Shooting to wound.

[Ringo]

Well Mr. cool under pressure, good luck with that, when fighting for your life you do not and will not have the composure to follow you own fantasy of how a self-defense shooting will go down, and with your exaggerated view of your ability, you will be lucky to even hit your attacker. Holes in paper targets are easy, and only a fool believes that the adrenaline surge in a life/death situation won't effect them.

Always the same old rhetorical criticism and XD BS of "putting down" of others. And as usual a projection of how little you know.

 

[Ringo]

The two to the chest one to the head assumes every gun fight will be like th e OK corral. The bad guy isn't necessarily going to just stand there and shoot it out. He might be behind a door frame or a car or a tree. So your target can only be center of visible mass.

Not so, it's you who assumes every gun fight "scenario" will be like the OK corral. And if your bad guy is behind a door frame or a car or a tree then you don't shoot, this isn't Hollywood, we shoot only when we have a clear target. And of course the bad guy isn't "necessarily" going to "just stand there and shoot it out", that's why I would shoot two in the chest to slow him down enough to stop him with one in his head.

 

[bofh]

Two different schools of thought. See Shooting Illustrated | Failure Drill and Link Removed.

The two to the chest one to the head assumes every gun fight will be like the OK corral. The bad guy isn't necessarily going to just stand there and shoot it out. He might be behind a door frame or a car or a tree. So your target can only be center of visible mass.

How about reading the content I linked before posting a nonsensical critique? The first link explains the origins of the Failure Drill and why it is taught by many civilian, law enforcement and military instructors. It also explains what the Failure Drill actually is and that "two to the chest one to the head" is a common name for it, but by no means translates to a literal two to the chest one to the head in every situation. Since you have NEVER been trained in this drill, you simply don't know. The second link explains the limitations of the Failure Drill.

As I said, these are two different schools of thought. Again, if you feel you need to discuss this, read the articles I posted, so you actually know what I am talking about.

 

[bofh]

You shoot to the center of visible mass until the threat ends. I'll put two in the chest and one in the head and end the threat.

Well Mr. cool under pressure, good luck with that, when fighting for your life you do not and will not have the composure to follow you own fantasy of how a self-defense shooting will go down, and with your exaggerated view of your ability, you will be lucky to even hit your attacker. Holes in paper targets are easy, and only a fool believes that the adrenaline surge in a life/death situation won't effect them.

In an actual self defense situation, your skills fall to the level you have mastered in training and practice. Rarely practiced skills or skills that were never acquired in training (i.e., fantasies) are not accessible. Your post just tells me your level of training, or the lack thereof.

 

[maybejim]

How about reading the content I linked before posting a nonsensical critique? The first link explains the origins of the Failure Drill and why it is taught by many civilian, law enforcement and military instructors. It also explains what the Failure Drill actually is and that "two to the chest one to the head" is a common name for it, but by no means translates to a literal two to the chest one to the head in every situation. Since you have NEVER been trained in this drill, you simply don't know. The second link explains the limitations of the Failure Drill.

As I said, these are two different schools of thought. Again, if you feel you need to discuss this, read the articles I posted, so you actually know what I am talking about.

I'm familiar with both. The best instruction that I've gotten concentrated on center of visible mass. If you are standing up in the imagined Old West shootout (which rarely if ever took place) two to the chest, one to the head is fine. If you are moving as you should be to get behind cover, your best bet is to go for the center of the biggest target you have. If your opponent stands there so you can put two to the chest and one to the head, good for you. But if he moves to some kind of cover then your target is what you can see. The procedures you are talking about are more directed to body guard situations and even then you will be lucky to get that kind of target. If your mindset is center of visible mass, that takes in the two to the chest. Head shots are problematic but if you have one, sure use it in a failure to stop. If your mindset is two to the chest following up with one to the head and that's not what's visible you may miss the opportunity to make a hit on the target.

 

[XD40scinNC]

Always the same old rhetorical criticism and XD BS of "putting down" of others. And as usual a projection of how little you know.

