Pelvis Shots...

A couple more thoughts on recent posts:

Agree that a pelvis directed shot is NOT a primary objective. There are several "... if that's all you get ..." plans, but they are NOT primary.

Disagree with the "shoot to wound" (legs, treasured vase, third toe of right foot, favorite hat, etc...) concept. Anyone worth shooting is worth shooting well.
This concept does require some thought at times. In most jurisdictions shooting the villain multiple requires explaining WHY. Maybe the Judge - His/Her Honor - or maybe just the boss. Often the investigating officer, quite possibly the DA or assistant.
Not to mention Mom.
 
Well Rip, I've been to war & will guarantee you, if I put one in your hip joint you are going down!
I won't make guarantees, but I expect you are likely correct. That said the hip joint is about as difficult to hit as the eye socket - the latter doesn't guarantee a stop either, but it seems more likely the subject will be out of the fight quicker than someone who is shot in the hip.

Out of the handful of cases I know of which involved hits to the pelvis (all with handguns), only one fell - and he killed the guy that shot him.

Actually the hip joint might be a decent target, if nothing else is available.

Nothing is a sure thing. When I worked in Memphis there was an MPD officer that took part of a load of buckshot in his left eye - fortunately the angle worked in his favor and he was still in the fight...he did however loose sight in that eye. I do not recall shat size the buckshot was.

Weird things happen.

Riposte
 
A couple more thoughts on recent posts:

Agree that a pelvis directed shot is NOT a primary objective. There are several "... if that's all you get ..." plans, but they are NOT primary.

Disagree with the "shoot to wound" (legs, treasured vase, third toe of right foot, favorite hat, etc...) concept. Anyone worth shooting is worth shooting well.
This concept does require some thought at times. In most jurisdictions shooting the villain multiple requires explaining WHY. Maybe the Judge - His/Her Honor - or maybe just the boss. Often the investigating officer, quite possibly the DA or assistant.
Not to mention Mom.
There's enough case law showing people can still be a threat after multiple rounds, even COM shots, thus ------------------------------- I've always been of the mindset if they need shooting, they're getting 3 right now, still wiggling on the ground, another couple.

Shoot them to the ground. If that requires 5,8, or 13, I don't care. It's very easy for a defense atty to justify multiple shots to start the fray and if they're still moving on the ground, they are still a threat even if that threat is diminished in capabilities.
 
Oh boy! Lotta experience, training & application going on here. Have over 20+ years shooting & training with military & LE. In 360 shoot houses, abandoned office buildings, schools & woodlands with simunitions & live fire. In my reaction at times had tunnel vision and adrenaline dumps. At times saw sights, other times no. Played 'bad guy' for various departments. You can soak up much reading, listening and watching but skills and real time can be surprising & not to our advantage. Wish we here could go through the thread just exchanging thoughts & experiences and leave the bickering outside. Think we're better than that.
 
“I welcome the chance to refute the belief that the pelvic area is a reasonable target during a gunfight. I can find no evidence or valid rationale for intentionally targeting the pelvic area in a gunfight. The reasons against, however, are many. They include:
-- From the belt line to the top of the head, the areas most likely to rapidly incapacitate the person hit are concentrated in or near the midline. In the pelvis, however, the blood vessels are located to each side, having diverged from the midline, as the aorta and inferior vena cava divide at about the level of the navel. Additionally, the target that, when struck, is the most likely to cause rapid and reliable incapacitation, the spinal cord located in the midline of the abdomen, thorax and neck), ends well above the navel and is not a target in the pelvis.
I see this "target area" a viable one in the case of body armor and no head shots landed. Not for "blood loss" but rather to possibly hit and destroy bone, mainly a hip socket which can disable the target in it's mobility and reducing their chance of flight. If achieved one can then maneuver for a better headshot to complete the task and fully eliminate the threat. JMHO
 
Good Lord. That sounded like dad. WWII vet. and one of the Frozen Chosen. "If it's worth shooting once it's worth shooting twice". I can still hear him plain as day.
Miss you dad.
I miss my dad as well. Not that mine was a wasn't a rather demanded plumber.
The concept of "If it's worth shooting once it's worth shooting twice" is quite contrary to most law's and rules of current self defense, in the United States.
 
