Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Training & Safety > Mozambique Drill? Combat Focus?

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-06-2008, 08:53 PM   #11
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by matt g View Post
If I'm engaging multiple targets, it'll probably be done at close range to defend from a home invasion. My tool of choice is a 1911, which limits my amount of available ammo, but does sling a potent round. 1 230gr. Hydrashock, center mass, will most likely kill a combatant at ranges of less than 10 yards. In this instance, if I dedicate 3 rounds to each attacker, that allows me to engage 2 attackers before a magazine change. Whereas with combat focus, I can kill or seriously disable up to 7 attackers per magazine.

Which technique 'wastes' ammo?
Don't misunderstand.... if I am engaging multiple targets at close range... I may not do body shots at all and go for the stopping head shot.

Under stress the sure shot is a body shot. Most people don't practice enough to be competent under stress for a head shot.

Quote:
1 230gr. Hydrashock, center mass, will most likely kill a combatant at ranges of less than 10 yards.
Yes but how long does it take him to bleed out and how many extra shots will it take to "STOP" the threat.

Don't get me wrong, I am not in favor of one over the other. I practice the 2+1, that's all. I want to be able to take the difficult head shot under stress.
just my 2 cents...


__________________

Last edited by Missing Something; 04-06-2008 at 08:55 PM.
Missing Something is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2008, 05:09 AM   #12
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 19
Default

Dillinger,

Thanks for discussion some of the components of CFS, I am glad that you are integrating them into your training and practice. It is true that I advocate multiple shots to the chest to stop a threat when that target area is an option. Head shots are notoriously unreliable and they are also significantly harder to get under most close quarters defensive circumstances.

Everyone,

While the 2+1 patterns were in vogue for awhile, I don't know of any serious teams that are still training with that model. It is really a purely sport approach to the problem that looks good on paper. In the incredibly unlikely event that a transition from High Center Chest is necessary because of hard body armor, I teach pelvic girdle as the better option.

Hyperbole like "I'll just shoot'em all in the head" is easier to type than to do.

As for multiple targets, we know that in the overwhelming majority of cases, people will focus on single threats at a time and go through completely new recognition phases for other threats during the same incidents. The real world doesn't include a briefing about target locations and the question "is the shooter ready?" just before the buzzer.....

-RJP



__________________
I.C.E. Training Company

Last edited by Rob Pincus; 04-07-2008 at 05:12 AM.
Rob Pincus is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2008, 09:25 AM   #13
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
hillbilly68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,000
Liked 2 Times on 2 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Pincus View Post
Dillinger,

In the incredibly unlikely event that a transition from High Center Chest is necessary because of hard body armor, I teach pelvic girdle as the better option.-RJP
OK Rob, please cancel the invitation I sent you to go shooting..

On a more serious note, thank you for some sound professional insight. Appreciate the participation. And for the thread Dillinger, knew this would be an interesting one.
regards
__________________

________________________________________
"I'm your brother, just make it count."

hillbilly68 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2008, 12:40 PM   #14
Moderator
FTF_MODERATOR.png
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
robocop10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Austin,Texas, by God!!
Posts: 9,917
Liked 2579 Times on 1355 Posts
Likes Given: 197

Default

Pelvic girdle shots are fine for assailants armed with an edged weapon, but if they are armed with a firearm it may not be the best idea. The pelvic shot will put them down but not out.

Head shots are difficult at best. Between adrenaline and a moving target a head is very small.

If I am carrying a wheelgun or sinigle stack, I prescribe to the boarding house rules, everyone gets firsts before anyone gets seconds. That way I am not left with an empty gun and more assailants. My wheelgun? .44 mag with Proload 200 gr Gold Dots @ 1000 fps. My single stack? 10mm with Proload 180 gr Gold Dots at 1300 fps. Either are very effective with just one center of mass hit.

__________________
robocop10mm is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2008, 05:04 PM   #15
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: I see you, and you will not know when I will strike
Posts: 24,301
Liked 3474 Times on 1607 Posts
Likes Given: 3590

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Pincus View Post
Dillinger,

Thanks for discussion some of the components of CFS, I am glad that you are integrating them into your training and practice. It is true that I advocate multiple shots to the chest to stop a threat when that target area is an option. Head shots are notoriously unreliable and they are also significantly harder to get under most close quarters defensive circumstances.

-RJP

Wow! How about that? Envoke the name and the man himself joined up to post on the subject. Many thanks for stopping by and posting Rob - I greatly enjoyed my time at Valhalla and have been practicing the Combat Focus techniques learned there.

I knew this would be a bit of a lightening rod post when I proposed it, but I think the discussion is important and it's always good to get as much information as you can.
__________________
Dillinger is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2008, 03:00 AM   #16
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
matt g's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,885
Liked 7 Times on 5 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Missing Something View Post
Yes but how long does it take him to bleed out and how many extra shots will it take to "STOP" the threat.
You've never seen massive shock due to full system collapse have you? Are you familiar with what happens when a bullet hits the human body? People are a funny animal, in that, when shot, instinct is to drop like a rock, then collect their wits and decide if what they're doing is worth getting shot again. When shot, people lay down and scream for their buddies. They don't take a shot and keep coming at you. I suggest you research what really happens to people when shot, rather than taking what the movies tell you at face value.

The point of the Hydrashock and other hollow points is to cause a big ripple in the fluids of a body, that cause organs to rupture and nerves and muscles to turn to mush. This phenomena is, strangely enough, known as hydraulic shock.

It isn't an issue of bleeding out, it's an issue of causing enough trauma to cause massive system failure and therefore, massive shock. I've seen many people in shock and few have had much energy left in them.
__________________

Last edited by matt g; 04-08-2008 at 03:16 AM.
matt g is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2008, 07:39 PM   #17
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 333
Liked 3 Times on 2 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by matt g View Post
You've never seen massive shock due to full system collapse have you? Are you familiar with what happens when a bullet hits the human body? People are a funny animal, in that, when shot, instinct is to drop like a rock, then collect their wits and decide if what they're doing is worth getting shot again. When shot, people lay down and scream for their buddies. They don't take a shot and keep coming at you. I suggest you research what really happens to people when shot, rather than taking what the movies tell you at face value.

The point of the Hydrashock and other hollow points is to cause a big ripple in the fluids of a body, that cause organs to rupture and nerves and muscles to turn to mush. This phenomena is, strangely enough, known as hydraulic shock.

It isn't an issue of bleeding out, it's an issue of causing enough trauma to cause massive system failure and therefore, massive shock. I've seen many people in shock and few have had much energy left in them.
You are referencing two things that were envogue for a long time, but reality reared its ugly head...

The first part is the psychological issue of the bad guy deciding to stop fighting. This sounds good on paper, as we can sit in our easy chairs and say "Hmm, if I was shot, I would give up. That would hurt." Unfortunately, real-life doesn't reflect the world from my easy chair. Chemical influences, either natural (adrenaline) or artificial (meth, crack, coke, heroin, alcohol, etc.), on the human physiology tend to dull the pain sensors, which tell the brain "Hey! That hurts!" If the brain doesn't know that something hurts, then it is unlikely that it will tell the body to lie down and stop fighting. In my neck of the woods, the amount of tweakers makes this a downright dangerous thing to rely on.

The other issue is the reliance on causing "...a big ripple in the fluids of a body..." or HYDROSTATIC shock. Once again, this was something that looked like a great idea on paper, to people who weren't trained in anatomy, and it was repeated throughout the gun magazines. When it made its way to an ER doctor (whose name escapes me, but I believe it was Martin Fackler), he started to perform a study. He took a whole series of GSW victims that came into his trauma center, and compared their wounds with the death rates. Most of the people who died, died because they bled out, or were hit in the central nervous system (spinal column or brain). The very few that did not die because of this, died because Hollywood had told them that being shot kills them (your first point; it is valid, but there are too many variables for it to be reliable).

Upon further research, the doctor concluded that what killed people was not the hydrostatic shock, with a few exceptions that I'll discuss below, but rather the destruction of key parts of the body that will either cause massive hemmorhaging (bleeding), like the heart or lungs, or a stop the sending of information (central nervous system). The exceptions to this were the brain and the liver.

The reason the brain and liver are more susceptible lies in one of their similarities. Both of these organs are inelastic, meaning they don't stretch. In addition to bone, these are the only organs that have that description. Every other organ is elastic. What this means is when someone is shot, although the hydrostatic shock does push the surrounding tissue away, it does not permanently damage it to the extent to cause death. It creates a temporary wound cavity.

Significantly more damaging to the body is the permanent wound cavity, or where the bullet destroys the tissue permanently, not just pushing it away. This is actually what all modern expanding ammunition is designed to do. By increasing the size of the bullet, the likelihood of hitting a more vital organ that will cause massive hemorrhaging is increased. Originally, the Hydroshock was designed to increase the hydrostatic shock, which is evident in the name.
__________________
ranger_sxt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2008, 09:11 PM   #18
Moderator
FTF_MODERATOR.png
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
robocop10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Austin,Texas, by God!!
Posts: 9,917
Liked 2579 Times on 1355 Posts
Likes Given: 197

Default

I agree that the hydrostatic (hydrolic) shock is over rated. That "theory" was 20 years ago. It is generally accepted that to attain any level of hydrostatic shock you must have a bullet travelling at least 2000 fps.

Another "theory' revolves around temporary vs permanent cavity. The temporary cavity is related to "hydrostatic shock". Generally meaningless in pistol bullets. Permanent cavity is real. That is the area destroyed/removed by the path of the bullet. The permanent cavity must engage something vital to have any value at all. A 2" hole through the thigh that does not break bone or sever a large blood vessel is simply pain. A person can and frequently does ignore pain. A person cannot ignore massive blood loss or the inability to transmit messages from the brain to the nerves.

Well centered shots with quality bullets of sufficient diameter, weight and velocity are the only things that can be expected to have the desired effect, stopping the attacker.

__________________
robocop10mm is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2008, 05:58 AM   #19
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
hydrashok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Atlanta,TEXAS!
Posts: 705
Default Modified Failure Drill

I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned yet, so I'll bring it up now...

The Mozambique Drill (Failure Drill) has been widely (world-widely) taught for many years, but in the last few years, there has been a significant modification... it's being taught to shoot 2 to the body (center mass) and one to the groin. The final head shot was for stopping a threat when the 2 to center mass failed (how it became known as the "failure drill"). The head is a smaller target, and the skull can be pretty tough if the shot isn't well placed. The groin is a bigger target, is usually protected by little or no body armor, and when a subject is shot in the groin, it's very likely you'll hit a major blood vessel, the pubic symphasis, or severely injure the hip. In any case, you'll instantly immobilize the subject.

...and the last thing anybody wants to testify to in court is a head shot.

__________________
hydrashok is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2008, 06:53 AM   #20
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 333
Liked 3 Times on 2 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hydrashok View Post
I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned yet, so I'll bring it up now...

The Mozambique Drill (Failure Drill) has been widely (world-widely) taught for many years, but in the last few years, there has been a significant modification... it's being taught to shoot 2 to the body (center mass) and one to the groin. The final head shot was for stopping a threat when the 2 to center mass failed (how it became known as the "failure drill"). The head is a smaller target, and the skull can be pretty tough if the shot isn't well placed. The groin is a bigger target, is usually protected by little or no body armor, and when a subject is shot in the groin, it's very likely you'll hit a major blood vessel, the pubic symphasis, or severely injure the hip. In any case, you'll instantly immobilize the subject.

...and the last thing anybody wants to testify to in court is a head shot.
Who is teaching that method?


__________________
ranger_sxt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Drill Sergeant Joe B. Fricks Rules For A Gunfight AsmelEduardo Training & Safety 7 03-12-2009 02:54 AM
Training the Immediate Action Drill DCJS Instructor Training & Safety 5 08-23-2008 01:02 AM
Drill Nancy fapprez Politics, Religion and Controversy 6 08-15-2008 12:59 AM
Drill instructor convicted after rifle jams sculker The Club House 1 01-13-2008 08:29 PM
the cz 85 combat DrFunkenstein Semi-Auto Handguns 2 10-11-2007 01:15 AM



Newest Threads