No, reality... when you are in a fight for your life, you (or anyone) will be lucky to hit 1 in 4 in center mass, and your 2 +1 is only a fantasy.

If you will notice I have not put down anyone that has stated a realistic response, i.e. shoot center mass until the threat is eliminated without the ego driven paper target success of 2 +1 and done.

I have not been in a fire fight for my life, but as a firefighter I have been in too many life/death or serious injury situations, and I know damn well that fine motor skills go out the window when the fight/flight adrenaline surge hits your body. Don't make the mistake of letting your ego overload your ability under stress and put your butt in the ground. As much as we disagree on other topics, I still want the good guy to win in a self-defense situation.

 

[bofh]

I'm familiar with both. The best instruction that I've gotten concentrated on center of visible mass. If you are standing up in the imagined Old West shootout (which rarely if ever took place) two to the chest, one to the head is fine. If you are moving as you should be to get behind cover, your best bet is to go for the center of the biggest target you have. If your opponent stands there so you can put two to the chest and one to the head, good for you. But if he moves to some kind of cover then your target is what you can see. The procedures you are talking about are more directed to body guard situations and even then you will be lucky to get that kind of target. If your mindset is center of visible mass, that takes in the two to the chest. Head shots are problematic but if you have one, sure use it in a failure to stop. If your mindset is two to the chest following up with one to the head and that's not what's visible you may miss the opportunity to make a hit on the target.

From the article I cited, since no-one seems to actually read it (Shooting Illustrated | Failure Drill):

The modern failure drill is accomplished by making a combat presentation to a target and firing two center-mass shots as quickly as those shots can be delivered into an 8-inch circle. Following the second shot, the shooter follows through and assesses his target. If it still presents a deadly threat, the third shot is delivered to an area between the eyebrows and the upper lip, an area of the skull where bone is thinnest. The hard part of the failure drill is the first two shots should be fired as quickly as the shooter can center his hits. Then, he must slow down—just a bit—to deliver the head shot with precision. All of this is more difficult than it sounds. The failure drill is not just some combat shooting fad, nor even a catchy slogan; it is an extremely useful drill that, when practiced, will save lives.

The first two shots are the same as the standard center of visible mass drill. The third shot is where the drills differ. The standard center of visible mass drill teaches you to continue to shoot at center of visible mass, while the failure drill teaches you to slow down, asses the situation, and shoot more accurately and effectively. The failure drill is designed to deal with an attacker wearing protective body armor or such heavy clothing that the bullets do not penetrate sufficiently. It is also designed to deal with an attacker that is high on drugs such that his body does not react quickly to the hits.

None of this has to do with moving or cover. You shoot while moving with both drills. You shoot at a moving target with both drills. You do not trade off accuracy for speed with both drills. If the attacker is behind cover, the head would be the most likely center of visible mass. If the head is not visible (which is a really weird use of deadly force situation by the way) then you shoot at center of visible mass.

 

[maybejim]

From the article I cited, since no-one seems to actually read it (Shooting Illustrated | Failure Drill):



The first two shots are the same as the standard center of visible mass drill. The third shot is where the drills differ. The standard center of visible mass drill teaches you to continue to shoot at center of visible mass, while the failure drill teaches you to slow down, asses the situation, and shoot more accurately and effectively. The failure drill is designed to deal with an attacker wearing protective body armor or such heavy clothing that the bullets do not penetrate sufficiently. It is also designed to deal with an attacker that is high on drugs such that his body does not react quickly to the hits.

None of this has to do with moving or cover. You shoot while moving with both drills. You shoot at a moving target with both drills. You do not trade off accuracy for speed with both drills. If the attacker is behind cover, the head would be the most likely center of visible mass. If the head is not visible (which is a really weird use of deadly force situation by the way) then you shoot at center of visible mass.

I've seen very few places teaching 2 to the chest that are also teaching moving. But every "teaching" group seems to concentrate on standing delivering to a smaller area in the chest, "reevaluating" and shooting at the head. That pretty well ends up meaning standing and delivering aimed shots. Now training to move and shoot is difficult to provide safely in a class. That's a problem.

As far as teaching "failure" drill, virtually no citizen is going to face an opponent with body armor. There might be failures due to heavy clothing particularly if you are shooting one of the "mouse" guns (solution, don't shoot mouse guns). I've heard it said that the fire 2 to the chest, reevaluate, 1 to the head is probably wrong. They were suggesting you fire and evaluate as you go and keep firing until the threat ends. In other words no training to stop and evaluate. If you see you are having a failure to stop, you either need to slow your fire so that you hit the target or as suggested work your way up the target to the head. It makes sense to me to not train to fire, (stop) evaluate, fire again.

 

[Ringo]

There might be failures due to heavy clothing particularly if you are shooting one of the "mouse" guns (solution, don't shoot mouse guns).

A review of current manufacturing technology pertaining to caliber ballistics will discredit any bias & outdated facts of yesteryear pertaining to "mouse" guns. Wild Bill used the .36 cap and ball with great success. I'm a believer in shot placement before power and magic bullets. The round in my my wife's Glock 42 .380 is SIG SAUER 100 gr. FMJ Flatpoint. Be it a .45 or a .380, two in the chest and one in the head and the BG won't know the difference. Dead is dead.

 

[bofh]

I've seen very few places teaching 2 to the chest that are also teaching moving. But every "teaching" group seems to concentrate on standing delivering to a smaller area in the chest, "reevaluating" and shooting at the head. That pretty well ends up meaning standing and delivering aimed shots. Now training to move and shoot is difficult to provide safely in a class. That's a problem.

Training to shoot while on the move is essential, independent from the shooting drill. It is typically taught in advanced defensive pistol classes. If you stand around, you are an easy target. You start moving when you encounter a threat, draw while moving, shoot while moving, scan while moving, and continue moving after shooting, until you have found proper cover or the situation is clear. See National Association for Gun Rights | Shooting While Moving.

As far as teaching "failure" drill, virtually no citizen is going to face an opponent with body armor.

I certainly can think of an active shooter scenario where this could be the case. Also, always train for the worst-case scenario, where your attacker is better trained and better equipped than you.

There might be failures due to heavy clothing particularly if you are shooting one of the "mouse" guns (solution, don't shoot mouse guns).

Also, think of larger-sized individuals on drugs or just crazy people. Handgun rounds are inherently poor performers.

I've heard it said that the fire 2 to the chest, reevaluate, 1 to the head is probably wrong. They were suggesting you fire and evaluate as you go and keep firing until the threat ends. In other words no training to stop and evaluate. If you see you are having a failure to stop, you either need to slow your fire so that you hit the target or as suggested work your way up the target to the head. It makes sense to me to not train to fire, (stop) evaluate, fire again.

I agree to a certain extent. The failure drill is not the ultimate solution to every scenario. It is just one of many drills.

 

[NotTwoShure]

Link Removed
I this situation I would go center mass. The time from draw to sight to shoot will be so fast center mass may hit the target some place.

A review of current manufacturing technology pertaining to caliber ballistics will discredit any bias & outdated facts of yesteryear pertaining to "mouse" guns. Wild Bill used the .36 cap and ball with great success. I'm a believer in shot placement before power and magic bullets. The round in my my wife's Glock 42 .380 is SIG SAUER 100 gr. FMJ Flatpoint. Be it a .45 or a .380, two in the chest and one in the head and the BG won't know the difference. Dead is dead.

 

[maybejim]

A review of current manufacturing technology pertaining to caliber ballistics will discredit any bias & outdated facts of yesteryear pertaining to "mouse" guns. Wild Bill used the .36 cap and ball with great success. I'm a believer in shot placement before power and magic bullets. The round in my my wife's Glock 42 .380 is SIG SAUER 100 gr. FMJ Flatpoint. Be it a .45 or a .380, two in the chest and one in the head and the BG won't know the difference. Dead is dead.

