Anatomy 101

Sometimes simple is good. Like when under incredible stress what you aim at to stop a lethal threat.

The world is my drop zone

It’s not really hard; the answer is the largest target zone with rapid and repeated hits until a better target becomes available or is no longer necessary. I like to think of a lethal threat like I think of a drop zone. I can pretty much land anywhere except an active volcano and or an alligator pit. If given a choice between a larger drop zone versus a smaller one under canopy I’m going to go with the larger one. Why, because it’s easier, gives me more margin of error and increases my odds of surviving the jump intact. Add high winds or obstacles and the bigger drop zone is really a welcome sight. Believe me, I’ve landed in some pretty small drop zones; like literally someone’s backyard. I’ll take the bigger ones any day and twice on Sunday.

The bullet proof target zones

So, why would you go with the smaller targets under pressure, why would you make it harder on yourself. You are already behind the power curve big time. Think of it in these terms, the upper thoracic region is roughly 8″, the ocular cranial cavity is roughly 4″ and for those who just won’t let it die; the pelvic girdle is roughly 2″. Why on God’s green earth would you knowingly target the pelvis. About the only reason I can legitimately come up with is the threat is carrying a large heavy; i.e. bullet proof object like say the bulletproof glass from a carrier in their arms that shields both their chest and head. Yes, I know what you are thinking. How in the hell could they be a threat in this example. My point exactly; there really isn’t a reasonable and repeatable scenario where you could justify that shot.

The truth about justification

On top of that, it’s a small target. The ball and socket joint that makes up the pelvis is pretty big, but still small in the grand schemes. Proponents for this shot justify their rationale as a way to immobilize the threat. Ok, first off who in their right mind would justify lethal force as a means to immobilize??? Not a good thought process and we could stop right there, but let’s continue for arguments sake. To truly immobilized and not stop the threat because it hurts you would need to destroy the joint. A single shot that destroys part of the joint would more than likely not be enough to separate the joint, which is what we are talking about to truly destroy the joint. So, a second well placed shot would more than likely be necessary to truly “immobilize”. Granted I’m sure that would hurt like hell, but pain is not the mechanism used to stop a lethal threat. Destroying the body’s vital life processes are the only reliable means to bring an immediate cessation to hostilities and even then it’s harder than you think.

Go big early and go home

If you find yourself in a lethal confrontation then direct your fire at the largest target zone available with rapid and repeated hits until a better target zone becomes available. If all you had to shoot was a small portion exposed behind cover as an example then that’s what you’ve got to do. Continue to develop the situation until it ends. If you are standing buckle to buckle with nothing but air between you and the bad guy then it’s pretty simple, go with the larger target zone in the chest. Even over the higher fight stopping face shots. Yes, a shot to the face “may” more quickly resolve the lethal confrontation, but can you make the shot? Do you have a safe backstop? The extra time for a more precise shot may not be worth it when you realize that if you carried it to the fight it’s not a one shot guarantee.

There will be a lot of pressure and little time in a lethal gunfight. Make it easy on yourself and go big and go home.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *