Triggernometry The "Center Mass" Myth and Ending a Gunfight By Jim Higginbotham

Very interesting article and video. He sure shoots that .45 fast. Thanks for posting this info Mr. Conway.



I am however curious about his ideas of how many rounds from each of the calibers he feels would be needed to stop a threat.

With handguns, and with expanding bullets, it is even more unpredictable, but through years of study I have developed a general formula, subject to the above mentioned unpredictable circumstances.




2-3 hits with a .45
4-6 with a .40
5-8 with a 9mm
With a revolver, the rounds are not necessarily more effective but I would practice shooting 3 in a .38 or .357 merely because I want 3 left for other threats. Not that those next three won’t follow quickly if the target hasn’t changed shape around my front sight blade. A .41, .44 or .45 Colt I would probably drop to two. Once again, they are not that much more effective than a .45 Auto but I don’t have the bullets to waste.
 
Last edited:
Sigtac
If you accept that the "One shot stop" is a rarity at best, then you must accept the you should shoot multiple times.
The number of shots atare recommended in the article are simply his best advice.
These numbers are the reason why I most often carry a .45 ACP
 
I practice this technique all the time. I don't stop shooting after one or two good hits.
I shoot until the threat is very neutralized. (Not moving, and not holding a weapon in my direction)

And, if it's "gang bangers", you know there will be multiple threats. Practice making split second decisions about which threat to engage first, and second, and third, etc. The side step is a critical distraction. making subsequent moves will keep them off guard. Finding possible cover is another good life saver.

How many mags to carry? As many as I can manage, depending on the circumstances, what I'm wearing, etc.

I'm not adverse to sending a few rapid rounds center mass, a few in the groin, and a few to the head. Effective, if carefully placed.

Both eyes open, scanning for additional threats. Don't forget to BREATHE........
 
To make a statement about how many rounds it takes per caliber to stop a threat is the worst advice a Firearms guru can give. Jim, tier one guys that taught classes you sponsored said to never expect a certain number of rounds will stop a threat. In fact, Jeff Gonzales said don't train yourself to fire a certain amount of rounds - shoot him to the ground and then if he still is a threat shoot him on the ground. Harrington said he might let a guy carry nine or ten if he's working with his carbine. I wonder how many 5.56mm Higginbotham thinks will work. Shit people survive artillery and airstrikes and keep on fighting. Oh, well.

With handguns, and with expanding bullets, it is even more unpredictable, but through years of study I have developed a general formula, subject to the above mentioned unpredictable circumstances.

2-3 hits with a .45
4-6 with a .40
5-8 with a 9mm
 
I practice this technique all the time. I don't stop shooting after one or two good hits.
I shoot until the threat is very neutralized. (Not moving, and not holding a weapon in my direction)

And, if it's "gang bangers", you know there will be multiple threats. Practice making split second decisions about which threat to engage first, and second, and third, etc. The side step is a critical distraction. making subsequent moves will keep them off guard. Finding possible cover is another good life saver.

How many mags to carry? As many as I can manage, depending on the circumstances, what I'm wearing, etc.

I'm not adverse to sending a few rapid rounds center mass, a few in the groin, and a few to the head. Effective, if carefully placed.

Both eyes open, scanning for additional threats. Don't forget to BREATHE........

You practice shooting people all the time? I dont get why people think side stepping throws an assailant off, all they have to do is track their target. Moving to create space and distance, thats another thing. To an untrained person, side stepping create another host of problems...tripping.

With handguns, and with expanding bullets, it is even more unpredictable, but through years of study I have developed a general formula, subject to the above mentioned unpredictable circumstances.

2-3 hits with a .45
4-6 with a .40
5-8 with a 9mm
With a revolver, the rounds are not necessarily more effective but I would practice shooting 3 in a .38 or .357 merely because I want 3 left for other threats. Not that those next three won’t follow quickly if the target hasn’t changed shape around my front sight blade. A .41, .44 or .45 Colt I would probably drop to two. Once again, they are not that much more effective than a .45 Auto but I don’t have the bullets to waste.

