# Multiple Threat Engagment



## WillBrink (Sep 7, 2009)

I have noted there seems to be two primary ways people are taught multiple threat engagement with handguns. 

Assuming for sake of the example, same target priority, there is:

Each target gets at least one rnd before the others do 

Or

Each gets multiple rnds from the start

For example, IDPA, which was founded by some experience shooters (Vickers, et al) calls for the first. 3 targets in front of you with equal target priority - unless otherwise instructed - you would shoot 1,1,2,1,1. That's 1 for each of the 3, 2 in to the last, then one more for the last 2

People like Clint Smith however argue that the time it takes to simply add an additional rnd, knowing how notoriously ineffective handguns rnds are, teaches multiple rinds per target from the start, so 3 equal priority targets in front of you, would be 2,2,2, I recall, then deal with the situation as circumstances dictate.

I have been to courses where both methods are taught. I shoot the former as a regular IDPA shooter, but often practice the latter as it seems more natural and instinctual, etc.

Which do you follow/teach and why? :)


----------



## HOLLiS (Sep 7, 2009)

I can see the first scenario.   In that hitting each target as quick as possible will slow their response in returning fire.  Then a follow up shot to insure the job is done.  


In the 2,2,2 scenario, there is a slower movement to the other targets which could give the other targets sufficient time to respond.   For the hot dog speedsters out there, probably doesn't matter on which method they use.  

Generally most people will get their heads down when incoming is coming in. More experience people will do it differently.  Putting rounds down range is a different experience than receiving incoming on how a person reacts. 

Other thought, is how many shooters and how many targets?  I think that would effect how a person responds.


Disclaimer, the old grunt way of doing things and thinking


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Sep 8, 2009)

For competition I would shoot/ teach to shoot the drill. If it is multi targets spread out I would shoot controlled pairs (or however many shots it called for) per a target and then move to the next. 

If it were real life and I was training someone for real life, I would reinforce the fact that 3 or 4 dudes are not going to line up directly in front of you such as in an 'El Presidente'. In reality you would more then likely be surrounded and or be cornered and would need to shoot each threat as fast as possible with 2 to 3 rounds and then quickly follow up with head shots. Personally I think a controlled pair is as fast (15 yards and in) as shooting just 1 shot.

I focus and train people to focus on headshots on the move and from all positions, b/c my belief is that all threats should be addressed with head shots. If you build in you mind that all you are shooting is headshots, you no longer have to worry about body armor drills, and follow up in capacitating shots…


----------



## zushwa (Sep 8, 2009)

WillBrink said:


> I have noted there seems to be two primary ways people are taught multiple threat engagement with handguns.
> 
> Assuming for sake of the example, _same target priority_, there is:
> 
> ...





J.A.B. said:


> For competition I would shoot/ teach to shoot the drill. If it is multi targets spread out I would shoot controlled pairs (or however many shots it called for) per a target and then move to the next.
> 
> If it were real life and I was training someone for real life, I would reinforce the fact that 3 or 4 dudes are not going to line up directly in front of you such as in an 'El Presidente'. In reality you would more then likely be surrounded and or be cornered and would need to shoot each threat as fast as possible with 2 to 3 rounds and then quickly follow up with head shots. Personally _I think a controlled pair is as fast_ (15 yards and in) as shooting just 1 shot.
> 
> ...



*Fuck dude, remind me to skip your training day.  Making head shots ALL THE TIME??  That is a tall order.  I understand trying to ascertain a certain level of marksmanship but that seems a bit much.  Making a head shot, even at 7 yards, while both parties are moving is VERY difficult.  Add in multiple threats and it becomes exponentially harder.

For the record, I shoot drills like the El Pres, and it's variants, as well as Non Standard Response drills.  I have the luxury of training FOF for work and both types pf drills have paid dividends.  The bane of my shooting existence is multiple targets.  I'm always working on it because I suck at it.  I also believe if I ever have to engage multiple booger eaters the training will one day save a 100lb head, a coworker, or my life.

