Why you shouldn't search with a weapon-mounted light on a handgun - Massad Ayoob

[Amp]

0:00 - The popular weapon-mounted light
1:05 - Not for searching
1:35 - Light spill over
2:15 - Felony aggravated assault
3:05 - Misdemeanor brandishing
4:20 - Treat the same as a scope
5:15 - Possibility of accidental discharge
6:00 - They save lives
7:15 - Always have separate illumination
7:50 - Increase accuracy
8:30 - use them as intended


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yte_ynhPItY

[Borderland]

You'll put your eye out.

[titsonritz]

Depends on what you're searching for.

[DDTSGM]

and where.

[TCinVA]

A few weeks ago I was made aware of someone who caught a boatload of felony charges because he investigated a suspicious vehicle that happened to be full of lost teenagers. He investigated with the light mounted on his pistol...meaning he pointed a gun at multiple minors who posed no reasonable threat to anyone.

Certainly his decision making in "investigating" a vehicle on a public road in the first place is the root of the problem, but had he been using a regular flashlight and a holstered gun he'd likely not be facing such life-altering consequences.

That gets at the root of what Mas is saying.

The WML is a very specific tool for a very specific context. Disciplined use of that tool where it is useful is fine. Very few people (including police officers) have the requisite level of training or discipline to use the tool properly.

Something Tom is making a point to emphasize in his classes is that the consequences for stupidity with a gun are increasing. At many points in the past, if someone did something stupid with a gun and there was no real harm done, the consequences for the act were relatively minor. Today we have permitless carry in almost half the states and some form of concealed carry in all of them. We have a larger percentage of people carrying guns than we have had since WWII, getting high enough up there that we're starting to look more like the late 19th and early 20th century when concealing a handgun on a regular basis was a dead common thing to do.

In concert with that, the authorities are becoming less and less charitable in their handling of stupid acts with firearms, including more aggressively pursuing charges in instances where a gun was pulled or pointed at someone else. Increasingly the principle of picking up accountability when you pick up the gun is getting bigger and sharper teeth in more and more places.

A pistol-mounted light is almost completely useless to a typical concealed carrier. I don't carry my pistol with a WML because in my view it's as useless as tits on a boar. I'm not doing building searches or felony stops. I need a damned compelling reason before I ever pull my gun out of the holster and if I have that compelling reason I don't need the WML at that point. I'm perfectly happy carrying a normal light and knowing how to use it in concert with a pistol for those statistical outlier situations where I might end up deliberately clearing the house of a family member or friend with my pistol.

At home my defensive long guns have lights, but home defense is a different situation altogether than dealing with typical street crime. At home the primary worry is positive identification. A light mounted on the gun is a last ditch failsafe to ensure I have adequate information to make an intelligent UOF decision. A forcible entry into the home is a situation where your typical citizen is at the zenith of their ability to have a gun in hand prior to positive identification of an immediate threat. So there a WML on a long gun or pistol makes a great deal of sense...but even there discipline in the use of the light is at a premium because ostensibly that environment has a bunch of people and things you care about in it and you don't want to be pointing death at any of that willy nilly. The risks are real, but in that environment given how common it is for family members to get shot because they are assumed to be an intruder, the risk/reward calculation shifts in favor of having the light and using it more liberally.

WML's are attached to deadly weapons. Where the light's hotspot goes, so too goes a muzzle.

Col. Cooper's rules about firearms aren't range rules, they're rules for life that help us mitigate the possibility unintentionally hurting someone with a lethal weapon. If we injure or kill with a firearm it should be an intentional act. Controlling where we point the thing is of primary importance, and pointing the thing at someone who hasn't earned a bullet is actually a criminal act everywhere in the country.

Simple truth is that the vast majority of people who will watch that video on youtube really shouldn't be searching with a WML.

I recently watched someone whip out a Glock in a parking lot to look at a flat tire.

You aren't doing that. But there's a whole lot more of the dude who "investigates" the car full of teenagers with a WML or the guy who pulls it out to illuminate a flat tire change in a parking lot than there are of people who can intelligently discuss the benefits and drawbacks of the WML on a forum like PF. So Mas isn't just pissing in the wind on this one.

[Leroy Suggs]

TCinVA outstanding post. A lot of wisdom.

[Rex G]

A few weeks ago I was made aware of someone who caught a boatload of felony charges because he investigated a suspicious vehicle that happened to be full of lost teenagers. He investigated with the light mounted on his pistol...meaning he pointed a gun at multiple minors who posed no reasonable threat to anyone.

Certainly his decision making in "investigating" a vehicle on a public road in the first place is the root of the problem, but had he been using a regular flashlight and a holstered gun he'd likely not be facing such life-altering consequences.

That gets at the root of what Mas is saying.

The WML is a very specific tool for a very specific context. Disciplined use of that tool where it is useful is fine. Very few people (including police officers) have the requisite level of training or discipline to use the tool properly.

Something Tom is making a point to emphasize in his classes is that the consequences for stupidity with a gun are increasing. At many points in the past, if someone did something stupid with a gun and there was no real harm done, the consequences for the act were relatively minor. Today we have permitless carry in almost half the states and some form of concealed carry in all of them. We have a larger percentage of people carrying guns than we have had since WWII, getting high enough up there that we're starting to look more like the late 19th and early 20th century when concealing a handgun on a regular basis was a dead common thing to do.

In concert with that, the authorities are becoming less and less charitable in their handling of stupid acts with firearms, including more aggressively pursuing charges in instances where a gun was pulled or pointed at someone else. Increasingly the principle of picking up accountability when you pick up the gun is getting bigger and sharper teeth in more and more places.

A pistol-mounted light is almost completely useless to a typical concealed carrier. I don't carry my pistol with a WML because in my view it's as useless as tits on a boar. I'm not doing building searches or felony stops. I need a damned compelling reason before I ever pull my gun out of the holster and if I have that compelling reason I don't need the WML at that point. I'm perfectly happy carrying a normal light and knowing how to use it in concert with a pistol for those statistical outlier situations where I might end up deliberately clearing the house of a family member or friend with my pistol.

At home my defensive long guns have lights, but home defense is a different situation altogether than dealing with typical street crime. At home the primary worry is positive identification. A light mounted on the gun is a last ditch failsafe to ensure I have adequate information to make an intelligent UOF decision. A forcible entry into the home is a situation where your typical citizen is at the zenith of their ability to have a gun in hand prior to positive identification of an immediate threat. So there a WML on a long gun or pistol makes a great deal of sense...but even there discipline in the use of the light is at a premium because ostensibly that environment has a bunch of people and things you care about in it and you don't want to be pointing death at any of that willy nilly. The risks are real, but in that environment given how common it is for family members to get shot because they are assumed to be an intruder, the risk/reward calculation shifts in favor of having the light and using it more liberally.

WML's are attached to deadly weapons. Where the light's hotspot goes, so too goes a muzzle.

Col. Cooper's rules about firearms aren't range rules, they're rules for life that help us mitigate the possibility unintentionally hurting someone with a lethal weapon. If we injure or kill with a firearm it should be an intentional act. Controlling where we point the thing is of primary importance, and pointing the thing at someone who hasn't earned a bullet is actually a criminal act everywhere in the country.

Simple truth is that the vast majority of people who will watch that video on youtube really shouldn't be searching with a WML.

I recently watched someone whip out a Glock in a parking lot to look at a flat tire.

You aren't doing that. But there's a whole lot more of the dude who "investigates" the car full of teenagers with a WML or the guy who pulls it out to illuminate a flat tire change in a parking lot than there are of people who can intelligently discuss the benefits and drawbacks of the WML on a forum like PF. So Mas isn't just pissing in the wind on this one.

“Liking” this was not enough, so, quoted, to add my “Amen!”

[Rex G]

Folks in my neighborhood are on pins and needles, right now, with catalytic converter thefts, thefts of GM/Chevy trucks/SUVs, using electronic devices to unlock and start the vehicles, and follow-home robberies, that I have become increasing concerned that someone might see me, in the darkness, simply walking our dogs, and decide to “investigate” me, with their WML-equipped handgun providing illumination.

From posts on that Nextdoor dot com forum, and on some of the other general firearms forums, I have gathered that plenty of folks keep a WML on their “bedside” pistols, and on the long guns that they (unwisely) stash in the closets near their front doors.

We live in interesting times.

[Hambo]

You aren't doing that. But there's a whole lot more of the dude who "investigates" the car full of teenagers with a WML or the guy who pulls it out to illuminate a flat tire change in a parking lot than there are of people who can intelligently discuss the benefits and drawbacks of the WML on a forum like PF. So Mas isn't just pissing in the wind on this one.

Great summation. How I wish that citizens would concern themselves equally with getting training as they do with their right to carry a gun.

[Clusterfrack]

About 3 years ago I decided to get really good at shooting SHO. It didn’t take that much practice, and makes me a lot more confident with my handheld light.

[Borderland]

The charges probably were the result of brandishing a pistol. I'm not up on all the state laws regarding brandishing but in this state it's a gross misdemeanor.


(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw a firearm or weapon in a manner that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons. (2) Any person violating this law above shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. If any person is convicted of a violation of this law, the person shall lose his or her concealed pistol license. The court shall send notice of the revocation to the department of licensing, and the city, town, or county which issued the license. Take careful note that a conviction of this crime can result in a permanent deprivation of your 2nd amendment rights.

Nothing in our state law about using a light on a pistol. I have one on my P-30 LEM in my night stand and would use it to investigate any disturbance in my house. Outside I would use another light that would be good for 50 yards. Did that not long ago when my wife woke me up and said she heard someone at the front door. Nobody there.

Putting a light on a pistol doesn't change stupid. That's like trying to turn back the tide.

Great discussion about WML's

[WobblyPossum]

The charges probably were the result of brandishing a pistol. I'm not up on all the state laws regarding brandishing but in this state it's a gross misdemeanor.



Nothing in our state law about using a light on a pistol. I have one on my P-30 LEM in my night stand and would use it to investigate any disturbance in my house. Outside I would use another light that would be good for 50 yards. Did that not long ago when my wife woke me up and said she heard someone at the front door. Nobody there.

Putting a light on a pistol doesn't change stupid. That's like trying to turn back the tide.