Thats some flawed thinking there, it doesnt matter the caliber, it matters where the rounds are on target, and when the target is no longer a threat. Ive seen Iraqis hit with a .50 and keep fighting, whats the formula for that? You shoot until the threat has been mitigated. Either by draining the blood out of the enemy of an incapacitating shot. .22, 9mm, .45 its all the same. Just because you shoot someone with a .45 doesnt mean its going to stop the threat any faster, it just means you have less bullets to put into the threat before a reload. But thats just my experience.
 
It's not the best writing, but I don't think he's saying that you should count rounds in a gunfight.
My only advice on this is what I learned from an old tanker: “Shoot until the target changes shape or catches fire!”
and
And remember “anyone worth shooting once is worth shooting a whole lot!”

I think he's saying that you should practice firing X many rounds (at least) per threat when you're at the range. Not just one per target from a static position like it's a qualification course. In other words, put a bunch of rounds on the target while you move. Seems like solid theory to me....

(And naturally a new shooter should master the basics first. Goes without saying.)
 
Last edited:
What are you using for targets that drop weapons and stop moving? I'm curious. I've been spending a lot of time researching reactive targets recently, and haven't run across anything that stops, drops a weapon, etc.

How many mags can you carry while wearing your armor in a civilian setting? I've hear a lot of people have a hard time concealing more than two spare mags while shopping, etc.

Is he that same guy that advocates wearing Level IV plates to CVS?
 
Is he that same guy that advocates wearing Level IV plates to CVS?

Who doesn't do this?


And I think someone needs to come up with targets that will take a more-or-less random number of shots, and then fall down, so you can practice shooting until the BG is on the deck. Not sure how that would work though, but I'll glady accept patent royalties if someone gets it to work :D
 
Who doesn't do this?


And I think someone needs to come up with targets that will take a more-or-less random number of shots, and then fall down, so you can practice shooting until the BG is on the deck. Not sure how that would work though, but I'll glady accept patent royalties if someone gets it to work :D

Your kidding right? You wear plates to CVS?

Its been invented, its called a pepper-popper. Theres a tension screw on the back you set to whatever the sensitivity of the target you want.
 
Jim Higginbotham - Brief Bio

Jim Higginbotham comes to Rangemaster with 20 years experience as a firearms instructor and over 15 years of law enforcement experience. He is currently the "Small Arms Subject Matter Expert" for the State of Kentucky. In this capacity, he trains officers of the Kentucky State Police, Kentucky National Guard Units, and members of the 20th Special Forces Group.

Some of his specific qualifications include:

* Graduate, Gunsite 499 and 599
* Designated "Senior Expert" by Jeff Cooper
* Attended Gunsite Provost program, taught by Gunsite
* Graduate, FBI Academy Firearms Instructor Course
* Kentucky Department of Criminal Justice Training certified instructor

* Graduate, Ken Hackathorn Advanced Tactical Handgun Course
* Graduate, Smith & Wesson Armorer’s School
* Master, IDPA Stock Service Pistol Division
* Winner of numerous IPSC and IDPA shooting competitions

* Published author of numerous magazine articles, plus the book "Selecting the Handgun for Concealed Carry" – 1996
* Member of these organizations:
o National Rifle Association
o International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors
o Police Marksmanship Association
o International Wound Ballistics Association
o International Defensive Pistol Association
* Pistol Master, RangeMaster's Master's Test

Jim teaches Advanced Level handgun, shotgun, and street survival at RangeMaster.
 
And I think someone needs to come up with targets that will take a more-or-less random number of shots, and then fall down
John Farnham has been doing this for ages (I saw it one one of his classes 15+ years ago). He has an assortment of plates about 9x12" with various shaped holes cut in then, and sets them up on stands with paper bags over the plates. The person practicing aims at the paper bag, but does not see where the holes are - and is taking the shots slowly enough to reliably keep them on target, but not so slowly as to maintain a 1" group size. The net effect is seemingly random response to hits.
 
I think that talking about military shooting and civilian defensive shooting in the same thread is absurd
Our Armed Forces carry a lot of spare mags and the average civilian carries none to two.
Military shooting is much longer range than civilian defensive shooting.
Civilians normally have no way to replenish their ammo supply
Bad guys have been killed with one good hit and lived after a lot of good hits.