There are plenty of people here with real world shooting incidents.  I'd be curious if any were multiple threats and how they engaged the targets.*


----------



## hoepoe (Sep 8, 2009)

Good info.

I would say shoot the priority #1 threat until it is no longer a threat and move on.

Don't count rounds.

H


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Sep 8, 2009)

zushwa said:


> *Fuck dude, remind me to skip your training day.  Making head shots ALL THE TIME??  That is a tall order.  I understand trying to ascertain a certain level of marksmanship but that seems a bit much.  Making a head shot, even at 7 yards, while both parties are moving is VERY difficult.  Add in multiple threats and it becomes exponentially harder.
> 
> One of the FOF course I took (ALERRT train the trainer) I was actually shot in the head with a sim round at about 30 feet while both of us were moving :eek: It was an eye opener for me, I talked with the dude (Harris County SWAT Deputy Sheriff ) and he said he was just 100% dialed in on his sights and did not allow his fears and thoughts to alter that broke the shot clean as he had been taught and practiced.
> 
> ...



My real world experience s limited to a rifle and in the box, but something I took away from that was that every threat gets a head shot at some point. After the threat is down on the ground or still moving. If you shut the computer down, they cant pull hand grenade pins and the can’t set off IED’s (or pull a trigger for that matter).

Ceneter mass shots come from increasing the chances of a hit, not from achieving a kill or incapacitation. I have long been an advocate of changing the way we view short range marksmanship (SRM) in the Army. I think center mass/chest shots are in adequate in close range, where the desired result is more now then later. Head shots are doable, with the proper supporting training and required standards. :2c:


----------



## surgicalcric (Sep 8, 2009)

J.A.B. said:


> My real world experience s limited to a rifle and in the box, but something I took away from that was that every threat gets a head shot at some point. After the threat is down on the ground or still moving. If you shut the computer down, they cant pull hand grenade pins and the can’t set off IED’s (or pull a trigger for that matter)...



Just like a computer, energy is stored in the system after its been shut down.  A head shot, shutting down the processor, will not stop all movement. I have watched dead people twitch for some time after the processor shut down.  So given this it would seem to me, from both a medical and a shooter solution perspective you should be shooting to separate the hand from whatever object they are then holding thereby neutralizing the threat..  I mean come on, now thats skill...  

Seriously though, head shots while moving (one or both parties) are very difficult to reproduce, especially under stress and duress.  You are talking about a target that is 7-10" in diameter (nominally) and moves us and down, side-to-side, and elliptically all at different times and all in varying degrees.  This means you have to track the target thru half a cycle consecutively to reproduce the results.  

Your time and rounds would be better spent placing more shots center mass, or at least it has been in my experience. 

Crip


----------



## zushwa (Sep 8, 2009)

Yeah dude, I'm all about pushing the accuracy level, but realistically head shots all the time is hard for me to swallow.  There is a balance between speed and accuracy and I'd say even more so when discussing multiple targets.

No question good shooters (or lucky ones :)) can make great hits but in a dynamic situation everything becomes harder.  Transitioning from one target to the next is difficult, WAY MORE SO if transitioning from head shot to head shot.

While not a way to teach tactics, some drills might be good for assessing something like this.  Set something up like the El Pres.  If you want, vary the distances between targets, distance from you and the target, as well as number of shots per target.  Shoot the drill all head shots and then all COM shots.  Make sure the rounds per target are the same between rounds.  I would imagine there is going to be a significant difference in time.  I think I'm hitting the range today so I'll try to run it and see what I get.

BTW, another variation on the El Pres is loading single digit round count in the carbine and do a transition instead of a mag change.  One of my favorites.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Sep 8, 2009)

surgicalcric said:


> Just like a computer, energy is stored in the system after its been shut down.  A head shot, shutting down the processor, will not stop all movement. I have watched dead people twitch for some time after the processor shut down.  So given this it would seem to me, from both a medical and a shooter solution perspective you should be shooting to separate the hand from whatever object they are then holding thereby neutralizing the threat..  I mean come on, now thats skill...
> 
> Seriously though, head shots while moving (one or both parties) are very difficult to reproduce, especially under stress and duress.  You are talking about a target that is 7-10" in diameter (nominally) and moves us and down, side-to-side, and elliptically all at different times and all in varying degrees.  This means you have to track the target thru half a cycle consecutively to reproduce the results.
> 
> ...



So because it is difficult we should not even try it? Sounds like a great way to train! :uhh: 

One of the big threats we faced in OIF 1&2 was the insurgent would have a suicide vest on, detonated by a grenade fuse attached to det-cord, they would role over and their stomach and hide that they had this shit on them. So what did we do? We shot them in the head and waited, and then we would tie some 550 cord to them and drag them to see if they blew up… Worked for us! ;)

As for the twitching, yeah I have seen that too. I have also seen the motherfuckers fall like a sack of potatoes and never move again. I guess its motherfucker dependent; I would still rather take my chances with an involuntary movement then a volunteered movement.

Back to the idea of shooting head shots, no you are not going to hit them with ease and stress induced situation will of course affect your accuracy. However if you simply say fuck it not worth training that way, then you are limiting your own self from development. I am not saying my training is the only way (it’s low end compared to the trainers I have attended) but it’s challenging and that’s what drives you to a better level of proficiency. Otherwise we would all still be shooting in ranks and columns firing one shot every 60 minutes like our forefather did. ;)


----------



## surgicalcric (Sep 8, 2009)

J.A.B. said:


> So because it is difficult we should not even try it? Sounds like a great way to train! :uhh:



You sure do have a habit of reading into others statements and inferring something from them that was never stated.  First the COIN thread and now here. 



> One of the big threats we faced in OIF 1&2 was the insurgent would have a suicide vest on, detonated by a grenade fuse attached to det-cord, they would role over and their stomach and hide that they had this shit on them. So what did we do? We shot them in the head and waited, and then we would tie some 550 cord to them and drag them to see if they blew up… Worked for us! ;)



There is a world of difference in shooting someone laying on the ground in the head, from whatever distance you would like to (with a pistol) and shooting them while moving at you and you towards them, or static for that matter. 



> As for the twitching, yeah I have seen that too. I have also seen the motherfuckers fall like a sack of potatoes and never move again. I guess its motherfucker dependent; I would still rather take my chances with an involuntary movement then a volunteered movement.



Again, I suppose you missed the sarcasm in that post... 



> Back to the idea of shooting head shots, no you are not going to hit them with ease and stress induced situation will of course affect your accuracy. However if you simply say fuck it not worth training that way, then you are limiting your own self from development. I am not saying my training is the only way (it’s low end compared to the trainers I have attended) but it’s challenging and that’s what drives you to a better level of proficiency. Otherwise we would all still be shooting in ranks and columns firing one shot every 60 minutes like our forefather did. ;)



I, nor anyone else here that has had the opportunity to exchange rounds with a pistol will tell you that it isnt worth the training to practice head shots.  Hell I do it all the time with my rifle and pistol.  However I will put 8 in your heart and lungs while you are still trying to refine your sight picture enough to get off a good head shot or multiple shots because the target or pistol moved.

I do multiple target arrays, at multiple distances with my pistol alone and as part of a transition drill and I get better with every drill, but having exchanged lead with a moving target with my pistol I can assure you, based on experience I dont take head shots at moving targets.

And for the record, when taking those head shots and practicing shutting down the processor the target isnt the head.  It is a triangle shaped area covering the eyebrows down to  tip of the nose, respectively.  Talk about narrowing the target area.....  ;)

Crip


----------



## zushwa (Sep 8, 2009)

surgicalcric said:


> Seriously though, head shots while moving (one or both parties) are very difficult to reproduce, especially under stress and duress.  You are talking about a target that is 7-10" in diameter (nominally) and moves us and down, side-to-side, and elliptically all at different times and all in varying degrees.  This means you have to track the target thru half a cycle consecutively to reproduce the results.
> 
> Your time and rounds would be better spent placing more shots center mass, or at least it has been in my experience.
> 
> Crip



Not to get out of my lane (or any more than I already am) but to piggy back on Crip, the "head" isn't even a realistic target.  Not the whole head anyway.  It is a very small target that will potentially shut someone off.  Jeff Gonzales describes it as a 2 inch wide ribbon wrapping around the head.

