots to the heart and major arteries above the heart (not below!) may achieve Rapid Collapse, but not always. Officer Stacy Lim was shot in the heart at contact distance with a .357 Magnum and is still alive and her attacker is still dead! Score one for the good guys…or in this case gals!

    So now what constitutes Marginal Effectiveness? A hit to the lungs! Even multiple hits to the lungs. Unfortunately though, most often lung hits are effective in ending the fight because the subject decides to quit the fight, not because he MUST. A famous Colonel Louis LeGarde once wrote what is considered “the” book on gunshot wounds. 65% of his patients shot through the lungs – with rifles! – survived with the predominant treatment being only bed rest!
    (cont...)
  • #2
    Toolbox X
    Veteran Member
    • Jan 2005
    • 2602

    (...cont)

    Comment

    • #3
      FourLoko
      Senior Member
      • Apr 2011
      • 2426

      that's why they teach the failure drill

      but yes, the human body is tough, can take a minute or more to bleed out which is plenty of time to put plenty of hurt on you

      nothing new here
      Last edited by FourLoko; 09-12-2011, 9:26 AM.

      Comment

      • #4
        zfields
        CGN Contributor
        • Aug 2010
        • 13658

        Some parts sound pretty good, some parts just more caliber fanboism. Read the article last night, some of the comments on it were just down right stupid.
        Sandstorm Custom Rifle Slings : Custom Paracord slings

        10% off slings for calguns members. PM for details. Like us on facebook!

        Comment

        • #5
          Saym14
          Calguns Addict
          • Jul 2009
          • 7892

          makes be want to load up someslugs for HD. you think three center of mass slugs would do the trick ?

          Comment

          • #6
            Toolbox X
            Veteran Member
            • Jan 2005
            • 2602

            I've done huge amount of terminal wound ballistics research. This guy is correct. Sadly, most gun people are downright clueless and think bad guys instantly stop when they are shot. Here is a good test to determine how knowledgeable someone is:

            Which caliber is more effective at stopping a bad guy, .45 or 9mm? The correct answer? THEY BOTH SUCK! Pistol bullets are downright dismal at stopping people. Even rifle bullets have a tough time of it.

            If you goal is to ruin someone's day, or make the bad guy maybe die in the hospital hours, days or weeks later, shoot for center mass.

            If your goal is to incapacitate someone right there on the spot, instantly, you need to know the only two ways that can be accomplished.

            Each target area has its time and place, and one or the other isn't always the correct answer. What's important is that the good guy knows what to expect when a hit is made to a particular part of the body.

            Comment

            • #7
              ZombieTactics
              Veteran Member
              • Jan 2010
              • 3691

              Whatever else the guy has to say which may be of value the following is demonstrable BS:
              2-3 hits with a .45
              4-6 with a .40
              5-8 with a 9mm
              There is zero actual data to support this assertion, and anecdotal stories do not constitute data or evidence of anything.

              I found the rest of the article refreshingly frank and mostly spot-on. I have a bit of an issue with the title ... seems a bit misleading. I've never heard any trainer say that 2 CM hits will always (or even mostly) do the job. Most seem to have recommended the "shoot them to the ground, as many times as it takes" theory of terminal ballistics. Some advocate "4-6 to the body, and then go for the head". In this context, the article seems to be partly based upon straw-man assumptions.
              |
              sigpic
              I don't pretend to be an "authority." I'm just a guy who trains a lot, shoots a lot and has a perspective.

              Check the ZombieTactics Channel on YouTube for all sorts of gun-related goodness CLICK HERE

              Comment

              • #8
                Daggermouth
                Junior Member
                • Feb 2008
                • 48

                When someone breaks into my home and I shoot him dead, and they put me on trial and ask "Why did you have to shoot him 8 times?"... My response will be "Because that's how many bullets my gun holds."

                Comment

                • #9
                  Toolbox X
                  Veteran Member
                  • Jan 2005
                  • 2602

                  Originally posted by ZombieTactics
                  Whatever else the guy has to say which may be of value the following is demonstrable BS:

                  2-3 hits with a .45
                  4-6 with a .40
                  5-8 with a 9mm
                  There is zero actual data to support this assertion, and anecdotal stories do not constitute data or evidence of anything.
                  I wouldn't be so quick to call that BS. All of my research points to those numbers being pretty accurate. This Jim Higginbotham guy seems to have put quite a bit of time into studying a whole lot of real world shoots. A lot more than you have I'd wager. Let me guess, you're a 9mm guy

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Baconator
                    Bacon makes it better
                    CGN Contributor - Lifetime
                    • Jan 2009
                    • 9547

                    I thought the logic behind center mass shooting was it was the biggest target and therefore the easiest to hit in a pressure situation. This makes me think of people who, after an OIS, say that the cops should have shot the hand or forearm of the bad guy. 2 shots to center mass is much more effective that 200 missed shots trying to shoot someone in the neck or head, IMO.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      ZombieTactics
                      Veteran Member
                      • Jan 2010
                      • 3691

                      Originally posted by Toolbox X
                      I wouldn't be so quick to call that BS. All of my research points to those numbers being pretty accurate. This Jim Higginbotham guy seems to have put quite a bit of time into studying a whole lot of real world shoots. A lot more than you have I'd wager. Let me guess, you're a 9mm guy
                      I'd like you to point me to some "research" based upon anything even close to being scientific. When you get to the point where you analyze the physics and talk to a few forensics guys you'll come to the realization that any general caliber comparison like this is something like saying "The Moon is made of cheese". It's no longer a topic open to opinion or discussion, despite how many might want to pretend otherwise.

