I understand the reasoning for the third shot to the head.
The problem I see with the third shot to the head, is the fact that the head is a much smaller target.
This could result in a stray shot hitting an innocent bystander behind the adversary who is attacking you. Of course this is a result which we all wish to avoid.
:thumsup
If one is wearing body armor, there is a lot of lower body area under the vest that presents a better percentage of making the shot that puts them down than a head shot. Moving the gun muzzle lower on the torso scooting rounds under the vest coverage is much easier under stress, and much easier to accomplish while dynamically moving yourself.
Head shots on the run? Maybe, but a lower percentage shot than even standing still to perform some presumed mozambique two the body and one to the head while taking incoming. I seriously doubt the average ccw carrying civilian is going to be standing around while taking incoming and take a classic prose and perform some "drill" they learned on a square range using front sight press skills. Nah,, I don't think that's the best way to solve the problem myself and probably a recipe to disaster against an armored BG on the streets.
Taking an automatic third shot to the head after two failures at COM body shots as some standard fodder response to encounters? First, it can take several shots before someone actually reacts to being shot-- 3-4 rds in one second is not hard at the distances we are likely to have to defend ourselves with a handgun statistically. In that one second, he may be falling down, doubling over or not responding yet or at all to taking hits.
In the early 1930's, over 600 actual gunfights were extensively documented in Shanghai [ the most dangerous city in the world at that time ]. In large majority of those documented gun battles, those who were hit low in the abdomen instantly dropped what they were holding. If the BG gets nailed in the lower abdomen [ which is under the vests protection ] and drops the weapon, the fight had been effectively stopped in your favor and gives one time to them go proactive and in a position to then take aim to some area like the head if the BG is still viable and attempting to pick up that weapon.
That seems like it would be a better percentage of affecting a positive outcome for the defender than trying to make a head shot after the BG has at least temporarily stopped their aggression.
Don't worry about Dble Taps or Triple taps..shoot 'em to the ground and adjust your shots accordingly..I dont care where you hit the BG, just hit him with enough lead to end the threat..be it in the foot, legs, head, arms, neck etc..keep shooting..that garbage of 2 shots and assess is exactly that..garbage..it wont happen. Good luck to anyone that tries it..
When's the last time you heard of anyone in a gunfight do a dble tap or triple and assess?? At what distance what anyone recommend such an action?..Last question, at what distance do most gunfights happen?..Then tell me how in hell you are going to get into an MT stance front site focused dble tap position..unless of course you are LEO..
How about we focus on reality here..It will be quick, it will be at 10' or less, it will be point and shoot with a tremendous adrenaline dump..If any of us civilians shoot anyone at over 20' we are most likely going to end up in jail with the very least a manslaughter charge..unless the stupid criminal shows his gun prior to that there is no threat of deadly force..You guys are talking about certain police actions involving a known threat wearing body armor..not your everyday violent encounter on the street..
I will add, anytime you feel brave enough to get aggressive with your handgun against an armed BG with an AK or rifle..good luck, your gonna need it..
:thumsup
I've also never seen any documentation of any officer or ccw carrier taking the classic MT position and make two the body and one to the head while taking incoming. If anyone has any case history of someone actually doing this in the real world, I'd be interested in reading the after action report and outcome, as well as the circumstances that allowed the defender to stand and use this range drill on the streets under stress with both parties moving on each other vying for position to make the hits on one anther before taking any.
Head shots remain a possibility, but are a lower percentage shot than muzzling the gun lower on the torso and putting rds into the lower abdomen which is at least double the available area to deliver rounds than the head.
edited to add this morning-----
I think one of the problems with these scenario based questions is the fact that not everyone is thinking of the same scenario so we see a variety of possible solutions based on their own idea of some scenario. Some one mentioned the LA shootout previously. That's one scenario, but an LE scenario. One where the cops were hunkered down and taking shots at two guys in full armor, not just a vest who weren't really moving all that much or with any speed. Even they didn't have the presence of mind over many minutes of high stress taking incoming to take the head shot after the body shots weren't having an effect.
Those who carry concealed with a ccw permit aren't going to be involved in that type of situation for long as they'll be getting out of the way if they are still alive after the initial encounter and not hunkering down to make head shots in return fire unless absolutely necessary and then, only until the boys in blue arrive.
SwampRat's post seems to suggest the most likely event encountered by most of us, and that situation demands you not be standing around taking incoming at such close range. It won't be protracted long enough to stand and deliver heads shots in some classic drill, it will be over very quickly. You'll be alive, injured or dead. They'll be the same, and the outcome really depends on who can get out of the way, extricating to some form of cover as fast as possible while putting as many rounds in their direction COM as possible unless they have no choice of moving out of the area for some reason.
Brownie