J.A.B., the potential to make hits under stress, and the likelihood of damaging or destroying vital organs is MUCH higher with COM shots, and they are more likely to be HITS.  The margin of error with headshots is ridiculously small.  I'm not saying head shots shouldn't be practiced and don't have a purpose.  They obviously do, but I don't know ONE other trainer or unit that adheres to your logic.

If given the choice would I shoot someone in the face?  Fuck yes, but we're talking multiple threats.  I just don't think the parameters of this topic lend themselves to head shots all the time.


----------



## zushwa (Sep 8, 2009)

God Dammit Crip, stop posting so fast.  :)


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Sep 8, 2009)

zushwa said:


> If given the choice would I shoot someone in the face?  Fuck yes, *but we're talking multiple threats*.  I just don't think the parameters of this topic lend themselves to head shots all the time.




Agreed I am off topic, but something to look at in regards to this is the 1x8 drill I posted in pistol marksmanship. I have many more that I will post later in that thread regarding head shots.

As for what I would do if 3 MS13 retards tried to car jack me or whatever, I would shoot the in order of threat level and i would follow up with a ----- HEAD SHOT---- ;)


----------



## TheWookie (Sep 8, 2009)

*I'm almost always shooting a pair when I come out of the holster...*



hoepoe said:


> Don't count rounds.



Well said, and I agree.  Shoot until the threat is neutralized; 1 shot, 2 shot, 3 shots, or four.  

I think following through on target is very important.  What if you miss the first shot.  If you follow through it doesn't matter, as much.


----------



## zushwa (Sep 8, 2009)

TheWookie said:


> Well said, and I agree.  Shoot until the threat is neutralized; 1 shot, 2 shot, 3 shots, or four.
> 
> I think following through on target is very important.  What if you miss the first shot.  If you follow through it doesn't matter, as much.



There's a discussion over on M4C in the training forum about follow through.  Some "interesting" opinions.


----------



## WillBrink (Sep 8, 2009)

zushwa said:


> I would argue that is a big assumption. There IS some priority. Whether it be proximity, weapon, aggressiveness, etc. By you assuming they are the same priority immediately means this is competition. That's the problem. Some competitive drills utilize fundamentals of shooting that can be applied for the real world but typically they don't drive tactics.



No doubt you are correct. I was trying to keep the variable to a minimum, out of curiosity as to how people here would approach/teach it using those strict/limiting guidelines. 



zushwa said:


> The statement above could imply that this is how LAV (and others) teach. I would confirm whether or not this was for competition or combat. Just because a certain drill in part of an organization that certain well known Instructors were involved in doesn't mean it's what they profess.



Your points are good ones. Wold be interesting to ask Vickers,  H ackathorn, etc, if those rules of engagement that exists for IDPA (which was supposedly designed as a competition that attempts to teach "real world" shooting with obvious limitations that exist in such a format) is what they teach, etc. A Vickers course is on my list.



zushwa said:


> Will, what other courses have you attended since the Jeff Gonzales class? From your post in February it was your first so have you taken a course since then??



Fair question. "I have attended various shooting sessions that..." would have been more accurate. I have been been doing various sessions with trainers or members from tactical LE, the director of S&W Training academy, Boston PD range, some get togethers with shooters from various background and training. I had noted differences in the approach there when setting up targets of equal distances considered to have equal priority. I'm taking a course end of this month BTW. Hopefully it's a productive one!

As you said, in a real world confrontation, there is always _some_ priority, but standardization of various scenarios is common for sake of teaching, competing, etc. as you know, so I was asking a scenario that was forced to use a narrow guideline to see how others would approach it. No doubt, fixed scenarios are always limiting as the BGs don't read from the same lesson plan all the time.

Thanx for the comments.


----------



## SAWMAN (Sep 8, 2009)

Being presented with multiple simultaneous threats is like having a total parachute malfunction.. *You've got the rest of your life to fix it!*

For me, how to engage each threat is entirely based on the unique circumstance I'm facing at that instant. I know what I can hit under various conditions. I also know what result to expect from various shot placement and caliber options. 

I'm a big proponent of head shots, but they're ONLY good when you can make them. If the threat is running, I'm probably breaking COM or pelvic shots until he slows, then following with multiples to the head until he drops. I also NEVER expect to remain still, unless the cover I have is the only workable option at that instant. 

I make use of changing the angles to take one of the threat's ability to engage me away, simply by moving past cover, or putting another threat between us. This cuts down on their ability to engage you simultaneously while you continue your non-stop assault on them. 

I condone shooting pelvic shots to stop threats enough to transition to head shots for the kill. I'm not proud. I'll shoot feet, legs, hands, anything I can put rounds into to slow or reveal the threat so I can finish the job with head shots.

If I'm within my comfort distance, I'm generally going head shots straight up. If I'm running, I aim COM, or pelvis. 

I attempt to shoot through ALL barricade material, just to make sure it won't work. It's faster to try than to wait. It also causes frag and grief on the threat's end, which is desirable, especially if you're charging him. You might be surprised how often it'll punch through. It's a good habit to develop, especially if you carry manly calibers. 

Rounds skip off walls, floors, vehicles, you name it. Skipping rounds is another way to engage a threat that you don't have a direct shot at. I'm all about it. If I don't have a perfect shot, I'm still skipping rounds at the threats and checking to see if their barricade is entirely bullet proof. 

I'm also big on upgrading. Depending on what you're carrying and what your threats are carrying, swiping up their weapons (if better than yours) is an option that should be second nature. Always keep your own, but if theirs is better and functioning, rage with it until it's dry, then transition back to yours. 

So, by moving, rapid engagement of various methods, and consideration of what weapon I'm fighting with, I would handle it any number of ways. 

The constants are: *Aggression!!*, *Team work* (unless alone), *Breathing* through the nose (to keep hart rate down and clarity of thought...VERY important) maximum utilization of various forms of *Cover*, near continuous *Movement*, and ultimately just being a complete son of a bitch.


----------



## HOLLiS (Sep 8, 2009)

Sawman, I think represented practical actual combat shooting.  Target competition is another form of shooting, but a different world.  


Pistol shooting is cool and fun, but it is mostly a LE or civilian main weapon.  For a grunt the rifle is the tool to use.    As another person once said, "a pistol gives you something to fight with, until you can get a rifle."  

Target shooting tends to be static in nature.   I have seem some LE training that used videos and dynamic targets to help a officer to stay flexible and alert during a shooting.  

On head shots, I was always thought "center mass".   Again those very talented fast shooters are not the norm.   Training and weapons used must be effective for all that needs it and conforms to their abilities. 

Other aspect with competitions,  Shooters can generally pick their own weapons and tune them and their ammo for the shoot.   In LE and Military one shoots what was issued to them (most cases).  The primary requirement for a LE and Military firearm is reliability not speed.   A custom competition firearm can be built for speed and ammo made for that specific firearm.  Using out of the box ammo for a custom firearm could lead to misfires.  A LE and Military firearm, must function with a range of supplied ammo.  

I think competition is a valuable training aid, but one should understand it's limits.   Same goes with the needs to be accurate.  The bullet needs to hit within the kill zone.   Kill zone can be pretty big when measure in MOA (combined with distance).


----------



## Manolito (Sep 8, 2009)

Sawman can I steal that analogy I like it? Total failure is easy it is that single line over that looks like a big bra but is working fairly well that poses the problem. 