                      Jim is something of a legendary character. I'd accept his advice as being meaningful and enlightening on any number of subjects regarding firearms. He just happens to be incorrect on this issue. It's a continuing controversy only because some people are more keen to listen to cool-guy firearms instructors instead of medical examiners, coroners and trauma surgeons.

                      Making a general statement based upon caliber is like saying "Fords are faster than Chevys" Seriously ... unless you are talking about a specific model of car under specific conditions in a particular type of race or test ... and maybe even who the heck is driving that day ... you haven't even said anything. It's a nonsensical statement on its face.

                      The question regarding my personal caliber choice is irrelevant, as the answer is meaningless absent a foregone conclusion on your part. It would be just as meaningless for me to ask "Let me guess, you're a .45 guy?" For the record, I am a "doesn't make a difference (9, 40 or 45) in any general sense" guy, because I know that the laws of physics are still in effect.
                      Last edited by ZombieTactics; 09-12-2011, 10:26 AM.
                      |
                      sigpic
                      I don't pretend to be an "authority." I'm just a guy who trains a lot, shoots a lot and has a perspective.

                      Check the ZombieTactics Channel on YouTube for all sorts of gun-related goodness CLICK HERE

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Toolbox X
                        Veteran Member
                        • Jan 2005
                        • 2602

                        Originally posted by pappabacon
                        I thought the logic behind center mass shooting was it was the biggest target and therefore the easiest to hit in a pressure situation. This makes me think of people who, after an OIS, say that the cops should have shot the hand or forearm of the bad guy. 2 shots to center mass is much more effective that 200 missed shots trying to shoot someone in the neck or head, IMO.
                        You're exactly right. Trying to make a head shot in a life or death pressure situation is pretty freaking hard. But that isn't what he's suggesting people do. The point of this article is to educate people about how ineffective center mass shots can typically be, and for shooters to take that into account accordingly.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Librarian
                          Admin and Poltergeist
                          CGN Contributor - Lifetime
                          • Oct 2005
                          • 44664

                          Do me a favor, please.

                          Try to contact Jim and ASK if it is OK to re-post his article? And post his reply.
                          ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page

                          Frozen in 2015, it is falling out of date and I can no longer edit the content. But much of it is still good!

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            DannyInSoCal
                            Calguns Addict
                            • Aug 2010
                            • 8271

                            In reality - Most threats will stop when they see their own blood.

                            Could be from a fist/elbow strike - Or a knife/firearm.

                            "Most" being a relative term at best - It simply comes down to defending yourself until they stop attacking you.

                            Why did you shoot him 8 times...?

                            The correct response is: "I'd like to speak with my attorney..."
                            .
                            $500 Donation to any Veterans Charity - Plus $500 Gift Card to any gun store: Visit 2nd Amendment Mortgage / www.2AMortgage.com

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Toolbox X
                              Veteran Member
                              • Jan 2005
                              • 2602

                              Originally posted by ZombieTactics
                              I'd like you to point me to some "research" based upon anything even close to being scientific. When you get to the point where you analyze the physics and talk to a few forensics guys you'll come to the realization that any general caliber comparison like this is something like saying "The Moon is made of cheese". It's no longer a topic open to opinion or discussion, despite how many might want to pretend otherwise.

                              Jim is something of a legendary character. I'd accept his advice as being meaningful and enlightening on any number of subjects regarding firearms. He just happens to be incorrect on this issue. It's a continuing controversy only because some people are more keen to listen to cool-guy firearms instructors instead of medical examiners, coroners and trauma surgeons.

                              Making a general statement based upon caliber is like saying "Fords are faster than Chevys" Seriously ... unless you are talking about a specific model of car under specific conditions in a particular type of race or test ... and maybe even who the heck is driving that day ... you haven't even said anything. It's a nonsensical statement on its face.

                              The question regarding my personal caliber choice is irrelevant, as the answer is meaningless absent a foregone conclusion on your part. It would be just as meaningless for me to ask "Let me guess, you're a .45 guy?" For the record, I am a "doesn't make a difference (9, 40 or 45) in any general sense" guy, because I know that the laws of physics are still in effect.
                              I agree, the laws of physics are completely in effect.

                              My research, and physics, seem to show that all things being equal, inflicting someone with a certain amount of damage will require more bullets from a smaller caliber and fewer bullets from a larger caliber.

                              I also agree that bullet caliber is only a small fraction of the equation that determines if a bad guy is stopped or not. I think where you and I disagree is I believe the size and speed of the bullet matters more than you do.

                              It it 100% truth that general caliber statements are stupid and ignorant. All pistol calibers are generally pathetically ineffective at stopping people. Training, shot placement and luck are vastly more important than caliber, but the caliber debate is popular because it is one of the few factors we can control simply from choosing a box of ammo or pistol to shoot it from.

                              My research has lead me to my current conclustions. I'm not going to post the couple hundred links to everything I have read and seen. If you have any data that shows bullet size and speed don't matter please share because I have never read anything like that.
                              Last edited by Toolbox X; 09-12-2011, 11:17 AM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              UA-8071174-1