Great discussion about WML's

In most states, actually pointing guns at people who don’t need to get guns pointed at them meets the statutory definition for felony aggravated assault. You’re using a deadly weapon to put people in fear of serious bodily injury. If you get really lucky and your prosecutor shows you mercy, you might get a misdemeanor brandishing or reckless endangerment instead of a felony but that doesn’t mean your conduct didn’t meet the standard for that felony.

[Borderland]

Great summation. How I wish that citizens would concern themselves equally with getting training as they do with their right to carry a gun.

Makes one wonder why a course isn't required for a concealed carry permit. None required in this state. Hardly anyone open carries on the west side of WA. which is legal.

A few months ago I had to take an abbreviated NRA basic pistol class and pass a live fire test to qualify to use the range at the private club where I shoot. I've been a member for about 8 years. They just initiated the full NRA basic pistol class for all new members a few years ago. This year they decided those who became members without the class should also be tested. I didn't want to do it at first but after I saw the number of people who failed the live fire part I realized there were many who needed some training.

I had planned to go to the pistol range today before I checked the range calendar. They had a pistol class scheduled so the range was closed. That's the first one I've noticed on their schedule. They leave Fridays open so I'll just make that my range day. Not a problem if it gives people an opportunity to get some training. I might look for an advanced class for myself.

[Mark D]

These discussions almost always include two sentiments, often exposed by the same person:

1) It probably makes sense to have a light on your home defense pistol.

2) You don't need a light on your CCW pistol. (Often accompanied by snark implying that folks with a WML on their CCW pistol are tact-tards).

Most folks I know carry one gun and, come bedtime, set that same gun on the nightstand. Is that so uncommon? Are there hoards of people out there who have guns they carry, and then another set of guns for defending the homestead?

[Borderland]

These discussions almost always include two sentiments, often exposed by the same person:

1) It probably makes sense to have a light on your home defense pistol.

2) You don't need a light on your CCW pistol. (Often accompanied by snark implying that folks with a WML on their CCW pistol are tact-tards).

Most folks I know carry one gun and, come bedtime, set that same gun on the nightstand. Is that so uncommon? Are there hoards of people out there who have guns they carry, and then another set of guns for defending the homestead?

Given the number of firearms and the number of gun owners in the US I would say it's a good possibility, but that's just a guess. I think I read someplace that the average gun owner has 7 firearms.

[psalms144.1]

I have a G19 with WML in my nightstand that only comes out of the safe when I want to frustrate the shit out of myself with how poorly I shoot it past 10 yards. It's the only weapon in the house with a light, except for the Zion AR15 that's in the safe downstairs. None of my "carry guns" has a WML

If I only owned ONE handgun, it would not have a WML. I would train the snot out of shooting with a handheld light.

[paherne]

These discussions almost always include two sentiments, often exposed by the same person:

1) It probably makes sense to have a light on your home defense pistol.

2) You don't need a light on your CCW pistol. (Often accompanied by snark implying that folks with a WML on their CCW pistol are tact-tards).

Most folks I know carry one gun and, come bedtime, set that same gun on the nightstand. Is that so uncommon? Are there hoards of people out there who have guns they carry, and then another set of guns for defending the homestead?

I do. I have 1 primary carry G48 with Holosun, no WML, altough I often carry a Streamlight handheld at night. I have a S&W 340 MP I wear when not wearing a gun or taking the trash out. Next to my bed, I have a GEN4 G17 with X300, plus a Modlite handheld for strange noises at night. For more than noises, I have an M1S90 with SF fore-end upgraded with Malkoff LED, stoked with 13 rounds of Hornady OO light magnum TAP buckshot. The catalytic converter thieves are traveling in packs of 2-4, armed and with a lookout. The Benelli is my little friend.

[Utm]

Makes one wonder why a course isn't required for a concealed carry permit. None required in this state. Hardly anyone open carries on the west side of WA. which is legal.

A few months ago I had to take an abbreviated NRA basic pistol class and pass a live fire test to qualify to use the range at the private club where I shoot. I've been a member for about 8 years. They just initiated the full NRA basic pistol class for all new members a few years ago. This year they decided those who became members without the class should also be tested. I didn't want to do it at first but after I saw the number of people who failed the live fire part I realized there were many who needed some training.

I had planned to go to the pistol range today before I checked the range calendar. They had a pistol class scheduled so the range was closed. That's the first one I've noticed on their schedule. They leave Fridays open so I'll just make that my range day. Not a problem if it gives people an opportunity to get some training. I might look for an advanced class for myself.
Because pistol permits shouldn't be a thing, and you certainly shouldn't need a course or test to carry a firearm for protection

[DDTSGM]

Makes one wonder why a course isn't required for a concealed carry permit.


Because pistol permits shouldn't be a thing, and you certainly shouldn't need a course or test to carry a firearm for protection

I've often felt that in the shall issue states, the required courses were kept very rudimentary to:

1) make sure that the intrusion was minimal to satisfy those who believe pistol permits shouldn't be a thing.

2) to more readily ensure that there weren't barriers to entry for folks who are financially strapped - often those who need a firearm for protection based on where they live.

Constitutional carry makes that all moot in the 15 states that have it in some form or another.

[TCinVA]

These discussions almost always include two sentiments, often exposed by the same person:

1) It probably makes sense to have a light on your home defense pistol.

2) You don't need a light on your CCW pistol. (Often accompanied by snark implying that folks with a WML on their CCW pistol are tact-tards).

Most folks I know carry one gun and, come bedtime, set that same gun on the nightstand. Is that so uncommon? Are there hoards of people out there who have guns they carry, and then another set of guns for defending the homestead?

I don't think it's uncommon.

I don't have any particular desire to carry a pistol concealed with a WML because it's extra bulk and difficulty in concealment for zero extra benefit while I'm carrying the pistol. If I use it on the nightstand I can mount the light for that, or I just do what I typically do and keep the shotgun staged for that.

I'm not bashful about turning on the lights in my domicile, either. Light is information and information is good if I think I'm dealing with bad guys.

If someone wants to carry a WML on their pistol all the time because they use that same pistol for nightstand duty, that's cool. But that doesn't change the rules we're dealing with. The WML is only useful in circumstances when you have a damned compelling reason to have the pistol in your hand. Those reasons are few and far between for everybody, but the armed citizen can expect a higher level of accountability for having their gun out and pointed than the police.

[Robinson]

Are there hoards of people out there who have guns they carry, and then another set of guns for defending the homestead?

I don't know about "hoards", but that's what I do. I have a dedicated nightstand gun with a mounted light. I shoot it just often enough to make sure it's in good operational condition and that's it. No light on my carry gun.

[BWT]

Stating the obvious. I don’t think Mass is advocating never using a weapon light, but not searching with one.

I’ve never drawn a gun in over a decade of carry. I figure if you’re searching after hearing gun fire or seeing a gun/knife you’re good to draw.

That doesn’t change when you carry a light. As long as you just keep that mindset I think a weapon light is fine. Just don’t consider using that WML unless it’d also be appropriate to have the gun out.

Maybe and I mean like .01% of times where if it was life and death, take the pistol out, slide the light off and reholster the gun. That’s also why I use the -A Surefire model it’s quick attach/detach.

Otherwise you’re searching with your cell phone light like the rest of the dorks who don’t carry a dedicated flashlight.

ETA: I think a weapon light also gives you an advantage of seeing more about someone you’re pointing a gun at in a defensive situation and can give a bit more advantage of you can see them and their vision is impaired. I’d rather know a person is acting crazy in my house/car/wherever with a cell phone in their hand or know it’s a gun.

But I’m no expert.

ETA 2:

I had some additional thoughts. I think of this as a strong parallel to an LPVO that are now universally accepted on AR rifles. It gives you an increased ability to positively identified something. But, looking at someone down your scope is a terrible idea. However, if you’re looking for threats, and you’re prepared to shoot. It’s nice to have that additional information to use as an advantage.

[Amp]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFya8vOZFOM

[corneileous]

The only pistol I have that has a flashlight attached to it is my Sig P220 10 mm that pretty much only gets used for when I go out in the woods for defense against four-legged critters. Even though I do keep it loaded with self-defense hollow points when it’s at home and not getting used but it’s really not even on my list of go-to guns for home defense either. Well, it would probably have priority over my little 22 magnum revolver but that’s it…lol.

For home defense, the only light my designated home gun has is an automated green laser that turns on as soon as you grip the handgun that’s kept in a little personal safe that’s bolted to the top of my nightstand and right beside it is the rechargeable MagTac Maglite flashlight for when things go bump in the night. Also on that handgun I have glow in the dark iron night sights for if I don’t want the laser to come on.

My two carry guns- a Springfield XDE 45 for all-year pocket carry and a compact Beretta PX4 Storm 9mm for winter time carry, have automated laser sights attached to them as well but no WML.

I guess I’ve just heard too much bad shit about having a flashlight attached to your handgun when it involves dealing with two-legged critters which is why I don’t do it. I just feel like there’s much better options to shine light on things without one, having your flashlight in a place that could be used as a target with you behind it and two, having to point the muzzle of your handgun wherever you want to look.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[titsonritz]

Maybe and I mean like .01% of times where if it was life and death, take the pistol out, slide the light off and reholster the gun. That’s also why I use the -A Surefire model it’s quick attach/detach.

Most light bearing holsters will not properly retain the weapon without the WML attached.

The correct answer is to have both, if must choose between one or the other, hand held is the way to go.

And with all due respect to Mike Glover, 500 lumens ain't shit. I not only want the ability to PID a potential threat (or non-threat) but be also to defeat that threats photonic barriers from his little 500 lumen light being thrown at me.

[BWT]

Most light bearing holsters will not properly retain the weapon without the WML attached.

The correct answer is to have both, if must choose between one or the other, hand held is the way to go.

And with all due respect to Mike Glover, 500 lumens ain't shit. I not only want the ability to PID a potential threat (or non-threat) but be also to defeat that threats photonic barriers from his little 500 lumen light being thrown at me.

What I picture in the situation requiring me to unholster a gun, pull the light off to search is like one of my small kids (1 and 3) falling into water at night and being fully submerged.

Like literal life and death.

That being said. I have a Pro-Tac light that can take either CR123 or AA. I think I’ll keep it in my front pocket.

Mike did say as a side note that the best option is both. I think I’m unique in that I can comfortably carry a Glock 34 with an x300U and ACRO P2. I’ve carried it basically all vacation this week except when at the beach or when going to the literal beach, pool, or a pirate ship ride where they promised you’d get soaked (I pocket carried a Ruger LCP). I helped my sister-in-law move concealed carrying including moving and picking up a piano, etc. carrying a 34 with x300.

[TCinVA]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFya8vOZFOM

So that video brings up a few things that highlight some of the problems in having these discussions.

I don't do what Mike Glover used to do. He's way higher speed than I'll ever be.

That out of the way, there's things that his prior career conditioned him to do which are a spectacularly bad idea in the world most police officers and normal joes deal with.

The idea of having the gun tracking to your eyes is a terrible idea for police and citizens. If one is inside a structure that is believed to be full of highly dangerous terrorists or elite enemy forces, you may well need to get around that structure with an immediate "shooting solution" ready to go...meaning you keep the gun oriented where you are looking, usually with the muzzle up just as he models in the video.

That's a catastrophically bad idea for a patrolman doing a building search. It's not as bad as saying that red dots on handguns reduce mistake of fact shootings, but it's kind of in the same vein. If the gun is pointing at what you're looking at, the gun is pointing at somebody you don't have legal justification to shoot yet. I'm sure you can go through police body cam footage and maybe find an instance or two where an officer got shot because they didn't have an immediate shooting solution, but you're going to find a whole lot more instances of mistake of fact shootings where someone who hadn't yet earned a bullet caught one because the officer had too immediate of a shooting solution.

Context is king and unfortunately there's a lot of stuff out there that's being taken from a context where it makes sense to a context where it doesn't.

Specifically on light use he expresses repeated concern about giving away your position. That's a concern for a Ranger doing Ranger things. That's a concern for a SWAT team approaching a building for a hostage rescue attempt or warrant service in the dark.

That's really not much of a concern for a citizen in a home defense scenario. For the citizen home defender the primary concerns are positive identification that whomever you're about to point this gun at isn't someone who is supposed to be in the house and having sufficient information to articulate an immediate threat to life when you go to the police station with your lawyer to give the statement you're going to have to give in an affirmative defense. For the typical citizen defender ideally it's going to be like that cheesy Trace Adkins song:


https://youtu.be/72AVXpeo_ZI?t=55

Same goes for how much light is desirable. Rhodopsin does what it does and you certainly can kill your night vision with too-bright of a light and be literally blinded for a few seconds once photons have completely saturated your onboard supply of it. I figured that out in shoot houses.

What I've noticed is that very few structures in the real world are set up like shoothouses. I've been in far more circumstances where I turn on a light and think "WTF is that?" because of shadows and the like than I've been getting my NV completely zapped in a completely dark environment and left blinded for a couple of seconds. A compelling reason to have a light with a lot of horsepower is the ability to use the light indirectly. With the 500 lumen light on my shotgun I can hit the ceiling, completely eliminate shadows in a dark room and see pretty much everything I need to see to understand if there's a reason to zoom in on a particular area with direct light and direct muzzle. When I use indirect light, I'm not getting all my rhodopsin saturated by the light. If dude is there, well dude needs all my attention at this moment where I'm making the decision about whether or not I have to shoot him.

I can expect other dudes if he is the bad guy and I can go back to indirect light to see enough of what's going on to figure out if I need to shoot them, too.

Or...and I know this is radical...I can turn the fucking lights on in the house. Because once it reaches the point where I have gun on dude, it's highly likely everybody is going to know where I'm at because I'm either shooting or giving very loud and direct commands to get the fuck out of my house.

A guy doing Ranger things or some SWAT things has different requirements, priorities, legal cover, and levels of accountability to a regular joe or normal patrolman doing normal patrolman things. It's a rare fellow who comes from one arena and is able to really understand how differently things need to be looked at in another.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Same goes for how much light is desirable. Rhodopsin does what it does and you certainly can kill your night vision with too-bright of a light and be literally blinded for a few seconds once photons have completely saturated your onboard supply of it. I figured that out in shoot houses.

Excellent post. I gave this an empirical test (being a guy with PhD emphasizing vision, just for context). I woke up in the middle of a dark night to go to the john. There was enough residual street light to navigate to the can which has a door to the walk in closet. So I thought that since I was pretty well dark adapted and up, I might experiment. I took my old Surefire 9P which was the bed table light in those days and went into the walk in closet. I waited a few minutes to get down to full dark adaptation.

I brought the light up and aimed it down the length of the closet. Wham, my eyes slammed shut reflexively and I winced. With my eyes closed there was a vivid positive afterimage of shirts, pants and closet crap. When I opened them there was a large central negative afterimage that obscured my vision. Couldn't see worth a damn. Losing central vision is unpleasant if you wanted to identify something or use sights. You are certainly handicapped for quite a few seconds.

BTW, folks talk about clearing the house, etc. TCinVA mentions challenging from a good position. Karl Rehn taught this. One thing we did is have an extra alarm panel in the bedroom. It would sound the obnoxious alarm and call the cops signifying a serious incident. Folks don't mention that but it is an easy thing to do. Yes, the police are 30 minutes away for some but better starting them out ASAP.

[JohnO]

Rule #1 pretty much ‘covers’ the topic.

AKA. Never point your weapon at anything you are not willing to destroy!

[pmandayam]

At home my defensive long guns have lights, but home defense is a different situation altogether than dealing with typical street crime. At home the primary worry is positive identification. A light mounted on the gun is a last ditch failsafe to ensure I have adequate information to make an intelligent UOF decision.

I agree with you 100% that a WML for the average CCW holder is completely superfluous. In fact, I personally think that this is a modern fad in my generation because of the influence of call of duty, where you "need" to put a bunch of accessories on your weapon. Because of that, people think that using a "bare gun" is inadequate, and thus "need" accessories like WMLs, red dot optics, threaded barrel, etc.

As you said, not only are there legal ramifications for using your WML to "search and identify/destroy", but making your handgun look like an offensive, and not defensive, weapon makes it harder to defend in court that you used your weapon defensively.

Where I disagree with you is use of WML in a home. You may need it for long guns, which require two hands, but if your night stand gun is a handgun, then even here you don't need a WML. You also don't even need a separate flashlight. The reason is because modern smartphones have powerful flashlights and can sufficiently illuminate a very dark room or hallway. Also, as you are searching your home for the source of the suspicious noise, you can hold the pistol in one hand, smart phone with flashlight in the other hand, and simply turn on the light switches to illuminate the whole house.

The primary application of a WML is clearing a dark house room by room that you don't know anything about what is inside.

[GearFondler]

I agree with you 100% that a WML for the average CCW holder is completely superfluous. In fact, I personally think that this is a modern fad in my generation because of the influence of call of duty, where you "need" to put a bunch of accessories on your weapon. Because of that, people think that using a "bare gun" is inadequate, and thus "need" accessories like WMLs, red dot optics, threaded barrel, etc.

As you said, not only are there legal ramifications for using your WML to "search and identify/destroy", but making your handgun look like an offensive, and not defensive, weapon makes it harder to defend in court that you used your weapon defensively.

Where I disagree with you is use of WML in a home. You may need it for long guns, which require two hands, but if your night stand gun is a handgun, then even here you don't need a WML. You also don't even need a separate flashlight. The reason is because modern smartphones have powerful flashlights and can sufficiently illuminate a very dark room or hallway. Also, as you are searching your home for the source of the suspicious noise, you can hold the pistol in one hand, smart phone with flashlight in the other hand, and simply turn on the light switches to illuminate the whole house.

The primary application of a WML is clearing a dark house room by room that you don't know anything about what is inside.All I'm going to say to this is that trying to use a cell phone as any kind of tactical light strikes me as a really, really, poor decision.

[pmandayam]

All I'm going to say to this is that trying to use a cell phone as any kind of tactical light strikes me as a really, really, poor decision.

They used to say this about smart phone cameras too, that they are inadequate and you need to use a dedicated camera. But technology has come very far now that cell phone cameras are very, very good, and you would need a multi-thousand dollar dedicated camera to beat it.

Cell phone cameras keep getting better and better with every new release. In fact, that's one of their major selling points to upgrade your phone.

The modern smart phone has become a multi-media or multi-purpose tool. This also includes the flashlight. In time, the flashlight on the phone can be as powerful as most dedicated flashlights, and it's already getting there.

Regarding "tactical "use" of the cell phone flash light, well, in a home invasion, you can use it to dial 911 and talk to operators while at the same time use it as a flashlight to search your home! (while turning on the house lights of course). And it is bright enough that it will illuminate your entire room. Go into your basement or a dark room, turn off all the lights and close the door and window, and turn on your phone light, you will see how bright it is.

[okie john]

They used to say this about smart phone cameras too, that they are inadequate and you need to use a dedicated camera. But technology has come very far now that cell phone cameras are very, very good, and you would need a multi-thousand dollar dedicated camera to beat it.

Cell phone cameras keep getting better and better with every new release. In fact, that's one of their major selling points to upgrade your phone.

The modern smart phone has become a multi-media or multi-purpose tool. This also includes the flashlight. In time, the flashlight on the phone can be as powerful as most dedicated flashlights, and it's already getting there.

Regarding "tactical "use" of the cell phone flash light, well, in a home invasion, you can use it to dial 911 and talk to operators while at the same time use it as a flashlight to search your home! (while turning on the house lights of course). And it is bright enough that it will illuminate your entire room. Go into your basement or a dark room, turn off all the lights and close the door and window, and turn on your phone light, you will see how bright it is.

Mas is pretty good at this stuff.

The issues are tactics and ergonomics, not candlepower. Mobile phones are not phones. They're handheld computers that you can use to talk to people. They're designed first to look good so they sell, second to work well as hand-held computers, and third (maybe) so you can talk on them. They're a bitch to handle smoothly and effectively when your pulse is 170 BPM.
Light attracts bullets, so you don't just turn the light on and walk around like Barney Fife. Flash briefly, then move instantly before someone shoots at where the light used to be.
You have to look at your phone to turn on the light, which means you're not looking at the problem. While you're doing that, you're lighting up your own face. Light attracts bullets, so maybe don't light up your own face in a gunfight.
Talking (or any other noise) reveals your position. Another horrible idea. The 911 operator ain't there to guide you through a manhunt. They'll tell you to drop the gun, seek cover, and wait for help. If you simply MUST clear the house, then let someone else handle the comms, or handle them yourself after your hero moment passes.
Turning on house lights is a horrible idea. You know the layout of your own home so it's easy for you to move in the dark. Turning on lights destroys that advantage. And if the bad guys are in parts of the house that are still dark, then you just made it easy for them to see you and kill you while making it harder for you to return the favor.
Do a Google search for "low light tactics" and get some training. And just buy a freaking Surefire...


Okie John

[rob_s]

A few weeks ago I was made aware of someone who caught a boatload of felony charges because he investigated a suspicious vehicle that happened to be full of lost teenagers. He investigated with the light mounted on his pistol...meaning he pointed a gun at multiple minors who posed no reasonable threat to anyone.

Certainly his decision making in "investigating" a vehicle on a public road in the first place is the root of the problem, but had he been using a regular flashlight and a holstered gun he'd likely not be facing such life-altering consequences.



Pretty sure I wrote an article for SWAT many years ago that included this story but...

When I lived in the 'burbs I woke up one night in my second floor bedroom, with a window out to our street that was maybe 25 feet from the front door, to hear female voices yelling "run him over again". Looked out the window and saw a car pull off and some sort of large mass in the road. My first thought was "these spoiled ass boca bitches just ran somebody down!" then I started thinking that I have no idea who else was in that car, or what their intentions were. Grab gun, go downstairs, and just as I'm about to open the front door they come back. Somewhere along the line I figure out that the large mass was a giant snake (it's a problem in SE Florida) and that while yes these were certainly little boca bitches, they were only little boca bitches and hadn't killed anyone, nor was there any other nefarious dood hiding in the car unseen.

Had I gone charging out there brandishing my gun, I'd certainly have faced a similar fate. However, I didn't want to not help a potentially injured person, but also didn't want to end similarly injured myself.

The article was about the fanny pack that I set up for "checking bumps in the night" that I used for years in the 'burbs, at hotels, etc.

Now that we live faux-rural, I rarely hear bumps and even more rarely get up for them, but if I did wandering around in my underpants with a gun attached to my flashlight wouldn't really be an issue.

I still keep a handheld with the gun.

[Clusterfrack]

Wandering around in your underpants toward an angry giant python with tire marks seems risky for obvious reasons...


Pretty sure I wrote an article for SWAT many years ago that included this story but...

When I lived in the 'burbs I woke up one night in my second floor bedroom, with a window out to our street that was maybe 25 feet from the front door, to hear female voices yelling "run him over again". Looked out the window and saw a car pull off and some sort of large mass in the road. My first thought was "these spoiled ass boca bitches just ran somebody down!" then I started thinking that I have no idea who else was in that car, or what their intentions were. Grab gun, go downstairs, and just as I'm about to open the front door they come back. Somewhere along the line I figure out that the large mass was a giant snake (it's a problem in SE Florida) and that while yes these were certainly little boca bitches, they were only little boca bitches and hadn't killed anyone, nor was there any other nefarious dood hiding in the car unseen.

Had I gone charging out there brandishing my gun, I'd certainly have faced a similar fate. However, I didn't want to not help a potentially injured person, but also didn't want to end similarly injured myself.

The article was about the fanny pack that I set up for "checking bumps in the night" that I used for years in the 'burbs, at hotels, etc.

Now that we live faux-rural, I rarely hear bumps and even more rarely get up for them, but if I did wandering around in my underpants with a gun attached to my flashlight wouldn't really be an issue.

I still keep a handheld with the gun.

[El Cid]

They used to say this about smart phone cameras too, that they are inadequate and you need to use a dedicated camera. But technology has come very far now that cell phone cameras are very, very good, and you would need a multi-thousand dollar dedicated camera to beat it.

Cell phone cameras keep getting better and better with every new release. In fact, that's one of their major selling points to upgrade your phone.

The modern smart phone has become a multi-media or multi-purpose tool. This also includes the flashlight. In time, the flashlight on the phone can be as powerful as most dedicated flashlights, and it's already getting there.

Regarding "tactical "use" of the cell phone flash light, well, in a home invasion, you can use it to dial 911 and talk to operators while at the same time use it as a flashlight to search your home! (while turning on the house lights of course). And it is bright enough that it will illuminate your entire room. Go into your basement or a dark room, turn off all the lights and close the door and window, and turn on your phone light, you will see how bright it is.

No. Just… no. Please get some training from a professional.

[jnc36rcpd]

My former department had a recurrent annual crisis when we needed to run qualifications for executives who were "too busy" to make it to training days. In one low light qualification where flashlights were authorized, a major pulled out his cell phone to use the flashlight function.

Over forty years in the department. Pretty much all in the office.

I didn't usually listen to tactical opinions from the employees or the contract range, but I agreed completely with their opinions on that embarrassment.

[mmc45414]

Most folks I know carry one gun and, come bedtime, set that same gun on the nightstand. Is that so uncommon? Are there hoards of people out there who have guns they carry, and then another set of guns for defending the homestead?

I don't know about "hoards", but that's what I do. I have a dedicated nightstand gun with a mounted light. I shoot it just often enough to make sure it's in good operational condition and that's it. No light on my carry gun.
My routine is (most) every weekend I shoot one of my 5" M&Ps, and (most) every day I carry my 4" M&P (with a little J-Frame sprinkled in when it is hot or cold). And at the end of the day I have it with me when we take the dogs out, and I park it in the little compartment in our headboard (when I slide it out in the morning the dogs jump up because they know that means it is time to go out).
But next to the bed I also have a lockbox that has my first 5" M&P in in, with a Streamlight with a pressure switch on it. Part of this is that it might as well be there instead of in the safe with the other two. I also decided that if there was ever a circumstance that I thought I may want a WML, that would not be the time to be farting around putting a light on a pistol.


The correct answer is to have both.
So yeah, I like having both. And even though I do not see any very probable situation where I would need to be packing one around, I finally stepped up and got a couple of holsters, one IWB and one OWB. Might get another one, maybe one of the JMCK Range/Competition versions and put a paddle on it sorta like the fanny bag idea, of not having it in your hand if having it in your hand would be a bad idea (right now it sits in a IWB that could get shoved in my pants.
I am also thinking about setting up another 4" for a RDO, maybe if I did I would also get gear to have a light on it if I wanna.


Or...and I know this is radical...I can turn the fucking lights on in the house.
One of the circumstances I could see wanting to actually carry something with a light might be in a disaster aftermath. A few years ago here we had some devastating tornados (nineteen separate touchdowns in a single night) and power wasn't something we could count on for many days. Things never did get sporty at all (really almost NO looting) but if things had been it would have been one of those improbable occasions that I would probably be out and about kitted up to a higher level. ETA: And for sure have a powerful handheld.

And if I think I might need a WML it would be too late to be buying holsters, so I decided to buy the two I have and have them (I used to just leave the lockbox gun in condition three). Last year I also shot a low/no light match that was really fun and enlightening (I may be distantly related to blues ...) and I did PCC, but you had the option to do pistol instead, maybe this year I will, and would need a WML holster.

But all of this is a byproduct of not dithering all my investment into various things that are similar (just got my M&Ps, no Glocks, no 320s...). If I focus on having one flavor of pistol it is not such a big deal to have some gear for it I might not ever use.

[blues]

Last year I also shot a low/no light match that was really fun and enlightening (I may be distantly related to blues ...) and I did PCC, but you had the option to do pistol instead, maybe this year I will, and would need a WML holster.




I think you probably owe me money...but I digress...

[pmandayam]

Do a Google search for "low light tactics" and get some training. And just buy a freaking Surefire...


This is taking it too far for a regular home owner defending his home. The goal in this situation is not to immediately kill the home invaders, but instead kick them out or stop the threat primarily, and if that doesn't work, then you can use use deadly force. But sneaking around in your house with the lights off and sniping the home intruders in the cover of dark is just cringe and can get you into some legal troubles.

[pmandayam]

No. Just… no. Please get some training from a professional.

I don't need to be trained by a professional to kick some home intruders from my home. The last thing I want to do is turn my home into some "tactical battleground". And the main goal isn't to kill the invaders; that's taking things too far. The main goal instead is to kick out the intruders.

[Rex G]

They used to say this about smart phone cameras too, that they are inadequate and you need to use a dedicated camera. But technology has come very far now that cell phone cameras are very, very good, and you would need a multi-thousand dollar dedicated camera to beat it.

Cell phone cameras keep getting better and better with every new release. In fact, that's one of their major selling points to upgrade your phone.

The modern smart phone has become a multi-media or multi-purpose tool. This also includes the flashlight. In time, the flashlight on the phone can be as powerful as most dedicated flashlights, and it's already getting there.

Regarding "tactical "use" of the cell phone flash light, well, in a home invasion, you can use it to dial 911 and talk to operators while at the same time use it as a flashlight to search your home! (while turning on the house lights of course). And it is bright enough that it will illuminate your entire room. Go into your basement or a dark room, turn off all the lights and close the door and window, and turn on your phone light, you will see how bright it is.

When the iPhone’s light can emerge from the phone body, on a flexible tentacle-like device, and move coaxially with my field of vision, then, it will be useful for searching and talking, at the same time, but only if I can use my mind to instantly activate and de-activate the illumination function. The tech is not there, just yet.

As it is, now, I hate using an iPhone to illuminate the task of Scoop-ee Doo, when out with the dogs, at night. A favored Surefire LX-series light is much less fumble-prone than a mobile phone designed to resemble a bar of much-used soap.

[blues]

What in the...

...I'll see myself out.

[WobblyPossum]

I don't need to be trained by a professional to kick some home intruders from my home. The last thing I want to do is turn my home into some "tactical battleground". And the main goal isn't to kill the invaders; that's taking things too far. The main goal instead is to kick out the intruders.

I would argue that the main goal when responding to a home invasion is to deal with the invaders without getting yourself or your loved ones hurt or killed. Using your iPhone as your primary illumination tool doesn’t really make the “without getting hurt or killed” part easier compared to using a dedicated handheld flashlight. The controls of using the iPhone as a flashlight suck for anything where the stakes are higher than “I dropped something and it rolled under the table.” The phone would also make it really hard to employ handheld flashlight techniques other than the FBI hold or neck index. Just get a real flashlight. It’s not like a handled flashlight is prohibitively expensive for most people. If you can afford an iPhone, you sure as hell can afford a decent flashlight.

[Clusterfrack]

https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/4e5e147/2147483647/strip/true/crop/1600x855+0+0/resize/1200x641!/format/webp/quality/80/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcalifornia-times-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2F84%2Fa3%2Fb9b0a5b54a 6eb2339790132b4de7%2Fenter-barbarian-movie-review-mct.jpg

[okie john]

What in the...

...I'll see myself out.

Yeah, no shit.


Okie John

[MickAK]

My home is so scattered with handheld flashlights I would knock them all on the floor and wait for intruders to trip on them before I tried to use my phone.

People that used lights before LEDs were ubiquitous tend to be the same in my experience. We don't appreciate how good we have it.

[TCinVA]

I have had a cell phone with a flash on it for more than a decade now.

I would never reach for one over a flashlight if it was at all practical to have the flashlight. They suck at the kind of tasks we would need a light to perform if we're potentially dealing with threats.

I have considerable experience training in low light with handguns and lights of various stripes and I have watched all sorts of really cool lights with neat features come to class and get jettisoned immediately thereafter because the unfortunate owner found out that under stress getting the exact function they wanted out of the light when they wanted it was almost impossible. It's not going to get any prettier if the thing we're trying to get light out of can make phone calls, stalk exes on social media, access your bank accounts, and stream porn.

Using a light in conjunction with a handgun while trying to assess a problem and make decisions is far more complicated than most realize if they've never actually been put in the position to combine all of those things at the same time.

I've been using some form of smart phone (defined as phone with a camera and internet capacity) for close to two decades now. I have found myself unable to bring up the camera app in a hurry on lots of occasions. (Oddly enough my first Samsung smart-ish phone was the easiest as it had a dedicated exterior button that could activate the camera) Right now my iPhone is set up to engage the light when I double tap the back and the camera when I triple tap the back, but I cannot make either function show up reliably. I have recovered lost data on phones and used them to perform administrative functions on servers through an ssh shell...so it's not just that I'm some boomer who doesn't know how technology works.

I'll be happy if the thing can actually get through to 911.

I'm not depending on it for my light if I have any other option whatsoever.

I'm pretty adamant about not relying on a cell phone's flash...to the point that I have multiple lights on my person unless I'm literally in my boxers. (Surefire E2E with Malkoff head, Streamlight Microstream in a pocket organizer) I keep two spare lights in my briefcase because I've experienced power outages due to transformers getting taken out, somebody ditch-witching through wires, or because there's an active fire and the building's power is gone to include making the emergency exit signs not work.

[NH Shooter]

https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/4e5e147/2147483647/strip/true/crop/1600x855+0+0/resize/1200x641!/format/webp/quality/80/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcalifornia-times-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2F84%2Fa3%2Fb9b0a5b54a 6eb2339790132b4de7%2Fenter-barbarian-movie-review-mct.jpg


Need to get JMCK to make an IWB for this cutting-edge-technology rig;

https://i5.walmartimages.com/asr/2d15747b-1bd4-4090-a7ec-63d5281e419d_1.3af1502251aceed9610109e0fef1b3f7.jp eg

[Ichiban]

Need to get JMCK to make an IWB for this cutting-edge-technology rig;

https://i5.walmartimages.com/asr/2d15747b-1bd4-4090-a7ec-63d5281e419d_1.3af1502251aceed9610109e0fef1b3f7.jp eg


I have no words.

[Oldherkpilot]

What in the...

...I'll see myself out.

"Blues Blazing Hell" is what you were looking for.😁

[Oldherkpilot]

When the iPhone’s light can emerge from the phone body, on a flexible tentacle-like device, and move coaxially with my field of vision, then, it will be useful for searching and talking, at the same time, but only if I can use my mind to instantly activate and de-activate the illumination function. The tech is not there, just yet.

As it is, now, I hate using an iPhone to illuminate the task of Scoop-ee Doo, when out with the dogs, at night. A favored Surefire LX-series light is much less fumble-prone than a mobile phone designed to resemble a bar of much-used soap.

Ah, if we can crack the mind control on/off function, please make mine a head lamp in lieu of a stupid telephone!😁

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Need a USPSA division for this one. JCN can try it out for us. Haha!

[Oldherkpilot]

Need to get JMCK to make an IWB for this cutting-edge-technology rig;

https://i5.walmartimages.com/asr/2d15747b-1bd4-4090-a7ec-63d5281e419d_1.3af1502251aceed9610109e0fef1b3f7.jp eg

If you add a Kevlar phone case you've got yourself a modern day shield! And you guys thought this thread was going nowhere.😁

[Jim Watson]

This is taking it too far for a regular home owner defending his home. The goal in this situation is not to immediately kill the home invaders, but instead kick them out or stop the threat primarily, and if that doesn't work, then you can use use deadly force. But sneaking around in your house with the lights off and sniping the home intruders in the cover of dark is just cringe and can get you into some legal troubles.

Times change. M. Ayoob himself once published that a nighttime intruder is all yours, deal with him as convenient, including ambush in a house you are more familiar with.

One reason I have a flashlight on the bedside table, right over the Pistol Drawer, is that my house gun is old enough that rails were not standard. I know the light works, it is the one that lit my way out of a burning house.

Low light/no light IDPA used to be done every once in a while, I guess the emphasis now is on throughput; dark operations are slow. I still know of a couple of places that run evening shoots; starting out in failing light, ending under floodlights. Flashlights not absolutely necessary but helpful if you are looking behind a barricade for targets in the shade.

[HCM]

This is taking it too far for a regular home owner defending his home. The goal in this situation is not to immediately kill the home invaders, but instead kick them out or stop the threat primarily, and if that doesn't work, then you can use use deadly force. But sneaking around in your house with the lights off and sniping the home intruders in the cover of dark is just cringe and can get you into some legal troubles.

I can’t decide if this is the most ignorant thing ever posted here or simply the most naive.

The goal in responding to a home invasion is to ensure the safety of your family and yourself by what ever means necessary.

If you have not come to terms with the idea that your life and the lives of your family are more valuable than the lives of a criminal that chooses to break into your home, and that whatever happens to the criminal is a consequence of what that criminal chose to do, then you need to reconsider whether or not you are really ready to apply deadly force, and if you should have a gun at all.

While having the best and brightest flashlight you can is necessary for properly, identifying threats, once a threat has been identified, taking half measures when full measures are required is a recipe for getting yourself and your family hurt or killed. Hesitation kills.

If you think you’re going to scare off every threat by merely having a gun and the flashlight on your iPhone, you may be in for a very rude awakening. A gun is not a ballistic lucky rabbits foot. Merely showing it to a criminal dedicated enough to break into an occupied house is not going to ward them off like showing a crucifix to a vampire.

[JCN]

Oh wow.

[Erick Gelhaus]

That video was 9:44 of my life that I won't get back.


racking to your eyes is a terrible idea for police and citizens. If one is inside a structure that is believed to be full of highly dangerous terrorists or elite enemy forces, you may well need to get around that structure with an immediate "shooting solution" ready to go...meaning you keep the gun oriented where you are looking, usually with the muzzle up just as he models in the video.

That's a catastrophically bad idea for a patrolman doing a building search. It's not as bad as saying that red dots on handguns reduce mistake of fact shootings, but it's kind of in the same vein. If the gun is pointing at what you're looking at, the gun is pointing at somebody you don't have legal justification to shoot yet....

Context is king and unfortunately there's a lot of stuff out there that's being taken from a context where it makes sense to a context where it doesn't.

Tim - I did not take his comment as searching through the sights. I took it as the eyes and the slightly lowered weapon (as he demo'd it) moving laterally together.



The primary application of a WML is clearing a dark house room by room that you don't know anything about what is inside.
Respectfully, no. One should not be searching with their pistol-mounted light. Its purpose is to allow you to have both hands on the pistol should you have to shoot in low light while wanting to keep the threat, target illuminated.


This is taking it too far for a regular home owner defending his home. The goal in this situation is not to immediately kill the home invaders, but instead kick them out or stop the threat primarily, and if that doesn't work, then you can use use deadly force. But sneaking around in your house with the lights off and sniping the home intruders in the cover of dark is just cringe and can get you into some legal troubles.
Can I ask about your legal background for these statements?


I don't need to be trained by a professional to kick some home intruders from my home. The last thing I want to do is turn my home into some "tactical battleground". And the main goal isn't to kill the invaders; that's taking things too far. The main goal instead is to kick out the intruders.
I'm fortunate enough to occasionally run decent, normal humans through force-on-force scenarios involving various events and encounters with armed role players. Based on those experiences, one's main goal should be hunkering down in a defensible place. Letting the BadGuys come to you is a better option than trying to kick them out.

[mmc45414]

Low light/no light IDPA used to be done every once in a while, I guess the emphasis now is on throughput; dark operations are slow. I still know of a couple of places that run evening shoots; starting out in failing light, ending under floodlights. Flashlights not absolutely necessary but helpful if you are looking behind a barricade for targets in the shade.

I hate shooting indoors, but you can turn the lights out and practice if you want to.

I have shot two low/no light matches, one was a local club match decades ago with night sights but no WML (this was probably back when the SAS were using hose clamps and mag lights...). On some stages the start signal was when they turned out all of the lights. This was one of my first real experiences with my newly installed night sights, and I placed way above my typical placement. I came in second, beaten only by the guy that hosted and setup the match. I attribute this sudden success to actually looking at my nifty new sights... :cool:

The other one was just a few months ago, and I took the PCC option with the weapon mounted light, because my no light carbine experience was pretty much none, really. It was very well run, with everyone on the range required to zip tie glow sticks to themselves front and rear. It was all knockdown steel and I am not sure it took any longer than any other match with KD targets. If they run it again this year I will probably do it again, this time with pistol. Also with targets hidden behind barrels not sure more lumens is always your friend.

[Wise_A]

The 911 operator ain't there to guide you through a manhunt. They'll tell you to drop the gun, seek cover, and wait for help. If you simply MUST clear the house, then let someone else handle the comms, or handle them yourself after your hero moment passes.

I don't speak for everyone in the industry, but I don't suck at what I do, and I'm not telling anyone to do anything. My standard line is "do what you think is best". My primary goal is to keep the line open so I can communicate later to keep my guys from having to shoot you, or you from shooting my guys.


Respectfully, no. One should not be searching with their pistol-mounted light. Its purpose is to allow you to have both hands on the pistol should you have to shoot in low light while wanting to keep the threat, target illuminated.

This was my logic--I have one, but my use-case is incredibly niche. I work evening shift, so I'm constantly driving across the countryside (read: legitimately dark) between 0000 and 0400. And that also means that help isn't THAT far away, since I'm leaving the place where the boys and girls that can help me work, so having some cluck at gunpoint while playing with my phone is probably more likely than normal. I still carry a rechargeable Streamlight on my off-hand side, but adding a WML cost me absolutely nothing in concealment and practically nothing in terms of weight.


The last thing I want to do is turn my home into some "tactical battleground".

All the world is a "tactical battleground"--my home included. You do not get to pick where the fight will take place. You do get to pick how prepared you are to fight in the places you commonly are. The parking lot at work is 75 yards from the back to the front gate--so I practice with a reduced-size IPSC steel target at 75 yards. The mailboxes in my neighborhood are almost exactly 100 yards apart, and the furthest line-of-sight is .9MIL of elevation away. From my front door to the street is 35 yards. The interior staircase is a chokepoint and I can protect all the bedrooms with a safe background from my bedroom door. The front door is best-covered from the edge of the hallway leading to my bedroom. Trying to deal with a subj at the front from downstairs is a fucking shitshow. The best cover (kitchen fridge) can't see the front door, and there's no edge or corner to use for cover on the other side of that corridor. On the other side, there is cover in the living room and dining room, but both of these rooms are corner rooms with windows on 2 sides that have cover from the concrete foundation and exterior wall and are thus a fucking shitshow if I'm not the only guy with a gun. As the front door from downstairs is a fucking shitshow for defenders, house policy is that nobody--nobody--is received at the front door.

I am not trained in any way that matters to the people around here. I read a little, I study stuff, I'm kinda observant. My dad was well-versed and was a city cop and said a lot of words into my ears growing up, some of which stuck. You don't need to sit there and fortify your cabinets with steel plating, but thinking about your home from a tactical perspective isn't the worst idea in the world and takes little effort and no change in lifestyle. Some of the things I observe--who the fuck cares what the elevation is to hit a subj at the corner stopsign?--are not likely to be useful. Realizing that the living room can be flanked from cover and concealment and just how hard defending the front door would be is really useful, because I can do things to avoid having a fight there. Practicing at the distance between the front gate and the end of the parking lot means I know that POI=POA all the way, and that I can go 4/5 or 5/5 all day (and night) at that distance, which could come in handy if some nutter pulls up and starts dumping mags from that gate.

That's what mindset is--winning the fight before you have it through training, practice, preparation, and equipment. A good start would be replacing the cell phone with an inexpensive-but-rugged flashlight with a tail switch. You can get a Streamlight for well under $100, you don't need all the lumens, it just needs to be easy-to-operate, easy-to-grip, and tough enough to hammer on without breaking.

[SoCalDep]

I had a very hard time watching that video. I have searched with a WML. In the right situation I will continue to search with a WML and I won’t feel bad about it. We had some in depth discussions about it at work and what I think the video misses as well as some in this discussion is that the weapon-light is not the issue. The gun is the issue.

There is a right time and a wrong time to have the gun out of the holster. From my law enforcement perspective, if I’m using a hand-held light in a “searching” capacity, the pistol should be in the holster. If I have the pistol out of the holster, then 1) there needs to be a damn good reason and 2) I need to minimize distraction from both the problem (tactics) and the proper manipulation and orientation of the pistol (things like trigger discipline, muzzle and situational awareness, etc.).

Unless one trains a lot (and law enforcement firearm instructors are constantly exposed to people who don’t), attempting to manipulate different tools in each hand is extremely difficult. Neither will be used as effectively as if it was the sole tool being used. The issue is exacerbated when the two tools need to be manipulated at the same time as would be the case when searching with a light independent of the pistol, then bringing the pistol to bear while at the same time illuminating the threat. This is seen over and over in body-cam videos and in our training. I’ve been talking about it since well before body-cams on YouTube became common-place as now. Very frequently the light is oriented down as the person moves to acquire the two-hand grip they most commonly train. Even if oriented to the front, I see people all the time illluminating the target, then having to orient the pistol to find the sights, which moves the light off the target, and this fun game often gets repeated several times, or they just shoot because they think they are supposed to and they often miss. We see in training all the time that less-practiced individuals shooting with a hand-held light perform poorly compared to those using a WML, and we quantified this with a study that showed this very clearly.

It’s also not just about having the light oriented with the pistol. A hand-held light technique such as the neck/temple/eye index or Harries carries the same legal and moral implications as the use of WML, and I’d argue that techniques such as the FBI or modified FBI are worse due to the complexity of maintaining consistent orientation of the pistol and light under stress and while having to think through problems. So what happens when we have the pistol out of the holster but oriented somewhere else so that the light can be used to search without covering with the muzzle? I find this an extremely dangerous tactic since we have now separated tools and our attention is in a different place than the pistol. Now we are significantly more susceptible to trigger finger issues and muzzling things and areas we don’t want because our attention is divided. I don’t advocate searching with a hand-held flashlight and having a pistol in hand unless one is using an integrated technique (ie: Harries or other techniques), and for this there needs to be some context just as there would be with searching with a WML.

In many of the examples cited in the video and in discussions, the presence of the firearm would have been improper whether in low light or in bright daylight conditions, and whether used with a WML or simply in hand while searching with a flashlight. The WMLs purpose is to facilitate light when using the gun. If we shouldn’t be using the gun we shouldn’t be using the WML. If we don’t have other means of illumination and resort to using the gun then we have simply failed to be responsible. Sometimes you can’t fix stupid and sometimes we don’t provide the best context in training... Speaking of which...

I’ve seen lots of training... from exposure to multiple law enforcement agencies, private organizations and individuals, and been in a lot of “shoothouses” and FoF training. I’ve seen videos from Larry Vickers at his own home and at Gunsite, Clint Smith at Thunder Ranch, Pat Rogers at Alliance, and others and never ever have I seen any of them searching for bad people or targets in those training videos without the pistol being in hand. Is this the way? Is this wrong? Or, as I would argue, is it contextual?

If I’m looking for a lost kid in a house, I’ll be using a hand-held light. If I’m responding to a domestic dispute and trying to find the involved parties I’ll be using a hand-held light. If I’m searching for a suspect who just stabbed his wife 37 times and might be in the house the gun is out. If I wake up to my daughter screaming “get off me!!!!... Dad HELP ME!!!” You can damn well bet the gun will be out. If the gun is out I will be using a WML because it allows better manipulation and attention to the task compared to a hand-held light.

If a person can’t figure out the differences in those situations the WML is not the problem. They probably shouldn’t have a gun.

This brings up a tactical consideration for the homeowner who hears a bump in the night. What does one do when moving through the house at 2am in underwear “investigating” a sound? If one doesn’t have a method to secure the handgun (ie: holster) then it has to be in hand, creating that distraction issue coupled with the fact the use of the pistol may not be warranted. I would argue that since we’ve identified this as a problem, not fixing it (by having some way to secure the pistol while investigating ) is irresponsible. If I’m going to “investigate”, I’m going to put on pants and a holster. If I’m responding to a known threat (such as the daughter example cited above) I’ll still be searching, but the gun will be out and I’m not worried about a holster. Investigating things outside the house in public areas with a gun in the hand is irresponsible and stupid. To use some of those as examples as to why one should “never” search with a WML is like saying you should never go to the zoo because some kid pissed off a tiger enough that it ate him.

I try not to teach in absolutes and to say “never search with a WML” is to me ridiculous.

[pmandayam]

Need to get JMCK to make an IWB for this cutting-edge-technology rig;

https://i5.walmartimages.com/asr/2d15747b-1bd4-4090-a7ec-63d5281e419d_1.3af1502251aceed9610109e0fef1b3f7.jp eg

This is the future, and is a BRILLIANT idea, because now you can video tape your defensive shooting and use it as legal proof that your shooting was justified.

[Oldherkpilot]

This is the future, and is a BRILLIANT idea, because now you can video tape your defensive shooting and use it as legal proof that your shooting was justified.

Not sure you can use the camera with the flashlight app turned on. Back to a real flashlight!😁

[AMC]

I had a very hard time watching that video. I have searched with a WML. In the right situation I will continue to search with a WML and I won’t feel bad about it. We had some in depth discussions about it at work and what I think the video misses as well as some in this discussion is that the weapon-light is not the issue. The gun is the issue.

There is a right time and a wrong time to have the gun out of the holster. From my law enforcement perspective, if I’m using a hand-held light in a “searching” capacity, the pistol should be in the holster. If I have the pistol out of the holster, then 1) there needs to be a damn good reason and 2) I need to minimize distraction from both the problem (tactics) and the proper manipulation and orientation of the pistol (things like trigger discipline, muzzle and situational awareness, etc.).

Unless one trains a lot (and law enforcement firearm instructors are constantly exposed to people who don’t), attempting to manipulate different tools in each hand is extremely difficult. Neither will be used as effectively as if it was the sole tool being used. The issue is exacerbated when the two tools need to be manipulated at the same time as would be the case when searching with a light independent of the pistol, then bringing the pistol to bear while at the same time illuminating the threat. This is seen over and over in body-cam videos and in our training. I’ve been talking about it since well before body-cams on YouTube became common-place as now. Very frequently the light is oriented down as the person moves to acquire the two-hand grip they most commonly train. Even if oriented to the front, I see people all the time illluminating the target, then having to orient the pistol to find the sights, which moves the light off the target, and this fun game often gets repeated several times, or they just shoot because they think they are supposed to and they often miss. We see in training all the time that less-practiced individuals shooting with a hand-held light perform poorly compared to those using a WML, and we quantified this with a study that showed this very clearly.

It’s also not just about having the light oriented with the pistol. A hand-held light technique such as the neck/temple/eye index or Harries carries the same legal and moral implications as the use of WML, and I’d argue that techniques such as the FBI or modified FBI are worse due to the complexity of maintaining consistent orientation of the pistol and light under stress and while having to think through problems. So what happens when we have the pistol out of the holster but oriented somewhere else so that the light can be used to search without covering with the muzzle? I find this an extremely dangerous tactic since we have now separated tools and our attention is in a different place than the pistol. Now we are significantly more susceptible to trigger finger issues and muzzling things and areas we don’t want because our attention is divided. I don’t advocate searching with a hand-held flashlight and having a pistol in hand unless one is using an integrated technique (ie: Harries or other techniques), and for this there needs to be some context just as there would be with searching with a WML.

In many of the examples cited in the video and in discussions, the presence of the firearm would have been improper whether in low light or in bright daylight conditions, and whether used with a WML or simply in hand while searching with a flashlight. The WMLs purpose is to facilitate light when using the gun. If we shouldn’t be using the gun we shouldn’t be using the WML. If we don’t have other means of illumination and resort to using the gun then we have simply failed to be responsible. Sometimes you can’t fix stupid and sometimes we don’t provide the best context in training... Speaking of which...

I’ve seen lots of training... from exposure to multiple law enforcement agencies, private organizations and individuals, and been in a lot of “shoothouses” and FoF training. I’ve seen videos from Larry Vickers at his own home and at Gunsite, Clint Smith at Thunder Ranch, Pat Rogers at Alliance, and others and never ever have I seen any of them searching for bad people or targets in those training videos without the pistol being in hand. Is this the way? Is this wrong? Or, as I would argue, is it contextual?

If I’m looking for a lost kid in a house, I’ll be using a hand-held light. If I’m responding to a domestic dispute and trying to find the involved parties I’ll be using a hand-held light. If I’m searching for a suspect who just stabbed his wife 37 times and might be in the house the gun is out. If I wake up to my daughter screaming “get off me!!!!... Dad HELP ME!!!” You can damn well bet the gun will be out. If the gun is out I will be using a WML because it allows better manipulation and attention to the task compared to a hand-held light.

If a person can’t figure out the differences in those situations the WML is not the problem. They probably shouldn’t have a gun.

This brings up a tactical consideration for the homeowner who hears a bump in the night. What does one do when moving through the house at 2am in underwear “investigating” a sound? If one doesn’t have a method to secure the handgun (ie: holster) then it has to be in hand, creating that distraction issue coupled with the fact the use of the pistol may not be warranted. I would argue that since we’ve identified this as a problem, not fixing it (by having some way to secure the pistol while investigating ) is irresponsible. If I’m going to “investigate”, I’m going to put on pants and a holster. If I’m responding to a known threat (such as the daughter example cited above) I’ll still be searching, but the gun will be out and I’m not worried about a holster. Investigating things outside the house in public areas with a gun in the hand is irresponsible and stupid. To use some of those as examples as to why one should “never” search with a WML is like saying you should never go to the zoo because some kid pissed off a tiger enough that it ate him.

I try not to teach in absolutes and to say “never search with a WML” is to me ridiculous.

This. All of this. Some folks need to put down the hopium pipe, or the 1980s dog eared copy of Combat Handguns Digest and recognize that times, knowledge, equipment and best practices have evolved. And as always....context is king.

[HCM]

This. All of this. Some folks need to put down the hopium pipe, or the 1980s dog eared copy of Combat Handguns Digest and recognize that times, knowledge, equipment and best practices have evolved. And as always....context is king.

Agreed. Context is king.

I believe it was Tom Givens who talked about how flashlight techniques (like a lot of other things) have been driven by changes in equipment.

A good example is the Ayoob flashlight technique. It’s a great technique for using a handgun and a flashlight with a side mounted button.

But of 300 shooters, we only have one or two that are still using side button flashlights. Unfortunately, we still have instructors who are trying to teach this technique and adapt it to tail button flashlights, instead of simply acknowledging that it is optimal for side, button, flashlights, and maybe not so optimal for other types of flashlights. It’s in the book so we have to have them all do it and “make it work instead of just presenting it in the context.

[WobblyPossum]

SoCalDep, brilliant post. You’ve explained it better than most and covered a couple of things I’m embarrassed to say I should have thought of, but didn’t, when teaching my people on the range last week. Like you just did, I explained that a lot of the issues with searching/illuminating with a WML come from it not being an appropriate time to even have a gun out. Your use of examples was better than mine and I’m sure would have been clearer than my explanation. My only regret is that I have but one like to give to this post.

[AMC]

Agreed. Context is king.

I believe it was Tom Givens who talked about how flashlight techniques (like a lot of other things) have been driven by changes in equipment.

A good example is the Ayoob flashlight technique. It’s a great technique for using a handgun and a flashlight with a side mounted button.

But of 300 shooters, we only have one or two that are still using side button flashlights. Unfortunately, we still have instructors who are trying to teach this technique and adapt it to tail button flashlights, instead of simply acknowledging that it is optimal for side, button, flashlights, and maybe not so optimal for other types of flashlights. It’s in the book so we have to have them all do it and “make it work instead of just presenting it in the context.

One of the 2 handhelds I normally carried on patrol for years was an older Streamlight Stinger. The Ayoob Technigue was perfect for that light....especially for rapid deployment.

[Utm]

I had a very hard time watching that video. I have searched with a WML. In the right situation I will continue to search with a WML and I won’t feel bad about it. We had some in depth discussions about it at work and what I think the video misses as well as some in this discussion is that the weapon-light is not the issue. The gun is the issue.

There is a right time and a wrong time to have the gun out of the holster. From my law enforcement perspective, if I’m using a hand-held light in a “searching” capacity, the pistol should be in the holster. If I have the pistol out of the holster, then 1) there needs to be a damn good reason and 2) I need to minimize distraction from both the problem (tactics) and the proper manipulation and orientation of the pistol (things like trigger discipline, muzzle and situational awareness, etc.).

Unless one trains a lot (and law enforcement firearm instructors are constantly exposed to people who don’t), attempting to manipulate different tools in each hand is extremely difficult. Neither will be used as effectively as if it was the sole tool being used. The issue is exacerbated when the two tools need to be manipulated at the same time as would be the case when searching with a light independent of the pistol, then bringing the pistol to bear while at the same time illuminating the threat. This is seen over and over in body-cam videos and in our training. I’ve been talking about it since well before body-cams on YouTube became common-place as now. Very frequently the light is oriented down as the person moves to acquire the two-hand grip they most commonly train. Even if oriented to the front, I see people all the time illluminating the target, then having to orient the pistol to find the sights, which moves the light off the target, and this fun game often gets repeated several times, or they just shoot because they think they are supposed to and they often miss. We see in training all the time that less-practiced individuals shooting with a hand-held light perform poorly compared to those using a WML, and we quantified this with a study that showed this very clearly.

It’s also not just about having the light oriented with the pistol. A hand-held light technique such as the neck/temple/eye index or Harries carries the same legal and moral implications as the use of WML, and I’d argue that techniques such as the FBI or modified FBI are worse due to the complexity of maintaining consistent orientation of the pistol and light under stress and while having to think through problems. So what happens when we have the pistol out of the holster but oriented somewhere else so that the light can be used to search without covering with the muzzle? I find this an extremely dangerous tactic since we have now separated tools and our attention is in a different place than the pistol. Now we are significantly more susceptible to trigger finger issues and muzzling things and areas we don’t want because our attention is divided. I don’t advocate searching with a hand-held flashlight and having a pistol in hand unless one is using an integrated technique (ie: Harries or other techniques), and for this there needs to be some context just as there would be with searching with a WML.

In many of the examples cited in the video and in discussions, the presence of the firearm would have been improper whether in low light or in bright daylight conditions, and whether used with a WML or simply in hand while searching with a flashlight. The WMLs purpose is to facilitate light when using the gun. If we shouldn’t be using the gun we shouldn’t be using the WML. If we don’t have other means of illumination and resort to using the gun then we have simply failed to be responsible. Sometimes you can’t fix stupid and sometimes we don’t provide the best context in training... Speaking of which...

I’ve seen lots of training... from exposure to multiple law enforcement agencies, private organizations and individuals, and been in a lot of “shoothouses” and FoF training. I’ve seen videos from Larry Vickers at his own home and at Gunsite, Clint Smith at Thunder Ranch, Pat Rogers at Alliance, and others and never ever have I seen any of them searching for bad people or targets in those training videos without the pistol being in hand. Is this the way? Is this wrong? Or, as I would argue, is it contextual?

If I’m looking for a lost kid in a house, I’ll be using a hand-held light. If I’m responding to a domestic dispute and trying to find the involved parties I’ll be using a hand-held light. If I’m searching for a suspect who just stabbed his wife 37 times and might be in the house the gun is out. If I wake up to my daughter screaming “get off me!!!!... Dad HELP ME!!!” You can damn well bet the gun will be out. If the gun is out I will be using a WML because it allows better manipulation and attention to the task compared to a hand-held light.

If a person can’t figure out the differences in those situations the WML is not the problem. They probably shouldn’t have a gun.

This brings up a tactical consideration for the homeowner who hears a bump in the night. What does one do when moving through the house at 2am in underwear “investigating” a sound? If one doesn’t have a method to secure the handgun (ie: holster) then it has to be in hand, creating that distraction issue coupled with the fact the use of the pistol may not be warranted. I would argue that since we’ve identified this as a problem, not fixing it (by having some way to secure the pistol while investigating ) is irresponsible. If I’m going to “investigate”, I’m going to put on pants and a holster. If I’m responding to a known threat (such as the daughter example cited above) I’ll still be searching, but the gun will be out and I’m not worried about a holster. Investigating things outside the house in public areas with a gun in the hand is irresponsible and stupid. To use some of those as examples as to why one should “never” search with a WML is like saying you should never go to the zoo because some kid pissed off a tiger enough that it ate him.

I try not to teach in absolutes and to say “never search with a WML” is to me ridiculous.

In an LE scenario I do not like to clear structures on alarm calls and whatnot with the wml. I prefer a handheld because you may run into the cleaning crew or employee working late or sleeping resident when you round the corner and I'd prefer not to muzzle them

[SoCalDep]

In an LE scenario I do not like to clear structures on alarm calls and whatnot with the wml. I prefer a handheld because you may run into the cleaning crew or employee working late or sleeping resident when you round the corner and I'd prefer not to muzzle them

I think it depends on the totality of the situation. We never enter a structure on an alarm call without making multiple loud announcements. The nature of the alarm, condition of doors/potential method of entry, evidence of ransacking or struggle, and what the structure is (bank vs store vs residence, etc.) all come into play.

If you would walk in with your handgun in the holster and your hand-held light out, then that’s probably the better decision. If your gun is out... in my book it’s WML.

[TCinVA]

If I’m looking for a lost kid in a house, I’ll be using a hand-held light. If I’m responding to a domestic dispute and trying to find the involved parties I’ll be using a hand-held light. If I’m searching for a suspect who just stabbed his wife 37 times and might be in the house the gun is out. If I wake up to my daughter screaming “get off me!!!!... Dad HELP ME!!!” You can damn well bet the gun will be out. If the gun is out I will be using a WML because it allows better manipulation and attention to the task compared to a hand-held light.


My baseline for average joes is: You need to have a damned compelling reason to have your gun in hand.

A family member screaming for help consistent with being assaulted by an intruder would be a damned compelling reason to have your gun in your hand whether you are at home or out and about. Searching a house for the perpetrator of a violent crime inside a structure where he/she is highly likely to be is a pretty compelling reason to have a gun in your hand given that you have a duty to respond to that kind of thing when you are wearing a uniform.

This is really a probabilistic risk assessment. The risks of using a WML as a flashlight are significant both from a legal and moral perspective.

One of the things Ashton and I use in class is the notion of a "hostage" shot. Ordinarily if someone points a gun at me or in very close proximity to me, I'm going to be really unhappy about it. On the other hand, if there's a dude with a machete who has me in the classic hostage hold, I'm pretty OK with a capable police officer or one of my friends pointing the muzzle of a gun a couple of inches from my head. It's still risky, but that risk is dwarfed by the risk of the lunatic with the machete. My tolerance for risk has been changed by the situation.

It's risky for me to ever draw my gun and shoot someone. There are life-altering moral, social, financial, and legal consequences for doing so. But if the alternative is getting maimed or killed or watching someone I care about being maimed or killed then the risk profile has changed and I'm willing to shoot someone as many times as it takes to prevent that outcome.

The same sort of risk assessment is in play with the decision on when it's time to resort to the WML.

The problem being discusses is the lack of recognition that the WML is a different animal and requires that kind of sober-minded analysis.



If a person can’t figure out the differences in those situations the WML is not the problem. They probably shouldn’t have a gun.


I wouldn't argue with you on that point.

Lots of people out there shouldn't have a gun. Or children. Or oxygen, really. (Paraphrasing someone wiser)

A lot more are simply ignorant of the risks and accountability that come along with their decisions. Hence the need for someone like Mas to say "Hey, guys, that neato light on your Glock is attached to an instrument of lethal force and has to be treated differently or you can kill someone you didn't intend to and/or catch felony charges that won't go away when you try to explain you didn't mean anything by pointing a lethal weapon at another human being because you were trying to use a light."

Like I said...I watched a motherfucker stroke a Glock 19 out of a holster to illuminate a tire change. The person who did that isn't evil. He isn't even stupid, at least not in a broad born to lose tattoo on his forehead level. He simply had never considered the implications of a weapon mounted light and his dipshit monkey brain...the one that lives inside all of us...thought "Need light. Light on Glock! Use light!"

Of course, you would think that any person with 2 functional brain cells to rub together would understand that a light attached to a firearm requires the same considerations in handling that a firearm has on its own. Then again you'd think any rational adult would understand that it's incredibly dangerous to point a gun at themselves or someone else in the course of handling it, and yet how many times do we see that violated?

To err is human, and we seem to do a shitload of our erring when interacting with dangerous equipment.

If there's one thing I've learned in teaching it's how things that should be obvious are not and have to be explained in detail before people actually "get" it.



If I’m going to “investigate”, I’m going to put on pants and a holster. If I’m responding to a known threat (such as the daughter example cited above) I’ll still be searching, but the gun will be out and I’m not worried about a holster.


You've identified two completely different situations.

"What was that?" gets a different response than "Somebody is in Sally's room!"

Searching for "what was that?" with a WML is foolish. Searching for the guy who broke into Sally's room is not, assuming you are using good protocols to make sure you minimize the risk of putting a round into Sally in the process. Recognition that these are two completely different things should be automatic but isn't, at least not universally.

But ultimately you've hit on the point that Mas was getting at, namely that if you don't have a compelling reason to have your gun in hand then you don't have a compelling reason to be using a WML in the first place. And if you do have a compelling reason to have your gun in hand, you have to use the light with the recognition that it's attached to a lethal instrument that will not stop you from making a bad decision in its application.

[BehindBlueI's]

This is taking it too far for a regular home owner defending his home. The goal in this situation is not to immediately kill the home invaders, but instead kick them out or stop the threat primarily, and if that doesn't work, then you can use use deadly force. But sneaking around in your house with the lights off and sniping the home intruders in the cover of dark is just cringe and can get you into some legal troubles.

What is your background to give this advice? What nation's legal system is it applicable to?

[Hambo]

I don't need to be trained by a professional to kick some home intruders from my home.

Great epitaph, bro. It's also not a statement you want to have to explain during deposition or trial. Just sayin.

[Phaedrus]

This might already be kind of irrelevant given how wild this discussion has become but I'll throw it out there- a cell phone will probably never come close to a dedicated handheld light, at least barring some as-of-yet-undiscovered new physics. The actual LED on the die is just part of the system. It's unlikely that a manufacturer would be able to fit the kind of die needed to match the output of a tactical light. But even with the same emitter it wouldn't perform the same. A light is a system made of many parts. First you need battery capacity and voltage. Probably a cell phone can do that albeit with some heating and endurance issues. Heat is another big one. Powerful lights are most often metal which serves as a heat sink. The Malkoff light engine previously mentioned actually included a huge brass heat sink, and it's backfilled with thermal epoxy to mitigate shock and control heat. The last part is the light engine. Potent lights from Cloud Defensive, Elzetta, Malkoff and Surefire use computer-designed reflectors or optics purpose built for a task. An 'orange peel' reflector will create a somewhat diffuse light whereas a TIR system will tend to have a more focused beam. Elzetta uses a solid acrylic optic that protects the emitter and focuses the light. Unless new physics is discovered you need to focus or direct the light, usually through reflection or diffraction. Look at a rifle scope as an example. You can't physically get, say, 30x magnification with a 200 foot field of view at 100 yards, optics doesn't work that way. Designing for one attribute generally is done as the expense of others. If the light die on your phone could output 2,000 lumens it would be very low candella without some kind of lens, and a lens on a phone can only be so deep in practical terms. That's one reason there are stick-on lenses for your iPhone, to create a focus no possible on the CCD die. So yeah, you could create a shallow ring of fresnel-type reflectors but you can only do so much. And this ignores the fact that virtually no phone maker would find it financially sane to try to engineer this into a consumer phone.

Beyond that there's practicality. I always have a flashlight in my pocket and occasionally have had to use it to help a coworker change a tire in the winter. If you ever do this alone you'll notice it takes two hands and three or four is better still. Do you want to set your phone down in a snow bank or rain puddle to shine on your tire while you work? If you do you're the first person I've ever met that did.

And if you're searching for an intruder, do you have a good method of wielding the phone like a search light while you use it to talk to the cops? Can you use the light to search while you use the camera to record? If you have to fire your weapon do you plan to quickly grasp the phone in your mouth to keep the light on the intruder?

Choosing a phone over a light feels a lot like choosing to use an entire can of Right Guard to hide your BO instead of taking a shower.:rolleyes:

[Dov]

A few weeks ago I was made aware of someone who caught a boatload of felony charges because he investigated a suspicious vehicle that happened to be full of lost teenagers. He investigated with the light mounted on his pistol...meaning he pointed a gun at multiple minors who posed no reasonable threat to anyone.

Certainly his decision making in "investigating" a vehicle on a public road in the first place is the root of the problem, but had he been using a regular flashlight and a holstered gun he'd likely not be facing such life-altering consequences.

That gets at the root of what Mas is saying.

The WML is a very specific tool for a very specific context. Disciplined use of that tool where it is useful is fine. Very few people (including police officers) have the requisite level of training or discipline to use the tool properly.

Something Tom is making a point to emphasize in his classes is that the consequences for stupidity with a gun are increasing. At many points in the past, if someone did something stupid with a gun and there was no real harm done, the consequences for the act were relatively minor. Today we have permitless carry in almost half the states and some form of concealed carry in all of them. We have a larger percentage of people carrying guns than we have had since WWII, getting high enough up there that we're starting to look more like the late 19th and early 20th century when concealing a handgun on a regular basis was a dead common thing to do.

In concert with that, the authorities are becoming less and less charitable in their handling of stupid acts with firearms, including more aggressively pursuing charges in instances where a gun was pulled or pointed at someone else. Increasingly the principle of picking up accountability when you pick up the gun is getting bigger and sharper teeth in more and more places.

A pistol-mounted light is almost completely useless to a typical concealed carrier. I don't carry my pistol with a WML because in my view it's as useless as tits on a boar. I'm not doing building searches or felony stops. I need a damned compelling reason before I ever pull my gun out of the holster and if I have that compelling reason I don't need the WML at that point. I'm perfectly happy carrying a normal light and knowing how to use it in concert with a pistol for those statistical outlier situations where I might end up deliberately clearing the house of a family member or friend with my pistol.

At home my defensive long guns have lights, but home defense is a different situation altogether than dealing with typical street crime. At home the primary worry is positive identification. A light mounted on the gun is a last ditch failsafe to ensure I have adequate information to make an intelligent UOF decision. A forcible entry into the home is a situation where your typical citizen is at the zenith of their ability to have a gun in hand prior to positive identification of an immediate threat. So there a WML on a long gun or pistol makes a great deal of sense...but even there discipline in the use of the light is at a premium because ostensibly that environment has a bunch of people and things you care about in it and you don't want to be pointing death at any of that willy nilly. The risks are real, but in that environment given how common it is for family members to get shot because they are assumed to be an intruder, the risk/reward calculation shifts in favor of having the light and using it more liberally.

WML's are attached to deadly weapons. Where the light's hotspot goes, so too goes a muzzle.

Col. Cooper's rules about firearms aren't range rules, they're rules for life that help us mitigate the possibility unintentionally hurting someone with a lethal weapon. If we injure or kill with a firearm it should be an intentional act. Controlling where we point the thing is of primary importance, and pointing the thing at someone who hasn't earned a bullet is actually a criminal act everywhere in the country.

Simple truth is that the vast majority of people who will watch that video on youtube really shouldn't be searching with a WML.

I recently watched someone whip out a Glock in a parking lot to look at a flat tire.

You aren't doing that. But there's a whole lot more of the dude who "investigates" the car full of teenagers with a WML or the guy who pulls it out to illuminate a flat tire change in a parking lot than there are of people who can intelligently discuss the benefits and drawbacks of the WML on a forum like PF. So Mas isn't just pissing in the wind on this one.

FWIW

I think this thread should be a Sticky.

Also think this post by TCinVA should get it's own Sticky.

[Clusterfrack]

FWIW

I think this thread should be a Sticky.


Good idea. Done.