 I see two topics here unless I missed something. Civillian and firefight. If all I have is a pistol and I am in a situation that requires deadly force in the US I am shooting and moving quickly not taking specific cover for a prolonged fight.
 Firefight is different and I won't be using a pistol unless I am out of everything else.
 I carry every day and I have not fired a shot in anger in the US. I can say looking at a single traget and letting them know they are the one I chose to receive my first reaction has defused the situation knock on wood. :2c:


----------



## arizonaguide (Sep 8, 2009)

SAWMAN said:


> I condone shooting pelvic shots to stop threats enough to transition to head shots for the kill. I'm not proud. I'll shoot feet, legs, hands, anything I can put rounds into to slow or reveal the threat so I can finish the job with head shots.


Thank you. :2c:


----------



## HOLLiS (Sep 8, 2009)

There was a recent shoot.  The perp took on several officers, he was hit multiple times with 40 S&W (Gold dot bullets).  Finally a Officer grabbed a AR15 and then shot the Perps feet out from under him.   The perp was dead meat after that.  


Improvise,  especially when your target fails to cooperate.


----------



## koz (Sep 8, 2009)

HOLLiS said:


> There was a recent shoot.  The perp took on several officers, he was hit multiple times with 40 S&W (Gold dot bullets).  Finally a Officer grabbed a AR15 and then shot the Perps feet out from under him.   The perp was dead meat after that.
> 
> 
> Improvise,  especially when your target fails to cooperate.



Not really - The perp didn't die until he was enroute to the hospital.  The officers had to fight with him to get him into cuffs.   

I wasn't able to post the pdf file I have but mods I'll e-mail it to you if you can post it.   *Nevermind- found a link to the pdf file.* 

WARNING a bit of graphic photos in the morgue
http://concealedcarryholsters.org/wp-content/files/FBI-Analysis-on-PA-Police-Shootout.pdf


----------



## arizonaguide (Sep 8, 2009)

surgicalcric said:


> Seriously though, head shots while moving (one or both parties) are very difficult to reproduce, especially under stress and duress. You are talking about a target that is 7-10" in diameter (nominally) and moves us and down, side-to-side, and elliptically all at different times and all in varying degrees. This means you have to track the target thru half a cycle consecutively to reproduce the results.


Truth to this. Much less movement at the pelvic girdle, and much bigger target. Usually not protected by armor, and stops mobility. Worked well on pissed off charging Badasses. (of the Black and Grizzly variety). 
:cool:


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Sep 8, 2009)

arizonaguide said:


> Truth to this. Much less movement at the pelvic girdle, and much bigger target. Usually not protected by armor, and stops mobility. Worked well on pissed off charging Badasses. (of the Black and Grizzly variety).
> :cool:



Pelvic shots are great for causing pain and/or collapsing the threat in some cases I also believe spinal column is a great area to target. But as is pointed out by Koz and the link he posted, both can be ineffective in stopping the threat. This brings me back to headshots, if you have the head as an open “exposed” target area you should shoot for the head.




koz said:


> WARNING a bit of graphic photos in the morgue
> http://concealedcarryholsters.org/wp-content/files/FBI-Analysis-on-PA-Police-Shootout.pdf



As SAWMAN pointed out, that’s not always possible due to versus ranges and situation/ environment. However it is the place where you will shut down the threat, thus making it the optimal target area.

If I am 15 yards or closer and have a clear exposed head, I am shooting at it.


----------



## TheWookie (Sep 8, 2009)

koz said:


> Not really - The perp didn't die until he was enroute to the hospital.  The officers had to fight with him to get him into cuffs.
> 
> I wasn't able to post the pdf file I have but mods I'll e-mail it to you if you can post it.   *Nevermind- found a link to the pdf file.*
> 
> ...




Thanks for the link.  Last bullet point on the last slide says it all,,, "shot placement is everything".....


----------



## surgicalcric (Sep 8, 2009)

J.A.B. said:


> ...This brings me back to headshots, if you have the head as an open “exposed” target area you should shoot for the head....



With the shot grouping (if thats what you would like to call it) or lack thereof on the assailant it appears the LEO's were doing good just to hit the guy where they did...

Look, we can sit here and continue to belabor this topic but each of us, that has exchanged lead on the two way range with a pistol, has our preferred method of engaging active targets: Left-Right/Right-Left, Far-Near/Near-Far, or Head/Pelvis/COM.  At the end of the day it all comes down to shooter solution coupled with what is available at the time/place of the engagement.  

Crip


----------



## 8'Duece (Sep 8, 2009)

Other than a few people here, who has really put their pistol to use in actual combat ??  

I'm betting most have shot instinctively, not combatively, considering how much time they have down range and on an actual two way range. 

Just sayin.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Sep 8, 2009)

Here is some good info:

*Larry Vickers*
http://vickerstactical.com/tactical-tips/accuracy/
*Kyle Lamb*
*Paul Howe*
http://www.combatshootingandtactics.com/published/training_for_the_real_fight.pdf
http://www.combatshootingandtactics.com/published/tactical_shooting_thoughts.pdf


----------



## Cabbage Head (Sep 8, 2009)

Some damn good info here, thanks.  

All that I can add is that you should take the limitations (ballistic/caliber) of the weapon/ammo you have in consideration.  That coupled with the distance of the threat to you and work out a solution.

Having not BTDT, all I can add is theory.  I will now sit back and listen to those that have.


----------



## 8'Duece (Sep 8, 2009)

Cpt Brian Chontosh, U.S. Marine Corp was the first to recieve the Navy Cross for his actions during combat in Iraq. 

His story is interesting to say the least, regarding the use of the M9 pistol in that particular engagement. 

If you can imagine shooting on the move, one handed, point shooting then you'll get the picture.  He'll tell that it was about _violence of action and survival. _ He didn't compete IDPA or IPSC nor was he professionaly trained by any high speed former SOF guys.  Just target shooting and a twice a year qualification on a flat range. 

IIRC he didn't even make a mag change, instead he opted to pick up one of the dead Haji's AK's and use that to clear the rest of the trench.


----------



## HOLLiS (Sep 8, 2009)

koz said:


> Not really - The perp didn't die until he was enroute to the hospital.  The officers had to fight with him to get him into cuffs.
> 
> I wasn't able to post the pdf file I have but mods I'll e-mail it to you if you can post it.   *Nevermind- found a link to the pdf file.*
> 
> ...



Thanks, I knew the perp was dead meat, just wasn't sure when.


----------



## WillBrink (Sep 9, 2009)

zushwa said:


> Fuck dude, remind me to skip your training day.  Making head shots ALL THE TIME??  That is a tall order.  I understand trying to ascertain a certain level of marksmanship but that seems a bit much.  Making a head shot, even at 7 yards, while both parties are moving is VERY difficult.  Add in multiple threats and it becomes exponentially harder.



That is my understanding and what I have been taught: making head shots on moving targets that are shooting back with a handgun will more often then not result in a miss for all but the highest level of training. CM hits being better then headshot misses. This being based on a civilian type short lived engagement using handguns with typical CCW load, which for me is  9 in the gun and an additional 8 in the mag, vs prolonged firefight with long guns, etc., which is another issue I am sure. Please correct if I'm wrong, but I would not have a high degree of confidence in making headshots on moving targets, while I was moving, while they were shooting at me. Perhaps with more training, courses, etc, I will have that skill level some day, but I don't have it now.




zushwa said:


> There are plenty of people here with real world shooting incidents.  I'd be curious if any were multiple threats and how they engaged the targets.[/B]



I would too. More or less why I started the thread. :)


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Sep 9, 2009)

*I like debating shooting!*



J.A.B. said:


> For competition I would shoot/ teach to shoot the drill. If it is multi targets spread out I would shoot controlled pairs (or however many shots it called for) per a target and then move to the next.
> 
> If it were real life and I was training someone for real life, I would reinforce the fact that 3 or 4 dudes are not going to line up directly in front of you such as in an 'El Presidente'. In reality you would more then likely be surrounded and or be cornered and *would need to shoot each threat as fast as possible with 2 to 3 rounds and then quickly follow up with head shots. *Personally I think a controlled pair is as fast (15 yards and in) as shooting just 1 shot.
> 
> *I focus and train people to focus on headshots on the move and from all positions, b/c my belief is that all threats should be addressed with head shots.* If you build in you mind that all you are shooting is headshots, you no longer have to worry about body armor drills, and follow up in capacitating shots…



I am going to quote my original unedited post (-bold) to clear up what I was/ am saying.

If you can’t shoot head shots 15 yards and in while moving left/right or forward/ back, then I highly recommend training your self to become more proficient in being able to do so. Its not going to happen over night and its not going to be easy, but it can and has been done. 

As for gunfighting, I have heard many wild crazy stories and I am sure I have embellished a time or two in the bar. However most of the tier 1 guys I have spoken to and received training from have been very clear in what they have done and it has met up with my “two way range” experience even if it was with a rifle.


----------



## hoepoe (Sep 9, 2009)

There is indeed a time for head shots, but i feel it's the exception rather than the rule.

Not because of any other reason that it's the expecially skilled that can do this all the time under duress.

Nice example of when it's a good idea  Ter was shot 3 times in the head and once in what was the head. The details aren't shown here, but you'll get the idea.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxqDCg_gLT8&feature=related[/ame]

H


----------



## arizonaguide (Sep 9, 2009)

For what it's worth, here in Arizona Center of Mass shots (on multiple assailents) are getting to be less effective, as many of the incidents involve multiple assailents wearing body armor, armed with rifles (AR/AK) and also dressed in tactical POLICE clothing, and well trained (scary shit!). More and more Deputies here are training to engage multiple targets, with Head and Pelvic shots...a much more difficult proposition!

But, many are also doing it more with an AR platform when the time comes to respond to a hot call. The pistol is only a last resort if caught by surprise, mostly prevented by situational awareness. And, I am speaking from inexperience, but I still believe I would still prefer a 12ga. w/00 buckshot for those close "pistol distance" house distance type encounters (or 7.62NATO to punch thru :), but I understand overpenetration...but then, going home at the end of the shift, etc). 

I have to train for close pistol encounters (currently with a .38sp), because that's all I typically carry...and would most likely be a close in, self defense situation against a crackhead (or three) without a vest.
But, I still practice at less<7yd-to-contact distances on 3x5 cards at headshot height. Just in case.
Training for Most likely scenario...(and esp. with a .38sp headshots more effective).
5shot till reload...every one must count!


----------



## Headshot (Sep 9, 2009)

J.A.B. said:


> I am going to quote my original unedited post (-bold) to clear up what I was/ am saying.
> 
> If you can’t shoot head shots 15 yards and in while moving left/right or forward/ back, then I highly recommend training your self to become more proficient in being able to do so. Its not going to happen over night and its not going to be easy, but it can and has been done.
> 
> As for gunfighting, I have heard many wild crazy stories and I am sure I have embellished a time or two in the bar. However most of the tier 1 guys I have spoken to and received training from have been very clear in what they have done and it has met up with my “two way range” experience even if it was with a rifle.



There's a reason why a Weaver stance is not so good while wearing armor, you can receive a shot in the armpit and get multiple vital organ hits versus using a modified Weaver which alleviates multiple damage and may still allow you to fight.  This was taught to me by a highly trained Delta who used to train SWAT.  Nothing about taking headshots was stressed.  Most BG's are like the guy in a bar fight who swings hay makers as fast as he can put them out and if you get in the way of one your fucked, but one well placed shot to his liver and he's fucked.  The body is a bigger target and therefore the best target, as it has multiple devastating shots available.  A head shot is a Sniper's wet dream but very rarely is chosen over a killing body shot unless the head is the only thing exposed.  I agree on training to hit a smaller target, but that smaller aiming point should be where the odds are waaaay in your favor, not where a movie director would place it. :2c:


----------