Civilians can assume that they will face somewhere between one and maybe 4 or 5 bad guys.
We have to shoot well and make what ammo that we have last until the end of the fight.
If you run out of ammo in a fight, you had better be very luck and/or very fast.

Your other choice is to be the reason for a very nice funeral
 
Well....I guess someone beat me to it with the targets. And I guess that means no royalties. Dagnabbit!


And no, I don't wear plates to CVS. Walgreens, yes. CVS gets nothing more than the IIIa soft armor.
 
I think that talking about military shooting and civilian defensive shooting in the same thread is absurd
Our Armed Forces carry a lot of spare mags and the average civilian carries none to two.
Military shooting is much longer range than civilian defensive shooting.
Civilians normally have no way to replenish their ammo supply
Bad guys have been killed with one good hit and lived after a lot of good hits.

Civilians can assume that they will face somewhere between one and maybe 4 or 5 bad guys.
We have to shoot well and make what ammo that we have last until the end of the fight.
If you run out of ammo in a fight, you had better be very luck and/or very fast.

Your other choice is to be the reason for a very nice funeral

Why is it absurd? It isnt. The military is the predominate group that is shooting people. And allot of lessons can be learned from it. In other words, the military is the expert. They have the real life experience, along with selected LE. Going to a bunch of civilian schools doesnt make anyone a SME on the realities of combat, and when I say combat I mean fighting for your, or anothers life. There is a great disconnect out there between those that do it, and those that have an Amazon Prime Card or a Borders discount card. They are not equals. However they will sell that Ken Hackathorn 2 day course as if they had been in Falluja laying hate. (Im not saying Jim H in particular, theres ones out there that are much worse) I will leave it at that before I go on a book commando rant and how they do a disservice to the public. Going to a course isnt experience, its training. Basically get training from those that know, any one that GreyGroup offers is a good start.

To say that most military engagements are at long distance is a great falsity. I would know. It doesnt get much closer than entering a room to have multiple enemy or entering a target with numerous insurgents bunkered in it, I dont think it gets much closer than that. I could be wrong. Even Sniper engagements are statistically close ranges now. Urban warfare is close combat.

I dont know where the military gets the magic ammo re supply. If PEO is getting ready to field it, good on them. I wish on a number of occasions I would of have an ammo resupply point like that in Modern Warfare 2. It isnt the case. I remember one op where we had to wait over an hour to get resupplied with mags and grenades, you cant hit the pause button. That being said when I was in the Army I carried 4 M4 mags, 2 Glock mags. Thats it I didnt have a million bandoleers strapped to me like in the movies. You make due with what you got.

I guess the point is, shooting people is shooting people. There is no formula for it. There is no need to over complicate it. You put rounds on target, accurately; you cant miss fast enough.
 
P2A
You know that I respect those that serving in bad places.
There is no doubt that a lot, but not all, of them have gained a lot of valuable experience.

I think that you are getting all hung up in that experience and forgetting some of the realities of the civilian world.

The ammo that you mention carrying is vastly more than any civilian that I know can or would carry.
You mention ammo supply. The point that I was making is that there is absolutely no ammo resupply for civilians.
When a civilian is attacked it is always very close. Attacks on military units could come from any range.
That civilian attack is more often than not on a single individual and we probably do not have a buddy to help us.

All that I am trying to say is that there are differences
While you may not agreed with me on specifics, I think that you must agree that there are some significant differences
 
P2A
You know that I respect those that serving in bad places.
There is no doubt that a lot, but not all, of them have gained a lot of valuable experience.

I think that you are getting all hung up in that experience and forgetting some of the realities of the civilian world.

The ammo that you mention carrying is vastly more than any civilian that I know can or would carry.
You mention ammo supply. The point that I was making is that there is absolutely no ammo resupply for civilians.
When a civilian is attacked it is always very close. Attacks on military units could come from any range.
That civilian attack is more often than not on a single individual and we probably do not have a buddy to help us.

All that I am trying to say is that there are differences
While you may not agreed with me on specifics, I think that you must agree that there are some significant differences

Jim,

Im not inciting you disrespect those serving by any means.

