Tom Givens, American Handgunner article

[GJM]

Not sure if this was previously posted:

http://americanhandgunner.com/when-citizens-fight-back/

Includes student statistics on encounters and recommendations.

[Chuck Haggard]

I saw that last night. Excellent reading, basically a short version of his lecture, which is even more excellent.

[GJM]

A few excerpts:

Only two of my students’ shootings occurred at contact distance. In one of those cases the physical contact was purely accidental. In the other case physical contact was intentional, but the victim missed a large number of cues before he was struck with a club.
At the other end of the spectrum we have had three students who have had to engage at 15, 17 and 22 yards. The other 92 percent of our student-involved incidents took place at a distance of 3 to 7 yards, with the majority occurring between 3 and 5 yards. The rule of thumb then is most civilian shootings occur within the length of a car.
Only about 10 percent of our student-involved incidents occurred in or around the home, while 90 percent occurred in places like convenience stores, parking lots and shopping malls. The majority of the incidents began as armed robberies or carjackings, with a few violent break-ins involved.
The success/failure tally among the incidents involving my students is 62 wins, zero losses and two forfeits. Every one of our students who were armed won their confrontation. Only three of those were injured, and those three recovered. To the best of my knowledge, two people have gone through training with us and subsequently were murdered in separate street robberies — but neither was armed. This is why we put a great deal of emphasis in our training on the necessity of routinely carrying your gun.

Training Implications
Based on this data, we believe the following are key skills the private citizen should concentrate on in their training:
Quick, safe, efficient presentation of the handgun from concealed carry.
Delivery of several well-placed shots at distances from 3 to 7 yards.
Keeping the gun running, including reloading and fixing malfunctions.
Two-handed firing. We train our students to use two hands if at all possible and most have done so in their fights.
Bring the gun to eye level. This is the fastest way to achieve accurate gun alignment. All but two of our students brought the gun to eye level, and as a result got good hits. Two had to shoot from below eye level due to unusual circumstances.
Some effort expended on the contact distance problem, including empty hand skills and weapon retention skills. However, these are secondary skills for the private citizen.
Some effort dedicated to longer shots in the 15- to 25-yard range.

[JHC]

Good read. I bought the mag this morning just for it. Best thing in the issue.

[MVS]

Haven't seen the article yet, but have heard the lecture more than once. One of the takeaways for me is always the fact that none of the victors ever used or needed a light. We have to remember, and Tom readily admits, this is a very small database. Still, it is the only one I know of that gathers the relevant to us details.

[Savage Hands]

Great article!

[GJM]

Haven't seen the article yet, but have heard the lecture more than once. One of the takeaways for me is always the fact that none of the victors ever used or needed a light. We have to remember, and Tom readily admits, this is a very small database. Still, it is the only one I know of that gathers the relevant to us details.

I wasn't aware of that on the light. Possibly a function of more urban settings?

I also find fascinating how little physical contact was involved, either 1 or 2 instances only, out of 64 shootings. Never would have guessed that.

[joshs]

I wasn't aware of that on the light. Possibly a function of more urban settings?

I think I remember Chuck Haggard pointing out that this was very consistent with his experience. His theory was that the amount of ambient light needed to rob someone was generally sufficient to identify and engage a bad guy.


I also find fascinating how little physical contact was involved, either 1 or 2 instances only, out of 64 shootings. Never would have guessed that.

I've always thought that this was due to the the defenders having training on early identification of bad stuff. Although, it is also pretty consistent with data from the Armed Citizen(R). But, that data set has a huge selection bias because it generally only reports successful DGUs. It's possible that defenders do a lot worse once there is physical contact.

[GJM]

I've always thought that this was due to the the defenders having training on early identification of bad stuff. Although, it is also pretty consistent with data from the Armed Citizen(R). But, that data set has a huge selection bias because it generally only reports successful DGUs. It's possible that defenders do a lot worse once there is physical contact.

Not sure about the Armed Citizen validity, but Tom G's data set, as presented, is pretty definitive that his students went 62 or 64 to nothing against the bad guys, with two "forfeits" being unarmed.

[joshs]

Not sure about the Armed Citizen validity, but Tom G's data set, as presented, is pretty definitive that his students went 62 or 64 to nothing against the bad guys, with two "forfeits" being unarmed.

Sorry, the selection bias comment was about the Armed Citizen. The training comment was referring to Tom's data. I was giving the Armed Citizen data as a counterpoint to my theory about training being the factor that limited physical contact, since many of the defenders reported in the Armed Citizen have very little or no training.

[Shellback]

I saw that last night. Excellent reading, basically a short version of his lecture, which is even more excellent.

Tom's Lessons from the Street DVD is a great companion piece to this article.

[Mike Pipes]

VERY GOOD ARTICLE TOM! I can see a series The Givens Files.....how bout it?

[BoppaBear]

Great read. Thanks for posting.

[jlw]

Tom's presentation on this topic along with William Aprill's lecture on how criminal select victims makes for a very interesting way to spend a day.

[pangloss]

(As a parenthetical comment, if anyone wants to save a copy of the article in the link, the Readability extension for Chrome did a great job of cleaning up the format from the magazine website before I printed to PDF. I also realized that I can use Readability to send documents to my Kindle. The version that ended up on my Kindle looks great. I am very pleased now. Thanks for listening.)

[Wayne Dobbs]

And to plug Tom further, Nyeti and I are hosting his Instructor Course in Dallas in early October. See the training listings if you want some very solid training with Tom.

[John Hearne]

I think I remember Chuck Haggard pointing out that this was very consistent with his experience. His theory was that the amount of ambient light needed to rob someone was generally sufficient to identify and engage a bad guy.

Not Tom but this is essentially correct. RM student shooting are typically the result of an attempted armed robbery and typically on a parking lot. If it's really dark, the bad guy can't see you to rob you.

The need to be able to run a flashlight and pistol is a good example of a skill set that is vital to some but not others. LE has an obligation to enter dark environments and find bad guys. Therefore, the ability to conduct a building search in the dark is an important skill set for that context.

While "never" is a strong word, the private citizen need to do this is very, very limited. The armed citizen is far more likely to use building clearing skills to exit a structure rather than enter it.

[Stephen]

Outside of my home, I can't think of the last time I was somewhere so dark that I couldn't identify someone at 7 or more yards. Unless I'm in bed, which obviously isn't a concealed carry situation, its never really that dark. Of course someone in a more rural area, with a different lifestyle, or poor eyesight might have different experiences.

A flashlight is still a good idea even if its never used in a self defense situation.

[GJM]

I can think of frequent instances where the bad guy can hurt me in complete darkness -- those "bad guys" are moose and bears. I like lasers and/or lights on my firearms used in the dark.

New point -- interesting that Tom's students have needed to shoot at distances longer than most associate with citizen defensive use.

[NETim]

I can think of frequent instances where the bad guy can hurt me in complete darkness -- those "bad guys" are moose and bears. I like lasers and/or lights on my firearms used in the dark.

New point -- interesting that Tom's students have needed to shoot at distances longer than most associate with citizen defensive use.

Better SA than "average"? They spot the danger sooner?

[GJM]

Better SA than "average"? They spot the danger sooner?

Possibly, or it could be the law of large numbers at work, and out of 60 something shootings, it just turned out that way.

[Wayne Dobbs]

At least one of the longer distance shootings involved a shot from a house across a street to save a family member in danger. I think the range was something like 22 yards.

[Chuck Haggard]

One of the longer range incidents was in no way superior SA, the defender realized he was in a gunfight when he started taking rounds while sitting on his front porch reading the paper.

[GJM]

Is there a place one can read the details of each of these 60 something events?

[NETim]

Another factor could be that Tom's students, having attended at least Tom's class, are probably more "dialed in" than the typical CCW'er and not so non-chalant about things.

[jlw]

One of the longer distance shootings involved a wife seeing her husband being attacked in the front yard of their home. She raised a window and took care of business.

---

Tom's Ballistic Radio interview:

http://ballisticradio.com/2013/05/14/podcast-ballistic-radio-episode-10-may-12-2013/

[45dotACP]

I have got to pinch some pennies to save for Tom's class

[SeriousStudent]

I have got to pinch some pennies to save for Tom's class

Amen! He's coming to Texas this fall, and I am eagerly looking forward to it!

[dookie1481]

New point -- interesting that Tom's students have needed to shoot at distances longer than most associate with citizen defensive use.

What are the common DGU distances and where can the data be found? I always assumed most people engaged at very close distances as well.

[GJM]

What are the common DGU distances and where can the data be found? I always assumed most people engaged at very close distances as well.

read page 1, post 3 of this thread for excerpts that address your question on distances.

[Chuck Haggard]

Is there a place one can read the details of each of these 60 something events?

Not that I know of. Tom debriefs a number of the incidents though in his lecture, hence me knowing about that front porch ambush.




People assume, I believe, that typical defensive gun use is at very close range because it's been said so many times, or have been extrapolating from the FBI LEOKA summary.

[OldRunner/CSAT Neighbor]

And to plug Tom further, Nyeti and I are hosting his Instructor Course in Dallas in early October. See the training listings if you want some very solid training with Tom.

Not only are Wayne/DB hosting Tom in Dallas this year but SeñorEsteban is having him for SGN & pistol classes in ETX as well.

[Shellback]

Is there a place one can read the details of each of these 60 something events?

Tom's Lessons from the Street DVD details quite a few of the encounters, 10 different ones I believe. Well worth the $20 in my opinion.

[Stephen]

Is there a place one can read the details of each of these 60 something events?

GJM, you may like this: http://www.reddit.com/r/dgu/
There are usually several new incidents added daily. Its just links to local news articles, so its not exactly comparable to Tom's database. But I think its pretty interesting nonetheless. If there's a better publicly available repository of DGUs, I'm unaware of it (and there is, someone clue me in).

[Mr_White]

Tom's Lessons from the Street DVD details quite a few of the encounters, 10 different ones I believe. Well worth the $20 in my opinion.

I agree. Excellent information presented in that DVD. Very much enjoyed it.

-----

I posted this on TPI, but there seems to be more discussion about the article here right now, so reposting it:

Intensely fascinating article, Tom, thank you for writing and sharing it!

Maybe I should go practice drawing some more...just joking, I was going to do that anyway. :)

Shocked again at the dearth of contact distance shootings.

With regard to lighting conditions, threat ID and assessment, and marksmanship - I understand your students have not needed flashlights for either threat assessment or marksmanship. What about night sights? Have any of your students needed those or benefited from them?

[Shellback]

If there's a better publicly available repository of DGUs, I'm unaware of it (and there is, someone clue me in).

I don't know if "better" is the right word but you may want to check out www.keepandbeararms.com and www.gunssavelives.net

[Dagga Boy]

Let me add to the low light part of the equation. For use outside of L/E folks who often have to hunt criminals in no/low light and have very high identification and evaluation standards, there are two critical places for folks to have good flashlight skills. First, positive identification of threats while in a home defense situation. The other that relates to those scenarios that is typical of those faced by many is as a deterant to being a robbery victim. Bad guys don't really "come out of nowhere", they come out of hiding and darkness. A high quality flashlight is a great means to turn "nowhere" into a visible somewhere. Crooks are like roaches that don't like the lights on. For most people, good low light skills is a great victimization deterant tool rather than a shooting tool.

[GJM]

This is to continue some offline conversations I have had on the Givens data, which I find fascinating, because of the definitiveness of the results (62 or 64 to 0), the size of the data set, and the nature of the results. I haven't seen Tom's CD, but from what I have read, to be able to survive a typical CCW encounter, at least near Memphis, apparently you need to be able to:

1) primarily shoot at 3-5 yards.

2) occasionally shoot at 20-25 yards.

3) have a suitable handgun that is on your person and accessible.

4) be able to draw and keep your handgun running (in terms of manipulating the weapon).


What you don't need is:

1) to be able to win the fight with your physical skills.

2) have tritium sights or a flashlight to illuminate the bad guy.

3) do speed or tac reloads.


Not to belittle what is required, but you basically need intermediate square range skills, with perhaps a step off the line thrown in for extra points. What am I missing?

[JAD]

That's about what I've always understood.

[John Hearne]

4) be able to draw and keep your handgun running (in terms of manipulating the weapon)...Not to belittle what is required, but you basically need intermediate square range skills, with perhaps a step off the line thrown in for extra points. What am I missing?

If you spend any time with Tom, you quickly realize that the off-line step during non-shooting tasks is considered an integral part of the drawstroke beyond the most novice level.

[jlw]

What you don't need is:


3) do speed or tac reloads.



The boss and I had this discussion recently. Do we (imperial we) spend too much time working on reloads when with the 15+ and 17+ round capacity pistols are we going to be reloading in the "typical" gunfight?

Nothing in the above should be construed to mean to not work on reloads at all; just are we giving them too much import when we could use some of that time on more important things.

[hank440]

Not to belittle what is required, but you basically need intermediate square range skills, with perhaps a step off the line thrown in for extra points. What am I missing?[/QUOTE]

Being aware of what is going on around you, seeing that you are being set up.

This awareness has worked for me on several encounters where I was able to get my gun in hand before the feces went down.

[Dagga Boy]

The boss and I had this discussion recently. Do we (imperial we) spend too much time working on reloads when with the 15+ and 17+ round capacity pistols are we going to be reloading in the "typical" gunfight?

Nothing in the above should be construed to mean to not work on reloads at all; just are we giving them too much import when we could use some of that time on more important things.

At minimum for LE, I am of the opinion (based on actual incidents) that your folks should be getting in the "habit" of ensuring that their pistol is fully topped off when it goes back in the holster when a drill is over. Typical LE incidents are often not over just because the initial threat is done. They still may have to be a cop after the initial incident. How they get loaded is less important than the making it a habit to not quit just because the initial portion is done. this simply takes a little time and training and shouldn't require any extra ammunition or resources, but only a change of mindset. The same with things like movement. You can have your people holster up and lolly gag to the next shooting position, or have them un holster, come to a ready and move like they are approaching a threat and you get some handling work in a zero cost.

[Shellback]

At minimum for LE, I am of the opinion (based on actual incidents) that your folks should be getting in the "habit" of ensuring that their pistol is fully topped off when it goes back in the holster when a drill is over.

I think we've discussed it before but I wanted to clarify... In your classes do you have your students top off after every drill? I haven't in the past but I think it'd be a really good habit to get into. More so for police than your average Joe but still not a bad idea.

Since it's fresh in my mind, I read through the report on Gelhaus and did note that he topped off his gun. They found 9 rounds left in a discarded mag and a full gun in his holster.

[Chuck Haggard]

In my career we have naver had a copper need to reload in a fight.

Keith Jones told me that Indianapolis had like 120+ OISs that he had data on, and even back in the revolver days they had only one guy that needed to reload.

However, comma, when a guy needs to reload then he NEEDS to reload, Newhall or Miami anyone?

[Tom Givens]

Chuck nailed it. Reloading skill is much like carrying your gun. You may never need it, but if you need it you'll need it very, very badly.

[jlw]

Like I wrote, nothing in that post should be construed as to that state it isn't needed. It was just a discussion as to whether we were giving it too much import at the expense of other things.

For example, somebody whose first shot on target time at seven yards is 2.5 seconds really should be working more on presentation than reloading. They'd have to actually get the gun out and run in it dry... that might be optimistic...

[David Armstrong]

In my career we have naver had a copper need to reload in a fight.

Keith Jones told me that Indianapolis had like 120+ OISs that he had data on, and even back in the revolver days they had only one guy that needed to reload.

However, comma, when a guy needs to reload then he NEEDS to reload, Newhall or Miami anyone?
That has been my experience also, thus my disagreement with the multiple fancy reloading techniques. Learn one reloading technique, preferably the speed/emergency reload as it is commonly termed, and learn it well. Spend the rest of the time learning and honing other skills that are more likely to make a difference.

[jlw]

That has been my experience also, thus my disagreement with the multiple fancy reloading techniques. Learn one reloading technique, preferably the speed/emergency reload as it is commonly termed, and learn it well. Spend the rest of the time learning and honing other skills that are more likely to make a difference.

There you go. Simplify the process. Less time is needed on it.

[rob_s]

2) have tritium sights or a flashlight to illuminate the bad guy.


Since I'm only reading here, what in this discussion led you to the first part of #2 above re: tritium sights?

[rob_s]

For example, somebody whose first shot on target time at seven yards is 2.5 seconds really should be working more on presentation than reloading. They'd have to actually get the gun out and run in it dry... that might be optimistic...

This is something I've always taken issue with in line-dancing classes. I have had instructors say things like "hurry up, we have a lot to get to today".

No, in fact, we do not. If even so much as 1/3 of the students are struggling with the skill, drill, or concept being taught then you need to stay with it until they get it. When I teach/taught (firearms or real-world work skills) we don't move on until I have determined that the people not getting it are either refusing to (you can't fix stupid, or arrogant) or are in over their head (snuck/BD'd their Level 01 ass into a level 03 course). At my job I schedule time blocks, not curriculum. We work through the most important skills/concepts first, and we go for two hours. We get to what we get to. Then we come back in a week or two and we do two more hours. Repeat as needed.

So, to expound on what some others are saying here...

The first thing is being able to get the gun out of the holster, in whatever context it would actually be carried. Want to talk about a "gunfighting" class vs. a "shooting" class? that's step 1 to a difference that means something (relaxed accuracy standards, shooting from reverse prone one-handed, and photo-realistic targets do not make a "gunfighting" class). *Maybe* the students should be learning the draw without a cover/concealment garment on TD1 out of 3, but they should at least be using their carry holster. Often you'll hear from higher level shooters "it doesn't matter what holster I use", but you can bet your bippy that it matters when you're new.

The second thing is how to go from the holster, to a good two-handed grip, possibly in positions other than standing straight ahead to a flat target, and get the gun up to eye level. Note that the lessons posted earlier in the thread don't actually say to get a sight picture, they just say to get it up to eye level. If we're worried about 3-7 yards, seeing the hazy outline of the gun in front of the target and firing continuously until the target is no longer in front of the gun isn't terribly hard. Getting that same result "from retention" gets a lot harder.

[BehindBlueI's]

In my career we have naver had a copper need to reload in a fight.

Keith Jones told me that Indianapolis had like 120+ OISs that he had data on, and even back in the revolver days they had only one guy that needed to reload.

However, comma, when a guy needs to reload then he NEEDS to reload, Newhall or Miami anyone?

I know this is an older thread, but I'm actually with Indy and just wanted to say we keep excellent stats. Our range staff sends a rep (generally the unit LT) to every PAS, and the events are often used to create scenario based training for in-service. I'm a robbery detective and have started keeping my own detailed stats for citizen involved shootings. I do know of a few reloads, but they were all in multiple officer situations. There were officers who reloaded and then fired again during the 2012 incident recounted (mostly incorrectly) here: http://www.wthr.com/story/19135760/officer-down-in-lawrence I don't know that it was "needed" in that injury would have occurred had the officer not done so, but it was entirely reasonable in the situation.

I cannot think of a single robbery where the victim reloaded, win, lose, or draw. I've had a few (and really just a few) shoot to slide lock. In those rare instances where there was video the suspect was down or fleeing but the shooter's mind hadn't caught up with the change in status yet and was still firing. I have never had anyone use a flashlight or lament the lack of one.

[Chuck Haggard]

I know this is an older thread, but I'm actually with Indy and just wanted to say we keep excellent stats. Our range staff sends a rep (generally the unit LT) to every PAS, and the events are often used to create scenario based training for in-service. I'm a robbery detective and have started keeping my own detailed stats for citizen involved shootings. I do know of a few reloads, but they were all in multiple officer situations. There were officers who reloaded and then fired again during the 2012 incident recounted (mostly incorrectly) here: http://www.wthr.com/story/19135760/officer-down-in-lawrence I don't know that it was "needed" in that injury would have occurred had the officer not done so, but it was entirely reasonable in the situation.

I cannot think of a single robbery where the victim reloaded, win, lose, or draw. I've had a few (and really just a few) shoot to slide lock. In those rare instances where there was video the suspect was down or fleeing but the shooter's mind hadn't caught up with the change in status yet and was still firing. I have never had anyone use a flashlight or lament the lack of one.

Keith's data base may be a bit older than yours, but his info is always solid. I'll ask him what the time frame was.

[BigDaddy]

So does all this mean I can dump my G19 and go back to my 3953 for off duty carry?

[David S.]

Tom's data does seem to indicate that 8 rounds is more than enough to get you through a typical (non-LEO/MIL) defensive gun use.

Tom knows his data better than anyone, and yet... and yet.... stubbornly EDC's the biggest damn gun he can. A G35 with reload(s?), IIRC. Weirdo. ;)

So it's a matter of trade-offs. Do you get enough (fill in the blank) to balance the 50% loss of capacity. Personally, giving up that much capacity for a negligible size difference seems like a poor trade-off. But that's just me.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

This is an old point. Many interpret the average as what will always happen as compared to what is more probable. The question is whether you plan for the extreme of the tail of the incident intensity distribution. The video of the GGs at the Kenya mall has commentary on how they noticed that they didn't have that many rounds.

Garland incidents are rare, single actor muggings close up are more common. So David S. is quite correct on the trade offs. A G26, 19 and an extra mag is not a pain with a concealment garment.

[LSP972]

So does all this mean I can dump my G19 and go back to my 3953 for off duty carry?

Why would you want to? The 3953 is definitely thinner, but weighs as much or more with 2/3 of the capacity.

I ran across a very nice 3953 last year, and snapped it up. Bought a bunch of extra magazines, had a carry rig built, the whole thing. Started work-ups; it had been a looonnnggg time since I handled a third generation S&W auto. The gun passed the 200 round test, the holster and mag pouch was good to go, okay, we're set. I carried it a few days, and… huh? No heavenly choir, etc.

BigDaddy, sorry if this appears to be dumping on your thoughts. That wasn't my intention. But your post got me to thinking how being all into certain retro stuff has bitten me in the ass; get excited, expend the resources, then realize the newer stuff makes more sense and/or actually works better.

To answer your question, the "stats" tell us you won't ever need to reload- or hardly ever. OTOH, if your luck is like mine, you will be the statistical anomaly that finds you facing a dozen clumsy oafs with baseball bats; IOW, a sack full of assailants you just might be able to prevail against… if only you had enough burrets.

Now that my "off-duty" carry is also my "every day" carry, I pay a bit more attention to this stuff. But it is real easy to pay too MUCH attention to it, and find yourself chasing your tail.

Don't ask me how I know that…

.

[EM_]

...But it is real easy to pay too MUCH attention to it, and find yourself chasing your tail.

Don't ask me how I know that…

.

I fully agree. We (kinda folks that would post/read this forum) tend to delve into the minutiae a bit too much....

I'm as guilty as anyone, so definitely not shitting on anyone's philosophy or ideas, just a thought.

[Dagga Boy]

I posted on another forum the fooling in regards to "the best concealed carry revolver". There is the best gun for carrying it concealed daily comfortably, and the best gun to have if you are in a multi subject gun fight. The "best is likely a compromise somewhere in the middle. It is hard to carry ideal gunfight pistols daily concealed. You very much have to dress and live around the gun......sort of like Tom (Fashion plate) Givens. It is easy to carry an 11 ounce revolver......and hard to win multi subject gunfights. For many of us who carry a service size handgun and a BUG daily......it is a tough lifestyle, but I doubt I will ever be in a situation where I need more. I would love to live the life of an airweight revolver in my pocket as a primary, but I don't live in that place yet.

I think most people would really be good with a medium slim semi auto with a reload, if that is what it takes to carry it everday. The same with a medium frame revolver and a reload. These are "good" compromise guns if you will dedicate to them, especially for non-LE folks who do a better job than the LEO's at not feeling the need to get involved in things that are not a directed threat at them.

[GJM]

The other Tom, Tom Jones, needs to invent something, so if you need it for real, whatever gun you have grows in size and capacity, since I have never known someone to want a smaller, lower capacity firearm during a time of need.

[GJM]

Even if I did, I'd probably never get it to market. :(

That isn't nearly as funny as my good sister forum joke.

[breakingtime91]

So can anyone convince me why you would need a wml as a civilian? A xc1+ holster is roughly the cost of 1500+/- 9mm. For that cost it would really need to change my ability to win a fight. For a typical civilian, I don't see it.

[vandal]

Movie theater?

[Drang]

So can anyone convince me why you would need a wml as a civilian?
Only you can answer that.:)

A xc1+ holster is roughly the cost of 1500+/- 9mm. For that cost it would really need to change my ability to win a fight. For a typical civilian, I don't see it.
See, this is where we play the odds. The "typical civilian" will probably never even draw his piece off the range, let alone need to carry a high-output light, OC, a fighting blade, and a reload or two.
Or have to deal with a home invasion. But if my bedside gun has a WML then that's
A backup light for when the handheld dies because I forgot to change the batteries.
A backup light for when I drop the handheld because I forgot all that shit I learned in the lowlight class.
A light I still have in my hand if my support hand has to do something like dial "911".
Let us not forget that some folks do like to buy and try stuff to see if it works for them, and that if it works for them, that's fine.

(I agree that a WML for concealed carry seems like it would be... awkward. Then I look at the trigger guard-mounted options for some handguns, and reconsider.)

[breakingtime91]

Oh I am with you drang. If someone wants to carry something, i don't care but I have been curious what so many see appealing about it. I have a live and let live mentality so I won't ever tell someone they are wrong. Just curious for my own knowledge.

[BehindBlueI's]

So can anyone convince me why you would need a wml as a civilian? A xc1+ holster is roughly the cost of 1500+/- 9mm. For that cost it would really need to change my ability to win a fight. For a typical civilian, I don't see it.

Not really for a carry gun. I mean, I can concoct some wild hypothetical involving a lonely country road, a broken down car, a pack of angry wolves, and a guy with a hook for a hand where the WML saves the day. For real self defense, well, if you can't see each other how is the bad guy targeting you? You can't get mugged or raped by someone who can't see you, and you're going to be pretty danged close to each other.

For a home defense weapon...probably more realistic. Target identification would be my main argument. While this doesn't apply to everyone, of course, think of the news stories of the guy who shoots his teen sneaking back in the house via window after sneaking out for a party or the like. Particularly with a long gun, it's a lot more convenient and simple then trying to screw with a hand held light and a gun. For a handgun, it's no real trick to use a hand held light, but you are then shooting one handed so the WML may be a better option.

[MVS]

Not really for a carry gun. I mean, I can concoct some wild hypothetical involving a lonely country road, a broken down car, a pack of angry wolves, and a guy with a hook for a hand where the WML saves the day. For real self defense, well, if you can't see each other how is the bad guy targeting you? You can't get mugged or raped by someone who can't see you, and you're going to be pretty danged close to each other.

For a home defense weapon...probably more realistic. Target identification would be my main argument. While this doesn't apply to everyone, of course, think of the news stories of the guy who shoots his teen sneaking back in the house via window after sneaking out for a party or the like. Particularly with a long gun, it's a lot more convenient and simple then trying to screw with a hand held light and a gun. For a handgun, it's no real trick to use a hand held light, but you are then shooting one handed so the WML may be a better option.

Yep. I use one mounted to my bedside gun, but not my carry gun. I would probably be more cool if I did use one on my edc, but it just doesn't seem worth it for me. For someone who decides different, good for them.

[BehindBlueI's]

Yep. I use one mounted to my bedside gun, but not my carry gun. I would probably be more cool if I did use one on my edc, but it just doesn't seem worth it for me. For someone who decides different, good for them.

True, true. I can't think of a good reason NOT to carry one if you're willing to put up with the added bulk, cost, and reduced holster selection.

[breakingtime91]

True, true. I can't think of a good reason NOT to carry one if you're willing to put up with the added bulk, cost, and reduced holster selection.

Summed it up for me.

[RJ]

Oh I am with you drang. If someone wants to carry something, i don't care but I have been curious what so many see appealing about it. I have a live and let live mentality so I won't ever tell someone they are wrong. Just curious for my own knowledge.

I stuck my TLR-1 on my M&P FS9, and it sits in the kt-mech holster on the bedside table. Next to it is a Streamlight Polytac 2L flashlight.

I figure one of the two of them is going to work if I need a light when the Schnauzer goes 'bark' sometime in the night.

That is about as far as my thinking goes on wmls...

[JAD]

True, true. I can't think of a good reason NOT to carry one if you're willing to put up with the added bulk, cost, and reduced holster selection.

Do they sometimes impact reliability? I don't know, that may have just been some specific designs or defective examples.

[Al T.]

WML on the bedside gun, flashlight in pocket for EDC..... Nice to be able to illuminate something without having to skin the smoke pole.....

[BehindBlueI's]

Do they sometimes impact reliability? I don't know, that may have just been some specific designs or defective examples.

Rarely, but yes. The only gun I've had that ran different with a WML was a Gen 3 Glock 22. My Sigs haven't cared one way or the other, nor has my Gen 4 Glock.

Much like carry ammo, try it in practice before trusting it for real.

[StraitR]

Shortly before moving to appendix carry, coming up on four years ago, I carried an x300 on a G19 strong-side, about 3:00. I carried it that way for almost a year when a friend of mine, very new to shooting and fresh out of a concealed carry class asked me, "why do you have a light on your gun?", and before I could utter a word he said, "because for concealed carry, wouldn't you have already seen the need for a gun before you take it out of the holster?" I was speechless.

So the absolute "beginners mind" seemed to have a better perspective than I did on the merits of a WML on a concealed carry gun. Definitely a WML on my bedside gun and HD carbine for target ident friend/foe, but for everyday concealed carry use, identifying threats or as he put it, "the need" should have been recognized before presenting the firearm. A handheld just seems more appropriate for a civilian EDC role of identification. That's the conclusion I've come to, anyway.

I continued to ponder it though, so good topic.

[breakingtime91]

Shortly before moving to appendix carry, coming up on four years ago, I carried an x300 on a G19 strong-side, about 3:00. I carried it that way for almost a year when a friend of mine, very new to shooting and fresh out of a concealed carry class asked me, "why do you have a light on your gun?", and before I could utter a word he said, "because for concealed carry, wouldn't you have already seen the need for a gun before you take it out of the holster?" I was speechless.

So the absolute "beginners mind" seemed to have a better perspective than I did on the merits of a WML on a concealed carry gun. Definitely a WML on my bedside gun and HD carbine for target ident friend/foe, but for everyday concealed carry use, identifying threats or as he put it, "the need" should have been recognized before presenting the firearm. A handheld just seems more appropriate for a civilian EDC role of identification. That's the conclusion I've come to, anyway.

I continued to ponder it though, so good topic.

ya, this sums it up for me. I have a surefire e1b on me regardless of what I am wearing, it also has the costa ring thingy so I can reload, get a two hand grip with it, or retain it when moving "dynamically". My home defense options, which are a 870 or bcm middy, are both sporting high lumen lights.. If I have a situation where I think I may have to draw my weapon when I am ccw'n, I already have my light on it and if I don't its because its light out and I already can ID a situation to determine if it needs a gun added into it or not.. like you said, good discussion.

[El Cid]

While I understand how folks make the argument that a private citizen is less likely to need a WML while out in public... I view that as playing the statistics. According to the stats, I won't need more than a few rounds and the threat will be inside 7 yards. I'm also (according to the stats) not every going to need to use my gun, so I could get by without it. I don't trust my life and that of my loved ones to statistics and I imagine most people on this forum have similar mindsets. If I carry a gun for the unlikely "just in case" scenario, and having a light mounted on that weapon doesn't compromise concealability, then why wouldn't I have it on there?

We could what-if different scenarios to death, but the bottom line in my view is that we can find ourselves in a darkened environment anytime and any place. Power is cut to the mall by active-shooters... the light pole where we parked our car was disabled by thugs because they don't want to be seen... an attacker pulls your loved one into a dark alley or doorway... We can see a person's actions and behavior and know they are a threat without seeing all of them. Bad guys will use shadows and darkness to their advantage. We can have enough information to know we need to draw a gun and not have enough light to see who it is and who else may be nearby.

Many have mentioned carrying a hand held light and that's great. But if you do, does that mean you have admitted that you may encounter situations where a light is needed to see what's happening around you? Suppose that shining that light causes a fight or flight reaction to the person you just lit up and now it's rapidly turning into a shooting solution? The advantage of being able to put a bright light on anything as needed is huge. What convinced me of the WML benefit was shooting courses of fire with it, and with a hand held light. I would suggest a person who is going back and forth on this topic choose a couple different courses of fire and shoot them in low light. First do it using your hand held light. No matter how good you are (use any technique you want), it's much less stable than having two hands on the gun. Then shoot the same drills with a weapon mounted light. Hell, we know people miss lots of shots under perfect lighting while using two hands. Why conclude that shooting with a hand held light will yield better results? If I have the ability to light up a potential danger area and still keep two hands on the gun, that's a win in my book. I still have a hand held light so I don't have to use the WML and muzzle people. But if you agree you need a hand held light, then a WML will only lighten your workload when you find yourself under that most extreme stress.