The "Center Mass" Myth - Page 5
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > Handguns > Concealed Carrying & Personal Protection > The "Center Mass" Myth

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-27-2013, 01:31 PM   #41
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: The Free State of Winston, AL
Posts: 2,892
Liked 1876 Times on 1100 Posts
Likes Given: 894

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonM View Post
the reason term center mass is used is because you want your aimpoint to be center of the goblin since landing hits is what matters. in life or death stress your not going to be pinpointing a spot on his chest right in the heart all your going to be seeing is a badguy trying to kill you and the instinct to aim center will offer the highest chance of getting a hit before ammo runs out.

if you have time to take delibirate aim and put one round right in the sweet spot either you havent a real need to be shooting anyone or your already holding a goblin at gun point. in a straight up ohsht this 2sshat is shooting at me trying to rape me trying to rob me type thing center mass is your best bet to saving your life in a quick dirty fight.
Isn't that what I just said?????
__________________

An armed society is not always a polite society, but it is a free and safe society!
Self Defense is an absolute and natural right!
Keep your head down and your powder dry!

JimRau is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2013, 01:33 PM   #42
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Jacksonville,FL
Posts: 2,831
Liked 1767 Times on 988 Posts
Likes Given: 1302

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by danolator View Post
I was taught that center mass is exactly as described in the beginning of this thread. I have never heard a shooter or instructor refer to anything lower than the rub cage as center mass.
I hear what you are saying, but understand that most shooters out there have never had formal instruction. When you tell them center mass they look at the torso as a whole and assume you mean aim for the middle. Many of the anatomical targets actually reenforce this. The ever popular B27 is a good example. The X ring is roughly a hand width too low. The top of the 9 ring is where you need to be shooting. Look through THIS to see what I mean.
__________________
Doc3402 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2013, 05:38 AM   #43
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
BeyondTheBox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,604
Liked 285 Times on 247 Posts

Default

I always thought it meant center of mass and to me the mass of a body is the upper body, and its center.

I think it would take a real idiot to think of shooting anywhere but the area with the most major, vital organs.

__________________
BeyondTheBox is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2013, 06:10 AM   #44
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Jagermeister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Germany
Posts: 6,815
Liked 3860 Times on 2304 Posts
Likes Given: 3233

Default

I am not sure if we are talking concealed carry (hand guns), or personal protection in general. The forum says both. There is a reason to aim center mass in certain scenarios. When dealing with iron sites and red dots, most shooters are zeroed in at 50 to 100 meters. Let us take the AR. The .223 round has that infamous arc. If you are zeroed in at 50 meters, the round will hit two to three meters high at 100 meters. Zeroed in at 100 meters, once again higher at 150. This s why you shoot at center mass, more hits on the chest area down range. On full auto or rapid fire, you will see a rise on the bullet placement. Aiming at stomach will allow for more hits. This can be said also for quick firing pistols and SMGs (close shooting), especially with the snappy 9mm. In a gun fight, I would aim center mass. At the range, there is no stress and you can take your time. In a gun fight, the event is fast, your adrenalin is pumping, and you are running on instinct. You will not be winning any comps with your shot placement!

__________________

Last edited by Jagermeister; 04-28-2013 at 06:29 AM.
Jagermeister is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2013, 09:51 AM   #45
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Jacksonville,FL
Posts: 2,831
Liked 1767 Times on 988 Posts
Likes Given: 1302

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeyondTheBox View Post
I always thought it meant center of mass and to me the mass of a body is the upper body, and its center.

I think it would take a real idiot to think of shooting anywhere but the area with the most major, vital organs.
Let's do this one at a time. You state the upper body. Would that be the upper part of the torso, or the part of the body above the legs? If it's the part without legs, and you aim for the center, you are missing all vital organs likely to end the fight in a hurry. That's the point of the thread. How do you define center mass?

Quote:
I think it would take a real idiot to think of shooting anywhere but the area with the most major, vital organs
If you use the B27 target or quite a few of the other silhouette targets, you fit your own description of idiot if you try for the X ring. Your target is training you to aim below the vital organs. Please, I mean no offense, but that's the way the target manufacturers have set things up. The majority of silhouette targets out there train you to shoot roughly a hand width below where you need to be shooting.

You know, an interesting question now would be why are the silhouette target manufacturers deliberately misleading us?
__________________
Doc3402 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2013, 10:13 AM   #46
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 258
Liked 23 Times on 19 Posts

Default

The reason you are supposed to aim at "center of mass" is to insure a greater probability of a hit. It has nothing to do with trying to pull off spinal surgery with your gun, or even trying to get the Mythical one shot stop. Its about lessening the chance of a miss. A shot in the gut is way better than a shot passed someones ear. If you use a hundgun and do proper double taps, you have one shot into the diaphram and the next into the sternum. Or whatever. The idea applies to whatevr your target area happens to be, aim for the center of it. If its a big toe sticking out aim for the center of it, if it is a head aim center there, whatever. Self defense ain't like harvesting deer, you donthave to be humane. Aim center of mass and unload.

__________________
triggerjob is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2013, 10:22 AM   #47
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Jacksonville,FL
Posts: 2,831
Liked 1767 Times on 988 Posts
Likes Given: 1302

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by triggerjob View Post
The reason you are supposed to aim at "center of mass" is to insure a greater probability of a hit. It has nothing to do with trying to pull off spinal surgery with your gun, or even trying to get the Mythical one shot stop. Its about lessening the chance of a miss. A shot in the gut is way better than a shot passed someones ear. If you use a hundgun and do proper double taps, you have one shot into the diaphram and the next into the sternum. Or whatever. The idea applies to whatevr your target area happens to be, aim for the center of it. If its a big toe sticking out aim for the center of it, if it is a head aim center there, whatever. Self defense ain't like harvesting deer, you donthave to be humane. Aim center of mass and unload.
I'm no mathematician, but would your chance of a hit drop that much if you aimed one hand width higher? Even if you shoot high, if you're still on the vertical center-line you are going to hit a vital area. The point is that we are all being trained to use an aimpoint that is not over vital organs.
__________________
Doc3402 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2013, 11:33 AM   #48
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
SSGN_Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,269
Liked 2115 Times on 1247 Posts
Likes Given: 459

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jagermeister View Post
I am not sure if we are talking concealed carry (hand guns), or personal protection in general. The forum says both. There is a reason to aim center mass in certain scenarios. When dealing with iron sites and red dots, most shooters are zeroed in at 50 to 100 meters. Let us take the AR. The .223 round has that infamous arc. If you are zeroed in at 50 meters, the round will hit two to three meters high at 100 meters. Zeroed in at 100 meters, once again higher at 150. This s why you shoot at center mass, more hits on the chest area down range. On full auto or rapid fire, you will see a rise on the bullet placement. Aiming at stomach will allow for more hits. This can be said also for quick firing pistols and SMGs (close shooting), especially with the snappy 9mm. In a gun fight, I would aim center mass. At the range, there is no stress and you can take your time. In a gun fight, the event is fast, your adrenalin is pumping, and you are running on instinct. You will not be winning any comps with your shot placement!
The trajectory on an AR is a lot flatter than that. With a 50 meter zero the bullet path is never higher than three or four inches a over point of aim or lower than Three or four inches below point of aim out to 300 meters. That was the reasoning for a 50 meter zero.

Pretty sure the OP was really focusing on defensive handgun scenarios inside 50 meters to begin with. When we get into rifle rounds introducing a lot more hydrostatic shock that can rupture more vessels and damage more bone and solid organs then center of mass can be more "forgiving" from a perspective of being able to incapacitate more quickly.

Handgun rounds do not provide nearly the same level of energy, reliable penetration, or hydrostatic damage that a rifle does. So, Doc has a great point about being specific on where to aim to maximize chances for generating a wound that will create enough blood loss, quickly enough to incapacitate an aggressor. Missing the heart, there are still chances to hit the aorta, vena cava, or other major vessels supplying blood to the heart, lungs and brain. Or hits to the lungs, or if penetration is there and angles are right, hits to the spine.

It's possibly ironic that CPR training makes me think about the sternum being a focal point when aiming at silhouette targets. Same place I put my hands for chest compressions is the same place I aim.
__________________
SSGN_Doc is online now  
Tackleberry1 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2013, 12:24 PM   #49
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Jagermeister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Germany
Posts: 6,815
Liked 3860 Times on 2304 Posts
Likes Given: 3233

Default

Doc,
It is ideal to shoot in the area of the vital organs, but we need to be realistic. Like I stated before combat situations is not like the range. Trying to aim at center mass allows for variation of shot placement within a "circle" originating from the center mass. The police and military targets also place the 10 on the center mass. Both train to aim center mass. This is due to research, understanding of human abilities and the experience of decades upon decades of conflict. Also, most gun battles involve firing multi rounds. The more rounds hitting the target results in further shock to the body and more loss of blood. It does not matter where you are being hit when being struck multiple times. The body does have limits. I know you are in the medical field, but do you have combat medical experience? I work on an Army post that has the largest military hospital outside the US. The war wounded are first transported here for treatment. Talkng to some of the doctors and my combat medical friends, I can tell you that a lot of gun shot wounds are to the extremeties. The trauma of being struck in these areas is quite devastating and puts you out of the fight very quickly. I can also tell you that a second shot to the body is what normally causes a kill. This is also been support by civilian medical statistics. Feel free to research this....

026.jpg   025.jpg  
__________________
Jagermeister is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-28-2013, 12:45 PM   #50
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Jagermeister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Germany
Posts: 6,815
Liked 3860 Times on 2304 Posts
Likes Given: 3233

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SSGN_Doc View Post
The trajectory on an AR is a lot flatter than that. With a 50 meter zero the bullet path is never higher than three or four inches a over point of aim or lower than Three or four inches below point of aim out to 300 meters. That was the reasoning for a 50 meter zero.

Pretty sure the OP was really focusing on defensive handgun scenarios inside 50 meters to begin with. When we get into rifle rounds introducing a lot more hydrostatic shock that can rupture more vessels and damage more bone and solid organs then center of mass can be more "forgiving" from a perspective of being able to incapacitate more quickly.

Handgun rounds do not provide nearly the same level of energy, reliable penetration, or hydrostatic damage that a rifle does. So, Doc has a great point about being specific on where to aim to maximize chances for generating a wound that will create enough blood loss, quickly enough to incapacitate an aggressor. Missing the heart, there are still chances to hit the aorta, vena cava, or other major vessels supplying blood to the heart, lungs and brain. Or hits to the lungs, or if penetration is there and angles are right, hits to the spine.

It's possibly ironic that CPR training makes me think about the sternum being a focal point when aiming at silhouette targets. Same place I put my hands for chest compressions is the same place I aim.
Sorry to disagree with you, but that has not been my experience of the arc on the .223/5.56. I have constantly seen this with the AR15s. I had this very discuss with a ranger sniper who served in Vietnam while sighting in my new AR. He helped me sight in the red dot, since I was not familiar with the Eotech. We were witnessing the rise of 2 to 3 inches at the 100 meter mark with the Nato rounds. I saw a two inch rise with a hunting round. A colt was being sighted in next to me and we saw a 3 inch rise. Plus, I must be imagining things shooting the AR at the range for the last 20 years. Yet, I think we are still around the same ballpark. When I said even higher after 100 meters, I was not specific, plus I would be guessing. I am seeing about 4 to 6 inches higher at further distance, and you are saying three or four inches higher. Plus, ammo is different. The Nato rounds are running much hotter then civilian rounds. Hunting rounds have a softer bullet. etc....
With respect. Enjoy your weekend!
029.jpg  
__________________

Last edited by Jagermeister; 04-28-2013 at 01:35 PM.
Jagermeister is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Expanded Background Checks Fail in the Senate - The Myth of the "Gun Show Loophole" BPNovum The Club House 3 04-18-2013 04:07 AM
The Myth About the Garand "Ping" Amsdorf Curio & Relic Discussion 25 02-09-2013 04:41 PM
Another mass shooting, another lunatic wielding an "assault rifle" 95sniper Legal and Activism 141 12-21-2012 01:06 PM
"Do "Gun-Free" Zones Encourage School Shootings?" cnorman18 The Club House 26 04-17-2012 09:57 PM
Witloe Remington 1858 New Model Army "Lee" & "Grant" bprevolver Blackpowder & Musket 0 09-25-2008 11:11 PM