The concept of "If it's worth shooting once it's worth shooting twice" is quite contrary to most law's and rules of current self defense, in the United States.
:rolleyes: Don't care. I do care that you felt the need to, edumacate all us ignent folk, and generally just be a contrarian. Congratulations! As much as I fear living in an echo chamber, and just this morning unignored everyone from 2025, you get to be the 1st Ignore for 2026.
1767361749180.webp
 
:rolleyes: Don't care. I do care that you felt the need to, edumacate all us ignent folk, and generally just be a contrarian. Congratulations! As much as I fear living in an echo chamber, and just this morning unignored everyone from 2025, you get to be the 1st Ignore for 2026.
View attachment 827595
one might subscribe to that theory if they believe that if they ever engage in a shooting that life might be simpler if only one side of the story gets told, hmmmm :unsure:
 
I miss my dad as well. Not that mine was a wasn't a rather demanded plumber.
The concept of "If it's worth shooting once it's worth shooting twice" is quite contrary to most law's and rules of current self defense, in the United States.
Please explain what most law's and rules of current SD in the US states? Or did you actually mean to say "use of deadly force" laws/criteria that has to be met to lawfully engage and stop an attacker that's an imminent grave bodily harm or deadly threat to the defender

Deadly force use requires one to be able to articulate the following requirements were met for use of deadly force in EVERY state I'm aware of along with the threat has to be imminent of grave bodily harm or death

Means
Motive
Opportunity
The imminent grave bodily harm or death requirement.

No mention of number of rounds fired. There's plenty of people who can run 3-4 rds a second COM. Myself? I can run 5 per second but to remain COM it's 3 rds a second. So if I'm forced to use deadly force lawfully, the aggressor is getting 3 to start the party. If they are still viable, a bunch more will be unloaded into that threat until they are no longer a threat.
____________________________________________________________________________________________

Sheriff Grady Judd from Polk County, Fla 2006

The Incident

  • The Crime: A suspect, Angilo Freeland, shot and killed Polk County Sheriff's Deputy Matt Williams during a routine traffic stop. Freeland also wounded another deputy and killed Williams' K-9 partner, Diogi.
  • The Manhunt: A large-scale manhunt ensued, and Freeland was eventually found hiding in a wooded area.
  • The Shooting: When a SWAT team located Freeland, he opened fire on the officers. Nine officers returned fire, shooting 110 rounds in total, 68 of which hit the suspect.
  • The Quote: When a reporter from the Orlando Sentinel asked Sheriff Judd why the suspect was shot so many times, he responded: "That's all the ammunition we had, or we would have shot him more ____________________________________________________________________________________
No deputy nor the sheriff were charged with violating law/s in the above incident
 
Last edited:
Hitting the human head is difficult even with a trained shooter using a rest. It took Oswald three shots from 80 yards away to hit JFK in the head. Crooks fired from 400 - 450’ away and his first shot nicked Trumps ear. The remaining seven shots missed completely.

Oswald was trained by the Marine Corp and Crooks practiced regularly with a AR-15. So it shouldn’t be hard to imagine the difficulty of making incapacitating shot(s) to the head with a handgun while under attack.
 
Hitting the human head is difficult even with a trained shooter using a rest.
This is widely regarded as true
It took Oswald three shots from 80 yards away to hit JFK in the head. Crooks fired from 400 - 450’ away and his first shot nicked Trumps ear. The remaining seven shots missed completely.
Interesting. Facts checked?
Oswald was trained by the Marine Corp and Crooks practiced regularly with a AR-15.
This is untrue.
 
These discussions are interesting and can be educational.

Over the past 6 years I’ve watched videos, read articles, watched news reports, actively practiced and trained at a couple ranges to build my confidence to safely and reliably handle a defense carry..

While these discussions are interesting and can be educational, it’s not surprising, the “facts” are too often debated and refuted by the best experts. Stats show that even well-trained law enforcement officers miss their target about 50% of the time.

As a civilian gun owner and without extensive advanced defensive training, I can only image that in a sudden self-defense encounter, with only a few seconds to act, my mind is not going to be thinking “OK, double-tap here, double-tap there, or “Oh crap, he’s got a vest on!”. I will count on my frequent practice and training and muscle memory to effectively respond.

There is no way to predict a defensive encounter, so my reaction will be unpredictable.

In the 2022 Greenwood Park mall shooting, the armed civilian Eli Dicken neutralized the killer 15 seconds after the first shots were fired by the killer. During the 15 seconds, the killer was able to shoot and kill 3 people and wound 2 others. Dicken fired 10 rounds and hit the killer 8 times from about 40 yards away.

It would be very interesting to learn what level of training and practice did Dicken have. His Glock 19 has a capacity of 15+1. I’d like to know what he was thinking and why he only fired 10 rounds. In my opinion, hitting a man-size target at 40 yards with a handgun 8 times out of 10 is darn good shooting anyway I call it.
 
These discussions are interesting and can be educational.

Over the past 6 years I’ve watched videos, read articles, watched news reports, actively practiced and trained at a couple ranges to build my confidence to safely and reliably handle a defense carry..

While these discussions are interesting and can be educational, it’s not surprising, the “facts” are too often debated and refuted by the best experts. Stats show that even well-trained law enforcement officers miss their target about 50% of the time.

As a civilian gun owner and without extensive advanced defensive training, I can only image that in a sudden self-defense encounter, with only a few seconds to act, my mind is not going to be thinking “OK, double-tap here, double-tap there, or “Oh crap, he’s got a vest on!”. I will count on my frequent practice and training and muscle memory to effectively respond.

There is no way to predict a defensive encounter, so my reaction will be unpredictable.

In the 2022 Greenwood Park mall shooting, the armed civilian Eli Dicken neutralized the killer 15 seconds after the first shots were fired by the killer. During the 15 seconds, the killer was able to shoot and kill 3 people and wound 2 others. Dicken fired 10 rounds and hit the killer 8 times from about 40 yards away.

It would be very interesting to learn what level of training and practice did Dicken have. His Glock 19 has a capacity of 15+1. I’d like to know what he was thinking and why he only fired 10 rounds. In my opinion, hitting a man-size target at 40 yards with a handgun 8 times out of 10 is darn good shooting anyway I call it.
Excellent observations.

Having been in the training business (LE, Military and regular citizens) for decades and now retired, I can can tell you that the "statistics" vary with the statistician.

Some LE agencies have a "hit ratio" as low as 10% (and even those include when they hit themselves and fellow LEOs, or their animials such as horses and dogs), and a handful are as good as 85%.

Some folks who train regular citizens keep figures as well and those can run pretty high (bearing in mind that can be a commercial project - but then the public service domain is not excempt from slanted statistics either).

As you correctly state - "There is no way to predict a defensive encounter."

Cheers!

Riposte.
 
one might subscribe to that theory if they believe that if they ever engage in a shooting that life might be simpler if only one side of the story gets told, hmmmm :unsure:
Christ on a cookie! I just mentioned my dad, his experience, and his opinion. NOT GIVING LEGAL ADVICE! I'm out.
 
My online grazing has turned up the following medical evaluation of the value of the pelvis as a secondary choice of target in an encounter. I found it interesting... hope you do as well...
------------------------ --- --- --- -- -
"Fackler ML: "Shots to the Pelvic Area". Wound Ballistics Review. 4(1):13; 1999.

“I welcome the chance to refute the belief that the pelvic area is a reasonable target during a gunfight. I can find no evidence or valid rationale for intentionally targeting the pelvic area in a gunfight. The reasons against, however, are many. They include:
-- From the belt line to the top of the head, the areas most likely to rapidly incapacitate the person hit are concentrated in or near the midline. In the pelvis, however, the blood vessels are located to each side, having diverged from the midline, as the aorta and inferior vena cava divide at about the level of the navel. Additionally, the target that, when struck, is the most likely to cause rapid and reliable incapacitation, the spinal cord located in the midline of the abdomen, thorax and neck), ends well above the navel and is not a target in the pelvis.

-- The pelvic branches of the aorta and inferior vena cava are more difficult to hit than their parent vessels -- they are smaller targets, and they diverge laterally from the midline (getting farther from it as they descend). Even if hit, each carry far less blood than the larger vessels from which they originated. Thus, even if one of these branches in the pelvis is hit, incapacitation from blood loss must necessarily be slower than from a major vessel hit higher up in the torso.
-- Other than soft tissue structures not essential to continuing the gunfight (loops of bowel, bladder) the most likely thing to be struck by shots to the pelvis would be bone. The ilium is a large flat bone that forms most of the back wall of the pelvis. The problem is that handgun bullets that hit it would not break the bone but only make a small hole in passing through it: this would do nothing to destroy bony support of the pelvic girdle. The pelvic girdle is essentially a circle: to disrupt its structure significantly would require breaking it in two places. Only a shot that disrupted the neck or upper portion of the shaft of the femur would be likely to disrupt bony support enough to cause the person hit to fall. This is a small and highly unlikely target: the aim point to hit it would be a mystery to those without medical training — and to most of those with medical training.

The “theory” stated in the question postulates that “certain autonomic responses the body undergoes during periods of stress” causes officers to shoot low, and that apparently this is good in a gunfight because such shots cause “severe disability.” I hope that the points presented above debunk the second part of the theory. As for the “autonomic responses” that cause officers to shoot low, I am unaware of anything in the anatomy or physiology of the autonomic nervous system that would even suggest such an occurrence. Most laymen do not understand the function of the autonomic nervous system. It is simply a system whose main function is to fine tune the glands and smooth muscles (those in the walls of organs and blood vessels) of the body. During times of stress such as perceived impending danger, the autonomic nervous system diverts blood from the intestines and digestive organs to the skeletal muscles — in the so-called “fight or flight” response. The effects of this response are constantly exaggerated by laymen who lack an adequate understanding of it — most notably by gun writ-ers eager to impress their readers. Interestingly, the human body can get along quite well without major parts of the autonomic nervous system. During my professional life as a surgeon, myself and colleagues removed parts of thousands of vagus nerves (mostly in treating peptic ulcer disease) -- thus depriving the patient of the major part of the parasympathetic half of the autonomic nervous system. We also removed many ganglia from the sympathetic half of the auto-nomic nervous system, in treating such things as profusely excess sweating and various problems caused by spasm of the arteries. I am unaware of any evidence that these operations produced any significant effect on the future capacity of these patients to react appropriately in times of impending danger.

Unfortunately, the pelvis shot fallacy is common. This fallacy, along with other misinformation, is promoted constantly by at least one gun writer who is widely published in the popular gun press. Because of this, I regularly debunk this fallacy by including some of the above rationale in my presentations to law enforcement firearm instructor groups.”
The pelvis is a good option in actual combat with rifles as many times it isn’t covered in plate armor.

If you are of a bit to the right or left, maybe you hit the femoral artery. That type of shot like anything else is going to be situationally dependent.

Hit a home invader with a 12 gauge slug in the crotch, he won’t have a pelvis.

Hit someone with a .380 in the crotch, you’ll be lucky if you remove 1/2 of his baby batter maker.
 
The pelvic girdle is an excellent anchoring shot, especially if your suspect is wearing body armor. It immobilizes your attacker and also there is the femoral artery. Which rapidly turns a bad communist into a good communist when severed.

When I worked with SMGs, I always started at the pelvic girdle and stitched the target upwards towards the head.
This is the way.
 
Pelvis: I do remember some talk of this and the results. Some years ago.
From my knowledge (limited) of physics and penetration, I think the slower, broader and heavier bullets are (should be) more effective in physically throwing someone to the ground, hopefully out of the match. Faster (lighter) bullets would (seems to me) to penetrate quicker and transfer less force.
 
HOWEVER! For those of you who DO feel there's value at shooting to the South, I just found this...
1000009642.webp
Stay safe! Ed
 

Latest posts

Back
Top