Well, we were talking about heavy clothing causing the bullet to be ineffective. It's a lot more likely with a "mouse gun" than something with a little more oomp. A .380 is marginal. A .25 is well below any reason with a .22 probably better. Yes, the ammo is better with today's .380 approaching yesterday's 9mm. I don't think there's much improvement in a .25.

 

[halfpack]

Shoot To Kill

If I ever have to fire my weapon at another human being,it will be a double tap to kill.Then a head shot in case of body armor.Thus,total elimination of the threat.Shooting to stop the threat only could cost you your life if the perp is wearing body armor and as you lower your weapon and call 911,he comes to,pulls out the gun you didn't see and unloads numerous rounds into you.

 

[cluznar]

Funniest thread I ever saw. If I have to shoot it will be a double tap in center mass or head. I would not want someone I wounded to kill me with a good shot. :dirol:

 

[apvbguy]

Just read a good article in USCCA, something really to think about, when you are face with a threat to you and your family. Kill or wound ????? Page #40.

neither, you shoot to end the threat.
anyone who tells you different is a moron

 

[XD40scinNC]

If I ever have to fire my weapon at another human being,it will be a double tap to kill.Then a head shot in case of body armor.Thus,total elimination of the threat.Shooting to stop the threat only could cost you your life if the perp is wearing body armor and as you lower your weapon and call 911,he comes to,pulls out the gun you didn't see and unloads numerous rounds into you.

Depending on your state laws, that could be bad news, for you.

If it is determined that the BG had turned to run or was down when you shot them in the head, you can be charged with excessive use of lethal force. In NC, once the threat stops, being turn and run, down, or verbally submit, your right to use lethal force has ended.

 

[bofh]

Depending on your state laws, that could be bad news, for you.

If it is determined that the BG had turned to run or was down when you shot them in the head, you can be charged with excessive use of lethal force. In NC, once the threat stops, being turn and run, down, or verbally submit, your right to use lethal force has ended.

In general, excessive force charges are for law enforcement officers that used significantly more force than authorized by law. The term "excessive use of lethal force" is nonsensical as it implies that lethal force was used excessively. There is no such thing. Lethal force was either used lawfully or unlawfully. An initial lawful use of lethal force can become unlawful if it is used despite the fact that the threat stopped.

What you actually meant was that one could be charged with voluntary manslaughter or murder if one does not stop to shoot when the threat stops. That stop has to be immediately upon realizing that the threat stopped, but not instantaneously when the threat stopped. Human processing and reaction time (OODA loop) is simply not instantaneously.

 

[bofh]

If I ever have to fire my weapon at another human being,it will be a double tap to kill.Then a head shot in case of body armor.Thus,total elimination of the threat.Shooting to stop the threat only could cost you your life if the perp is wearing body armor and as you lower your weapon and call 911,he comes to,pulls out the gun you didn't see and unloads numerous rounds into you.

Utter nonsense. If you purposely kill the attacker, because he was a threat, is not anymore a threat, and may become a threat again in the future, you are going to jail.

You shoot to stop the threat. Killing the attacker will stop the threat, but so can be wounding him or simply displaying the firearm. Once the threat has stopped, you stop. If the threat appears again, then you start defending yourself again. That's how the law works.

The failure drill is meant for threats that don't stop and not for making sure that your attacker is dead. If the attacker stops after the first two rounds, you stop.

 

[XD40scinNC]

If I ever have to fire my weapon at another human being,it will be a double tap to kill.Then a head shot in case of body armor.Thus,total elimination of the threat.Shooting to stop the threat only could cost you your life if the perp is wearing body armor and as you lower your weapon and call 911,he comes to,pulls out the gun you didn't see and unloads numerous rounds into you.

And when is the last time you have heard of some punk robbing someone at an ATM, the gas pumps, or Wal-Wart parking lot that was wearing body armor?

 

[baley]

the great majority of the time, just the sight of your gun suffices to stop the attack. give yourself that chance, cause if you do shoot somebody, it's highly likely to cost you 100k to stay out of prison and "un-sued"