Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 25

Thread: Low light & flashlight work

  1. #1
    Site Supporter Erick Gelhaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The Wasatch Front

    Low light & flashlight work

    (Wasn't sure where to put this, Mods obviously feel free to move it)

    Helped teach a low-light / intermediate pistol class last week over several nights. A few observations that seemed to come about because of how low light / flashlight training happens in other environments.

    - Saw a lot of issues with people getting the beams, especially the hot spot where they wanted them such as into other rooms or dark holes while unintentionally wasting the light on near walls. Spent a fair amount of time working on this while working them through indoor simulators ("shoot houses").
    Name:  *IMG_3465.jpg
Views: 977
Size:  15.0 KB
    - There's discussion about trying to work through barriers created by the presence of brighter lights & darker holes in several places. Setting up the problem in buildings can be easy; however, setting it up on a range might not be all that easy. The instructor I ws teaching with - Walt W - identified a solution and made it workable. He developed a mount that would solidly attach to a turning target frame in order to send nearly all of its lumens back uprange at the shooter.
    Now the tudent had to burn through the light in order to illuminate the target & engage it. Merely slinging some light that direction (a common problem) wouldn't work, one needed some semblance of propper technique to get enough light on the bad guy.

    Enough lumens:
    Name:  *IMG_3494.jpg
Views: 970
Size:  28.5 KB
    Not enough lumens:
    Name:  *IMG_3504.jpg
Views: 936
Size:  14.6 KB
    The target / light set-up ...
    Name:  IMG_3359.jpg
Views: 915
Size:  61.7 KB
    Walt adapted this onto one of the Northern Lights tactical robot targets. The students got charged by the flashlight weilding target while trying to engage it. If I can figure out how to get the video over here I will.

    Fwiw, after the first (8am to 8pm), the class was run from 1pm to 11pm. It was square range in the afternoon & early evening, then live fire low light square work, followed by simulators and finished off with practical application of flashlight / search techniques in the house, the woods, and a lengthy, deep, rocky draw.

    Anyway, just wanted to bring up the light direction issue and a way to reinforce proper technique.

  2. #2
    Supporting Business NH Shooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    New Hampshire, U.S.A.
    Angus, a great topic and one I will follow closely.

    Based on the photos it looks like the FBI hold was preferred? When it comes time to actually fire, I can still shoot faster and more accurately using the Harries, though for indoor search the FBI hold seems the most flexible. I never warmed up to the neck hold, though I can see how it would be superior to the FBI in terms of indexing the light on target.

    For the outdoor live fire, what was the distance to the target?

    Edit

    I hope there can be some discussion of the gear as well. For example, flashlights can be configured for wide, flood-type beams with minimal central hot spot which would make exact target alignment less critical but also cause more back-lighting through illumination of nearby walls; or they can be configured with a narrower beam that better focuses the lumens on the target and minimizes back-lighting, but requires more critical alignment.

    Everyone discusses "lumens" but IMO, beam profile is as (or more) important in determining the characteristics of a light and its applications.
    Last edited by NH Shooter; 11-20-2017 at 05:38 AM.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by NH Shooter View Post
    Everyone discusses "lumens" but IMO, beam profile is as (or more) important in determining the characteristics of a light and its applications.
    Absolutely. For a general purpose/dog walking light, I like a wide smooth beam with "soft" edges. Hard transitions can be distracting when the light is moving But a tight hotspot is great for focussing attention and reaching out over a longer distance.

  4. #4
    Site Supporter Erick Gelhaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The Wasatch Front
    It's a wee bit difficult working the line & taking cell phone photos, so I did not get good ones with the shooters working jaw/neck index and Harries. Square range work ended at 25 yds, however the simulators and go search for your class mates took the work from arms length to the effective limit of the terrain. Those photos were at 5 and 7 yds.

    There was plenty of discussion on gear over 5 nights, though I have no idea if anyone if writing an AAR anywhere.

    Harries is a solid shooting position (ref Helms in the Bomar incident), but it may not be the best search position if we're trying to get muzzles off people who haven't warranted them. I find myself working between between jaw/neck index and a modified FBI when searching inside & out.

    Since I was thinking software and programming more than hardware ... ( Maybe a better discussion, before beam shape, is when one last changed their batteries. I shouldn't be but I do get surprised when cops & normal people show up for low light training with dim lights due to batteries. There are a metric butt load of lights out there. While I keep looking for someone to replace my preferred work handheld, it wasn't the 1K lmn new one I was using for the class; in spite of supposedly repeatedly getting it set to just High/Off, it kept returning to the strobe mode. I look for a solid, centered hot spot with a pretty uniform softer area around it and plenty of throw. Never mind how little I think of a WML that suddenly begins strobing.)

  5. #5
    Member TGS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Back in northern Virginia
    Timely topic. We did a lot of night shooting in a course I took last week. Previously, in my private sector and police shooting, we only ever did enough night shooting with white lights to make us realize how much harder it is than daylight. This last course we did some reps on static steel, but then unlike previous classes we did a LOT of work shooting on the move, and from cover. That's really where I felt the money was made, as the dynamic part really magnified our errors.

    FWIW, no problem with target acquisition out to 25 yards using the Surefire XC1, oft maligned for being "weak" and having a flood beam. I actually had a lot more trouble using my handheld, which is more lumens and has a tighter hotspot/greater throw. Reason being my technique wasn't spot on, and the errors heavily outweighed any paper-tiger advantage. In other words, I found that you can't fight through errors in technique, and a "better" light will not make up for errors.

    This awesome practical application led me to believe that proficiency is 100 times more important than flood vs concentrated hotspot, lumen rating, etc.

    I've heard people on here say that bounce-back on white surfaces from high power lights is a myth or whatever, but it had some pretty severe effects on the entire class. As the course was changed so that the stations became harder, one station made it impossible to not have bounce back off a white surface.....and it was brutal on our performance, especially for the weak-links who hadn't yet learned their lessons on previous stages and weren't even trying to mitigate such.

    Shooting on the move and especially working from the cover (standing each side, kneeling each side, over top, through different size windows, prone from cover) really taught me when and where to use which technique, and that knowing them all is pretty relevant and that choosing one while eschewing the others is a mistake.

    Again, none of these lessons or competency was effectively taught by doing static drills on targets in any of my prior low-light/no-light training.
    "Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer

  6. #6
    This is exactly the kind of thread I was hoping would get started after seeing all the other threads about lights and lumens. I hope some of the SME type LEO’s will chime in quite a bit. Running a carbine with a light is definitely different than running a pistol with one. I have crap for experience with lights and pistols and I look forward to seeing where this thread goes and learning what I can. Thanks OP.

  7. #7
    Does no one (besides SMEs like Mike Seeklander and Mike Pannone) use a temple index for handheld lights? I see lots of mentions of FBI hold, neck index, cheek index, and Harries. I have found in my limited testing (as a layman) that the temple gives you a good reference point and keeps the light high enough to keep your sights illuminated and throws most of the light downrange while not lighting up the backs of your arms as much.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by 43Under View Post
    Does no one (besides SMEs like Mike Seeklander and Mike Pannone) use a temple index for handheld lights? I see lots of mentions of FBI hold, neck index, cheek index, and Harries. I have found in my limited testing (as a layman) that the temple gives you a good reference point and keeps the light high enough to keep your sights illuminated and throws most of the light downrange while not lighting up the backs of your arms as much.
    I tend to index the light with my thumb right under my left ear. It is easily indexed rapidly, gives good field of view, and provides enough resistance that the light doesn’t bump around as I move my head.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. #9
    Member JDD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    You can't get theyah from heeyah...
    Quote Originally Posted by TGS View Post
    FWIW, no problem with target acquisition out to 25 yards using the Surefire XC1, oft maligned for being "weak" and having a flood beam. I actually had a lot more trouble using my handheld, which is more lumens and has a tighter hotspot/greater throw. Reason being my technique wasn't spot on, and the errors heavily outweighed any paper-tiger advantage. In other words, I found that you can't fight through errors in technique, and a "better" light will not make up for errors.
    This sounds like a great course...

    I am reasonably convinced that having a light that is physically attached to my firearm provides me with more of a shooting advantage in low light than any reasonable amount of low light and sustainment training with a handheld. A handheld light adds an entirely separate system that I have to align with a target while simultaneously aiming my firearm.

  10. #10
    Member SoCalDep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    The Secret City in Tennessee
    Great thread!

    A few thoughts...

    We teach two flashlight/handgun techniques to recruits and in-service - the Harries and the "neck" index, which we've always said is adjusted between temple and neck depending on what works best. I find the temple area indexed against the side of the head right next to my eye works best. Even better that I'm left eyed and right handed. I've begun calling the technique the "eye" index with credit to Mike Seeklander because I think it's generally a better location to mitigate shadow from the extended arm/gun and provide the best illumination of the sights and threat. I think it's extremely important to have at minimum, two techniques to place the light on either side of the gun. That's why when I threw out our old low light program and re-wrote it, I simplified it with Harries and the neck/eye index. I also like Harries and eye-index because I can teach the same technique to be used with a Streamlight PT1L or a Streamlight SL20X. Whatever light the student brings these techniques will work. Old curriculum gave too many options, with too little practice, and minimal if any tactical application. Now the techniques get presented efficientlytaught quickly, there's lots of practice, and students get to apply the techniques to basic tactical principles (light management, light discipline, clearing corners, angles, using cover, and general shooting techniques).

    That said, I think Harries sucks as a technique for most people. I feel this way not because it's a bad technique, but because most people don't practice flashlight techniques enough and it's complicated compared to the eye-index. I've seen many students attempt to shoot in the Harries technique under stress and VERY frequently the light ends up pointed down at the ground. I've also seen it happen on some body cam footage of actual shootings. Even with the flashlight in our hand, there is a strong urge to shoot like we train, which is two hands on the gun, thus the support hand rotates forward and the light dips. Can it be used effectively? Yep, and it has. That said, there are also serious issues when people who don't train frequently depend on it.

    I agree with Angus' initial post. It seems there is a consistent and hard to break desire to illuminate close obstacles, walls, cover, etc., and then move the hot spot of the light into the threat area. In some cases I've seen students who very much know better keep part or even all of the hot spot on close cover, then sort of "jump" the light into the open as if they're popping out, rather than putting the light where it does them good, or using light discipline and waiting to activate until the light beam will be clear of cover. I'm generally a fan of using available distance from cover to work the angle better, but in low light when using lights, it is often advantageous to close a bit with the cover/angle to minimize the amount of light that's splashing back.

    Beam profile is important - I'd say just as important as lumen output, and maybe more in certain situations. I'm generally a fan of as much light as possible. I frequently demonstrate to students by having a volunteer with a white ballistic vest stand in front and I illuminate it with a 200 lumen light. This is after the students see how bright a light is on a dark blue barricade, so they're usually surprised by the brightness against the white material. I tell them to note now long it takes for their basic night-adapted vision to return after the flash of 200 lumens. Then I flash a 2200 lumen light - which is obviously brighter, but still takes about the same time to recover basic night vision (full night-adapted vision takes much longer than the few seconds in this case). Yes... the 2200 light messes with night vision, but so does the 200 lumen light and when it's on it's a big advantage. Of course, viewing the source of the light creates the most significant effect on vision, so training should include ways to mitigate the possibility of illuminating reflective glass picture frames, mirrors, etc.

    I think the Modified FBI has its place for searching, but it's a horrible shooting technique for most people. We don't teach it, but I think it has value in the right circumstances.

    CCW/Off duty has less need for a weapon-mounted light but better have a flashlight. For home defense and Law Enforcement, I'm a strong advocate for WMLs. In fact, were I king, every single law enforcement patrol officer in the United States would have a WML on their handgun with a grip-activated pressure switch and the training to use it properly. I think a WML can be an advantage on a CCW gun and some of the more modern lights (Streamlight TLR-6 and Surefire XC-1) are getting there for being practical CCW-friendly WMLs, but while my on-duty backup has a light and laser (Glock 43 with TLR-6), my off-duty doesn't. When off duty I carry a relatively small but powerful flashlight.

    Speaking of training with WMLs, it's needed. It's needed WAY more if not using a pressure switch. In fact, if you're not using a pressure switch, there's a really good chance it will do you no good anyway because under stress you simply won't use the light. We did a study. Short version of results is that with training varying from pretty much nothing to about 45 minutes of instruction, about 82% of study participants activated their weapon-light when engaging a target under sudden stress. A whopping 0% (same experience range) activated toggle-switch equipped lights. In that same study, WML users were measurably more accurate than hand-held light users, who (if I remember correctly) were less accurate than those who simply shot in the dark. It wasn't a scientific study, but it reinforces what I've seen over thousands of students.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •