Page 8 of 9
Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 3:45 pm
by kauboy
Here's an Ayoob article discussing the pelvic shot.
He loves it and believes it is very effective at stopping an advancing attacker. It doesn't always kill, but it certainly drops them.
"Stab maniac"
Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 5:22 pm
by Liberty
kauboy wrote:Here's an Ayoob article discussing the pelvic shot.
He loves it and believes it is very effective at stopping an advancing attacker. It doesn't always kill, but it certainly drops them.
"Stab maniac"
I gotta admit I was a skeptic until Ayoob explained it. The angle is what might make this shot more attractive under some situations
Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 6:05 pm
by Venus Pax
Excellent, informative article.
Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 6:48 pm
by flintknapper
G.C.Montgomery wrote:I think lrb111 is refering to Sgt. Bobby Ripps, rather than Riggs. May be I'm wrong. I never met any troopers named Riggs in Austin. Bobby Ripps is truly a cool instructor and an excellent shooter whom I respect. But I'm not sold on a 'Mozambique' followed by dumping all remaining shots into the pelvis.
If the pevis is the only available target, then yes, shoot it early and often. However, pistols generally have very low ammunition reserves and handgun bullets just don't do the best job of breaking major bones like the pelvis. If don't know how many threats you are facing and you only have two or three magazines with which to work, it may not be advisable to dump half or one-third of all your ammunition reserve on one target. If you have no choice, then you roll with it. Still, I think there are better tactics.
Casselthief pointed out that he has routinely seen people walking with hip fractures. He also made a key statement when he said "...unload enough bullets into a target with multple vital parts and the subject is toast." How many bullets is enough? Again, if the pelvis is the only available target then by all means, hose away. But if I'm close enough to have considered a Mozambique in the first place, I can almost certainly continue shooting at that head and neck to get a faster reaction with less ammunition and less time on target than dumping the magazine into the pelvis. YMMV.
Well, you got home before I did. Agreed 100%.
Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:05 pm
by lrb111
G.C.Montgomery wrote:I think lrb111 is refering to Sgt. Bobby Ripps, rather than Riggs. .
yep. Bobby Riggs was tennis player. Thanks..
Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:08 pm
by TX Rancher
Something to keep in mind on the pelvic shot is many knowledgeable folks do advocate the technique, but many don't. Also, it seems those that advocate it do so for defense against contact weapons.
If the BG has a firearm, and the head is available, and the range is reasonable, I still feel it's the best target. Nothing like taking out the CNS to stop an aggressor...
From the article:
"Dr. James Wilson, an emergency room physician with extensive gunshot wound experience, today teaches an increasingly popular "tactical anatomy" class for police. He notes the efficacy of the pelvic shot against an aggressor with a contact weapon, and points out also that the pelvis is a much larger target than either heart or brain.".
Notice "...with a contact weapon...".
Don't read me wrong, you hit what you can, and if the pelvis is what’s available, so be it. If all I have to target is the BG's hand, I'll take it. I'm just saying that any shot that immobilizes the BG, but leaves them with the ability to press the trigger, leaves him/her deadly dangerous.
If he/she can’t move, or at least can’t move fast, that’s good enough defense from a contact weapon. But it’s not good enough if he/she has a firearm…Maybe a follow-up to the CNS is in order.
Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:15 pm
by flintknapper
Yup!
Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:18 pm
by Mithras61
lrb111 wrote:G.C.Montgomery wrote:I think lrb111 is refering to Sgt. Bobby Ripps, rather than Riggs. .
yep. Bobby Riggs was tennis player. Thanks..
And here I was thinking Mel Gibson/Leathal Weapon!
Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 8:32 pm
by lrb111
Mithras61 wrote:lrb111 wrote:G.C.Montgomery wrote:I think lrb111 is refering to Sgt. Bobby Ripps, rather than Riggs. .
yep. Bobby Riggs was tennis player. Thanks..
And here I was thinking Mel Gibson/Leathal Weapon!
Yeah, That was it.
Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 8:41 pm
by G.C.Montgomery
Mithras61 wrote:lrb111 wrote:G.C.Montgomery wrote:I think lrb111 is refering to Sgt. Bobby Ripps, rather than Riggs. .
yep. Bobby Riggs was tennis player. Thanks..
And here I was thinking Mel Gibson/Leathal Weapon!
No, thats Sgt. Martin Riggs
Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 9:57 pm
by Skiprr
G.C.Montgomery wrote:No, thats Sgt. Martin Riggs
Who really handled his Beretta sloppily, especially to be all that "one of only four or five men in the world who could make that shot" stuff. But we'll never be rid of Hollywood.
And yeah, Bobby Riggs wouldn't be very awe-inspiring as a DPS instructor, would he.
Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:09 pm
by G.C.Montgomery
Getting back to the original subject, sort of...I think having a Martin Riggs on an airplane would be a mixed bag. It almost guarantees there will be a hijacking attempt and that it will end with lots of gun fire, flames, smoke and dead bodies.
Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 11:01 pm
by ElGato
If I thought the other might be wearing body armor, that is when I would think shoot the pelvic area.
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 9:20 am
by TX Rancher
Body armor, that’s a good discussion point.
First, does anyone know of verified accounts where terrorists have taken advantage of body armor? What about the standard Bad Guy? I know it’s been used, I’m sure most folks remember the LA shootout and of course there’s the Tyler Texas incident with Arroyo, but how prevalent is the use of armor with the BG’s?
When I did a quick Google I was surprised how many links there were to criminals and Cat 2/3 body armor. Maybe the odds of running into it are increasing. The price of a good Cat 3 chest rig is pretty low.
So for the sake of argument, let’s assume the BG has armor, and is armed with a hi-capacity pistol (no rifle). You put a few COM, with little apparent effect. Do you go for the head, or the pelvic region?
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 9:37 am
by stevie_d_64
TX Rancher wrote:So for the sake of argument, let’s assume the BG has armor, and is armed with a hi-capacity pistol (no rifle). You put a few COM, with little apparent effect. Do you go for the head, or the pelvic region?
Both...Keep shooting till the threat no longer exists, or you run out of ammo...Which I know for a fact will bring up all sorts of other sub-issues...
For the sake of Steve's side of the discussion...I would think that a pelvic shot, no matter how high that person is on PCP or other mind-numbing, pain reducing/inhibiting drugs, that would make the target less mobile almost instantly...It just makes sense...
But the head shot...I would imagine from what I have seen and heard, that is pretty much a high precentage show stopper...But harder to perform in certain situations...
But thats just my opinion...