The “Shoot for the center of mass” rule applies to normal people like cops and regular soldiers. Special Forces guys and snipers have different standards.
And he was using some poor woman as a shield, they may have been shooting to try and avoid her, and his head was the best target.
The “human shield” story is false.
They wanted to moe green him.
I always aim for the dangling bits. 
Doesn’t kill, but sure gets their attention.
The problem with your aim, aceplace57, is that your gun was custom designed for a person who was missing two fingers. That’s why you keep hitting two inches low.
Anyone remember the North Hollywood Bank robbery and ensuing shootout? 20 minutes or so of gunfire, hundreds of rounds fired, and a lot of good guys and bystanders injured.
That pretty much proved the case against CoM with small caliber arms when body armor is suspected.
“Center of mass” is really something of a misnomer here, incidentally. It’s really “center of cross-section”. The idea is basically that even if you’re some ways off your actual target, you’ll still hit some part of the person or another. The vital organs aren’t actually all that relevant, since most lethal gunshots kill by blood loss, anyway.
The fact that Osama’s a seasoned fighter probably also had something to do with the headshot. A gunshot to the torso isn’t usually instantly incapacitating: Someone shot in the gut (or even the chest) can continue fighting for quite a while, if they’re determined. The only way to be sure of instantly incapacitating someone with a gun is to go for an instant-kill, which can reliably only be done with the head (the heart would work, too, but you can’t see that to aim at it).
I am sure that our Navy Seals can fire two shots quickly enough to hit the target before it falls.
[QUOTE=Omar Little]
My understanding is that the second shot to the head after he was down was done to insure death.
[/QUOTE]
It’s possible (as others have said, we will likely never know), but equally likely is simply that the shooter double tapped the shot. If you’ve ever seen expert shooters shooting they frequently fire a semi-automatic weapon at a target by rapidly shooting twice (or 3 times). If it was a rifle, then a lot of military grade assault weapons used by folks like the Seals for close quarters actually fire a 3 round burst, which a highly trained person like a Seal can pretty much put on target. It’s possible that the person fired a 3 round burst and Osama simply went down rapidly enough that the third round missed his falling body.
Or, you could be right and they simply wanted to finish him off when he was on the floor. It could have gone down in several different ways.
-XT
I thought most lethal gunshots were cause by the transfer of energy (I don’t know the technical term for this). Basically it’s that a high-speed bullet hitting a body causes a shock wave that travels through the body. This causes damage in parts of the body that never get touched by the actual bullet.
Hydrostatic shock (much debated, note the contra-claim section).
No, and the Wikipedia page has a fairly active troll trying to push how effective hydrostatic shock can be despite a lack of evidence.
Bullets primarily injure by making holes (a permanent cavity). Bullets also impart momentum to the surrounding tissue (a temporary cavity), which can damage tissue if it stretches it beyond its elastic limit. Trouble is, tissue is fairly elastic and survives stretching by a temporary cavity fairly well. Hydrostatic shock proponents claim that there are pressure waves surging forth that will cause incapacitation by injuring tissues far from the bullet’s path. Trouble is, the claim isn’t supportable.
If that were the primary consideration, then there shouldn’t be any difference between a standard jacketed round and another of the same caliber and load that is hollow point or frangible. Not sure about frangible but I know hollow points are much more devastating than regular round. I think the same is true for frangible but I haven’t run across these as often.
There might even be what I’m going to call pre-fragmented rounds, but I’m not sure that isn’t the same thing as frangible.
And even if it were true, I’m thinking it is doubtful that the entry team used weapons firing high velocity rounds. Seems most urban combat situations favor small caliber lower velocity rounds. Really don’t want to be shooting through too many walls and endangering team members in other rooms or out on the perimeter.
Relevant column: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/186/how-does-a-bullet-or-knife-kill-somebody
I think that’s correct. Hydrostatic shock is said to take place around 1500 fps, while the HK MP5 has a muzzle velocity lower than that (although shot placement is probably a factor).
Hydrostatic Shock: Hydrostatic shock - Wikipedia
Edit: Really, really, really slow on the draw…
Center of mass is not the same thing as saying the middle of the chest. It’s actually just aiming for the center of whatever is available for you to shoot, such that it’s the most likely place where even if your aim is off you’ll still hit something. If someone is standing in the open right before you, that’s somewhere around the lower chest - but if someone is just popping their head above some cover, then the center of mass (or as noted above, center of cross-section) may be their nose.