Im not forgetting the realities of the civilian world. Im out of the Army now. And work as a civilian now. So ive seen both sides. The fact remains a violent attack is a violent attack. Shooting people, is shooting people. It gets convoluted when those with no experience, take their training and apply it as experience. That is not the case. The experience learned can be applied to the world we live in. That being said when I say those with experience, I mean combat guys, not POGs. The guys that do it daily, have been there, and done it. Not an avid reader or someone that signs up for courses. Or then takes that and becomes and expert in a field they have never been a part of. Back to my point... I see your argument but having been on both sides I see it allot simpler and as what it is. I don’t convolute violence from the battlefield and in the ghetto. The only difference is the enemy at war is much better trained.

I still don’t know where the Modern Warfare ammo resupply point is at war. Maybe you can give me a grid. In most cases a civilian can resupply allot faster than a soldier can. They just have to drive to Wal-Mart. In regards to the distances attacks come. Again in Urban Warfare it is usually close. And in CQB it always is. I don’t see the difference there. Close is close. The difference there in addition to close combat the soldier experiences it at varying differences. So I think the argument is becoming more convoluted than it really is.

Close is Close

Violent Attacks are Violent Attacks

Killing is Killing

And to reiterate, a .22 is just as deadly as a .45

And the experience of direct action guys, certain LE and those other armed professionals that do it, is experience. Reading a book to be a SME is just training, and it is in no way shape or form the same. To say Dave Harington, Kyle Lamb, Brian Searcy, and Paul Howe’s experience is irreveliant because it was at war, and it is comparable to some retard that gives so absurd round count and crams allot of BS onto a GunsAmerica Forum, well that’s ridiculous. And that’s why they are contracted to do what they do. At the end of the day they bring the experience to the table, they can get a job with their experience, you cant get a job off of training.
 
The number of shots atare recommended in the article are simply his best advice.
These numbers are the reason why I most often carry a .45 ACP

I say this with respect, so please don't take any more offense than is required to seriously consider what I'm saying. Those numbers seem like they were just pulled out of his ass.

Jim Cirillo's first gunfight was him & his .38 revolver vs. 3 guys, and he won, they all stopped just fine. NYPD has had multiple 1 shot stops with 9mm pistols. Tim Palmer absorbed 22 .40 S&W's fired by a North Carolina LEO before he stopped, 17 center of mass; in a similar incident a Mass. LEO put 16 rounds of .40 COM on a felon that didn't stop him, but a stray to the knee took him out of the fight. Handguns are relatively low powered gunfighting tools, and they often have mixed results, even with the high end "manstopper" calibers.

Everything I've ever seen, heard or read says that all conventional handgun calibers perform the same in gunfights, and while I won't fault anyone for choosing to carry a .45 over a 9mm or a .38 over a .45, it seems crazy to me that someone would choose their self defense caliber based on this guys numbers.

You shoot until the threat has been mitigated. Either by draining the blood out of the enemy of an incapacitating shot.

In fact, Jeff Gonzales said don't train yourself to fire a certain amount of rounds - shoot him to the ground and then if he still is a threat shoot him on the ground.

Exactly. Shoot until they stop, however many that takes. It's like when a 5 year old brings candy to their kindergarten class...bring enough for everyone.

I think he's saying that you should practice firing X many rounds (at least) per threat when you're at the range. Not just one per target from a static position like it's a qualification course. In other words, put a bunch of rounds on the target while you move. Seems like solid theory to me....

Seems like suicide to me. CHP Officer James Pence was killed in the infamous Newhall Shootout. He died while reloading in that gunfight, and investigators found empty shell casings in his pants pockets. Turns out, when CHP would qualify, some of the officers complained about bending down to pick up empty shells off the ground at the end of the day. So they compromised; they'd allow them to dump the empty shells from their revolvers into their hands, then transfer them to their pockets before loading live ammo.

When the SHTF on the side of the road in the middle of the night, Pence reverted to his lowest level of training and did what he'd practiced at the range. It cost him his life.

There's a SWAT cop out west who froze up in a gunfight after double tapping a suspect who didn't stop, because he'd drilled that two to the chest would stop people. Some other officers had to shoot the suspect and put him down. You will fight the way you train, imperfections and all.

I think that talking about military shooting and civilian defensive shooting in the same thread is absurd
Our Armed Forces carry a lot of spare mags and the average civilian carries none to two.
Military shooting is much longer range than civilian defensive shooting.
Civilians normally have no way to replenish their ammo supply
Bad guys have been killed with one good hit and lived after a lot of good hits.

Civilians can assume that they will face somewhere between one and maybe 4 or 5 bad guys.
We have to shoot well and make what ammo that we have last until the end of the fight.
If you run out of ammo in a fight, you had better be very luck and/or very fast.

I agree with you, civilian and military shooting is different in circumstance and practice, but at the core it's the same for everyone. A soldier has to shoot until they stop. A CCW holder has to shoot until they stop. A Crip shooting at a Blood has to shoot until they stop. If a CCW holder can't be bothered to carry enough ammo, modifying their tactics to conserve ammo seems even more backwards to me.

That being said when I was in the Army I carried 4 M4 mags, 2 Glock mags.

When did the Army start using Glocks? Just curious.

I don’t convolute violence from the battlefield and in the ghetto. The only difference is the enemy at war is much better trained.

In general, probably. But in "Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation's Law Enforcement Officers," it was found that the more successful police shooters did have training.

Several of the offenders began regularly to carry weapons when they were 9 to 12 years old, although the average age was 17 when they first started packing "most of the time." Gang members especially started young.

Nearly 40% of the offenders had some type of formal firearms training, primarily from the military. More than 80% "regularly practiced with handguns, averaging 23 practice sessions a year," the study reports, usually in informal settings like trash dumps, rural woods, back yards and "street corners in known drug-trafficking areas."

Also, current estimates say that there's anywhere from 25,000-45,000 gang members in the US military right now, and they have used this training to educate their homies when they get back home. Andres Raya brought some attention to this issue after the Ceres shootout, but it's nothing new; prison CID units have secretly videotaped prisoners practicing the 3 man bump and other tactics for years. Criminals stateside do have access to training, and they are using it when doing home invasions, robbing liquor stores or shooting at rivals. Law abiding citizens are falling victim to this type of stuff regularly as well.

I still don’t know where the Modern Warfare ammo resupply point is at war. Maybe you can give me a grid. In most cases a civilian can resupply allot faster than a soldier can. They just have to drive to Wal-Mart.

I think his point is that if a soldier gets in a drawn out gun battle, at some point they will get re-supplied. In the US if you get pinned down somewhere, you have what you have until it's over. You're also carrying less ammo in the first place than most soldiers do. Ogden Police Officer Kenneth Hammond learned this the hard way at the Trolley Square mall shooting, and he vowed that he would never again carry a gun without a reload.
 
I agree with you, civilian and military shooting is different in circumstance and practice, but at the core it's the same for everyone. A soldier has to shoot until they stop. A CCW holder has to shoot until they stop. A Crip shooting at a Blood has to shoot until they stop. If a CCW holder can't be bothered to carry enough ammo, modifying their tactics to conserve ammo seems even more backwards to me.

When did the Army start using Glocks? Just curious.

In general, probably. But in "Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation's Law Enforcement Officers," it was found that the more successful police shooters did have training.

I think his point is that if a soldier gets in a drawn out gun battle, at some point they will get re-supplied. In the US if you get pinned down somewhere, you have what you have until it's over. You're also carrying less ammo in the first place than most soldiers do.

The Army issues them to certain units.

In comparison to the enemy faced at home vs abroad. There are some highly skilled criminals, I wont take that away from them. But generally the enemy at war has been doing it for some time, possibly generations, and on their home turf in a foreign land. Im not going to get into mindset. But some are committed motherf***ers.

The point is there is no Modern Warfare 2 Ammo Resupply here. You cant press start, or the purple square and stop the engagement or top off your mags. If a civilian gets into a gun battle they have Wal-Mart they can head to when their done and resupply. There are no Wal-Marts in Iraq or Astan, or Ive seen atleast. I still don’t know where the movie ammo resupplies happen. You make due with what you got, eventually youll get more. That being said the military on occasion gets into prolonged engagements. But they arnt wasting a basic load on a couple guys. In a nutshell that argument is BS.
 
In comparison to the enemy faced at home vs abroad. There are some highly skilled criminals, I wont take that away from them. But generally the enemy at war has been doing it for some time, possibly generations, and on their home turf in a foreign land. Im not going to get into mindset. But some are committed motherf***ers.

Oh I agree. And chances are if they're at war it's a different mindset than most local thugs. Just sharing some food for thought.

The point is there is no Modern Warfare 2 Ammo Resupply here. You cant press start, or the purple square and stop the engagement or top off your mags. If a civilian gets into a gun battle they have Wal-Mart they can head to when their done and resupply. There are no Wal-Marts in Iraq or Astan, or Ive seen atleast. I still don’t know where the movie ammo resupplies happen. You make due with what you got, eventually youll get more. That being said the military on occasion gets into prolonged engagements. But they arnt wasting a basic load on a couple guys. In a nutshell that argument is BS.

I've never played Modern Warfare, so I can't comment on that, but I'm talking about the gunfight itself. Most people here stateside are only goiing to have what they have, and during things like Katrina and the ammo craze there was no easy way to find ammo after the gunfight if you didn't already have it.

Is what you carried (4 rifle mags/2 pistol mags) the basic load for soldiers to carry over there? I've never been, and I never asked my friends and family who've deployed, come to think of it. But the basic load for some people over here might be a 5 shot snub with nothing extra, while others might carry multiple pistols and spare mags. Also, the lack of uniformity for most civilian gun carriers can put wide distances between amounts of ammo carried between the group as a whole.
 
First, I would like to get back on track...Jim Higginbotham's Article.

This forum has wrapped its head around the statement made by Jim as an estimation as to rounds per caliber to be expected to be expended to rapidly stop a person. I have read many replies, and question whether or not some of you even read the article, or just jumped on some bandwagon. If you have read the article, or know Jim as I do, it is easier to understand the point he is making. Anything can be argued out of context.

First, he doesn't necessarily advocate that if you own a 45, you should shoot 2-3 times and re-holster; in training and real life. Nor does he say if you shoot a .40, you should punch cardboard 4-6 times and reholster...and so on. What he says is "Shoot until the target changes shape or catches fire!”. His illustration in numbers is only to prove his point; that by his estimation, the average hits would be 2-3, 4-6 and so on, so plan on shooting multiple times per target. Don't get too wrapped around the numbers...his point is that the number is not '1'.

Jim’s number of rounds per "change in shape" also illustrates his support of carrying additional firearms, loaded magazines or at a minimum a strategically placed reload. The only place he advocates numbers of rounds per target in practice and real life is with a revolver. When talking revolvers he states, "I would practice shooting 3 in a .38 or .357 merely because I want 3 left for other threats". But quickly follows with, "Not that those next three won’t follow quickly if the target hasn’t changed shape around my front sight blade".

Individual case studies differ. For every one that someone can pull out telling of one shot incapacitation, there is one showing 2-20 round failure to stop (immediately at least). Knowing this, and knowing Jim, consider his number as a "Planning Figure". Not to use as a skills drill on the range, but to drive your training scheme or defensive plan. I would use his number or rounds estimation to take away three things...Carry additional ammo when possible. Don't expect one-shot and drop, and develop training drills with your firearms that incorporate targets that drop or change shape with varying, multiple shots....


Second and finally, read the article. He spends much more time, during this article, on the dynamic response, moving off line, and other excellent techniques to include in your training...it is far too good of an article to focus on 3 lines.
 
Executive Summary: blah blah blah ... shoot until threat is stopped ... blah blah blah

"...and step off the line of attack." If you look at his video, the only thing(s) he does "non-standard," if you can even call it that, is take one step laterally and shoot more than twice. Everything else ("search and assess," tac reload, etc) is pretty much standard fare in every training video.

Clint Smith has been preaching "shooting until the threat stops doing what you don't like" and "move laterally off the line of attack" for many years.

Many, many, words just to say those two things.

ETA: Mind you, I'm not arguing with his conclusions. I just thought that after spending all that time showing what poor fight stoppers handguns were, something radical was coming, like "shoot for the pelvic girdle," or "always go for the head shot," etc. After all the build-up, to just read "shoot until he falls and move off line" was something of a letdown.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom