Mozambique Drill? Combat Focus?

Discussion in 'Training & Safety' started by Dillinger, Apr 4, 2008.

  1. Dillinger

    Dillinger New Member

    23,972
    2
    0
    For those not familiar:

    Mozambique Drill: Also known as the 2+1; 2 to the chest, 1 to the head.

    Combat Focus: Fire as many rounds as it takes to end the threat, center mass.


    Do any of you practice these defensive handgun techniques in your normal range time? How do you practice to end a threat, assuming you would ever be faced with one? A question came up on another forum I frequent which got me curious as to how the rest of you guys train.

    For me, I was initially trained in the 2+1, but about a year or so ago I read about Combat Focus and was privileged enough to have some personal, one on one, training with one of the main founders and proponents, Rob Pincus. I find the theory extremely sound and am now a fan of this technique as well, which is what I practice at a range near my home. I am a "charter" member, as I bought a membership before they opened, so we have a separate bay where multiple, rapid fire is allowed. :D

    Thanks for your responses in advance.

    Dillinger
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2008
  2. matt g

    matt g New Member Supporter

    3,865
    0
    0
    I was trained to use combat focus. It works well enough with the weapons that I use to not need to run 2 to the chest and one to the head. Center mass shots will cause massive trauma that will lead to system collapse, no need for a head shot, unless it is used to confirm that a body is indeed dead when you approach to search.
     

  3. hillbilly68

    hillbilly68 New Member

    994
    0
    0
    Interesting question you have posed. Think it depends (in my mind) the number of threats and the weapon you have. Multiple won't allow for a mag in the chest of each; 2 shots in available/ visible center of mass would be at the max end of time before moving to the next target. The old METT-TC standby applies...so in the end I would say it depends. Plus tunnel vision, the old adrenaline effects / sympathetic response will throw a wrench in the works for rapid transition to a third shot with a different sight picture on the same target (2 then 1) if you have more than one target. IMO, the logic of neutralize the threat ASAP is sound.
    So how do you train it? What is the adequate amount of rounds on a paper target to train the combat focus? How do you train multis? Any drills that you could pass on to us? Thanks for the post.
     
  4. gnoll

    gnoll New Member

    269
    0
    0
    http://www.counterfiretargets.com/
    get them and trace them than make your own ,now its not just stop this dude it stop who will hurt you more and who will not hurt you at all
     
  5. matt g

    matt g New Member Supporter

    3,865
    0
    0
    You've never been on a pop up range? You fire center mass until the target falls.
     
  6. hillbilly68

    hillbilly68 New Member

    994
    0
    0
    Uh yeah. The sensors are usually set to drop at one round, not "shoot COM until it goes down". Kind of what we call "negative training" as it takes more than one round in a lot of live engagements. Not really the question I was asking but thanks for your input.
     
  7. matt g

    matt g New Member Supporter

    3,865
    0
    0
    They didn't change the silhouettes out much on Bragg, so it usually took two or three shots to drop them.
     
  8. Missing Something

    Missing Something New Member

    6
    0
    0
    I do the 2+1. The reason for the "Mozambique Drill" was for targets that have body armour and don't go down, then a head shot is needed to "stop" the target. Even nowadays there are people all "hopped up" on different chemicals a head shot may be needed to stop the threat. I am not current with the "combat focus" but in my opinion it uses up too much valuable ammunition, especially if you have multiple threats. Even with multiple "center of mass" hits this does not guarantee that a target stops doing what they are doing where a head shot does.

    just my 2 cents
     
  9. Chester

    Chester New Member

    327
    0
    0
    What's wrong with 1 to the head, Stops the threat, saves time to stop another, saves ammo.
     
  10. matt g

    matt g New Member Supporter

    3,865
    0
    0
    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?
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2008
  11. Missing Something

    Missing Something New Member

    6
    0
    0
    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.

    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: Apr 6, 2008
  12. Rob Pincus

    Rob Pincus New Member

    19
    0
    0
    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
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2008
  13. hillbilly68

    hillbilly68 New Member

    994
    0
    0
    OK Rob, please cancel the invitation I sent you to go shooting..:D

    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
     
  14. robocop10mm

    robocop10mm Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    11,380
    2
    0
    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.
     
  15. Dillinger

    Dillinger New Member

    23,972
    2
    0

    Wow! How about that? Envoke the name and the man himself joined up to post on the subject. :cool: 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.
     
  16. matt g

    matt g New Member Supporter

    3,865
    0
    0
    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: Apr 7, 2008
  17. ranger_sxt

    ranger_sxt New Member

    333
    0
    0
    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.
     
  18. robocop10mm

    robocop10mm Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    11,380
    2
    0
    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.
     
  19. hydrashok

    hydrashok New Member

    692
    0
    0
    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.
     
  20. ranger_sxt

    ranger_sxt New Member

    333
    0
    0
    Who is teaching that method?:eek: