Charlie Petty said:
My earliest rookie training included the already mentioned "FBI technique" of holding the flashlight away from your body to keep from being the primary target. Back then we almost always shot with one hand anyhow so it wasn't an issue.
Much later when two hand holds became common there were several techniques proposed and there was something to be said for having support for the gun. When Surefire came out with a really bright, little flashlight life got even easier and it was then only a matter of time before folks found a way to hang them on guns. Plastic pistols made that easier still because it was no big deal to add a rail.
A few years ago I went to the Surefire Institute and learned all sorts of neat flashlight stuff but none of it involved lights on the gun and a lot of it was back to shooting with one hand. Don't ever let anyone tell you that the world doesn't run around in circles…
I still have mixed feelings about lights mounted on guns- especially in law enforcement because just seeing what's going on could involve pointing guns at things that might not need shooting. Some agencies get real anal if you take the gun out of the holster and make you fill out "use of force forms" if you even think about it…
One idea that I liked was to have a separate carrier on the belt for the weapon light so it's there if needed but I'd still carry a big flashlight because they are such handy clubs.
On the home front it's not such an issue because if you have reason to grab a gun at night it is going to be either a room clearing exercise or the use of deadly force is probably already justified.
Hopefully Mr. Marlowe can bring us up to speed on current training doctrine.
Well Charlie, Here Goes:
First let me jump to "Al Thompson's" remark: "I would
almost rather have a good high intensity flashlight and a stick than a handgun and no light." and relate it to a (paraphrased) statement from my friend Ralph Mroz, who once said something along the lines of "If I see someone carrying a gun who is not carrying a light source, I am concerned about their ability to carry the gun."
Me, I just tell people that in this day and age, there is no reason to
not have a light source of some kind with you at all times: either on the gun or on or about your person.
So accepting that fact (or condition), where should it go?
As to current training doctrine, unfortunately, I think things are all over the map.
I really do like the idea of fixing the light to the gun. But I must say that I am not completely taken with the way they are currently mounted. And that's coming from someone who is one of the inventors of a currently popular and patented design! And while things have gotten a lot better in recent years, I am also not overwhelmed with the way such lights are operated. Their switching leaves a lot to be desired. Finally, there are issues regarding the holsters that accommodate light-bearing handguns. For while "Duty Holsters" do exist for such guns (as "Al Thompson" so correctly points out),
for the most part, they do not offer the same higher levels of retention (there are exceptions) as available in non-light-accommodating models.
Let's break this down a bit.
White light devices (as opposed to Lasers) are generally mounted under the barrel of the gun in the dust cover area of the frame. Thankfully, the rails (that I don't care for visually but that's another story) have allowed us to do away with the gargantuan bolt-on mounts of the past. And the current crop of LED's has allowed light outputs to soar. So much so, that the light itself can now be used as a "weapon" of sorts although at this point, I would describe such blinding/dazzling devices (whether they strobe or not) as "tools" and not weapons if I were asked to label them. That "term" might change in the future.
But the battery packs and the reflectors (or in some cases "optics") necessary to reach the performance levels that people are beginning to take for granted require what is still something of a large housing assembly that must be placed along the centerline of the gun (bore). And such positioning all but forbids (again there are exceptions) the use of the kind of trigger guard-engaging retention systems that have become commonplace (and in many cases preferred) in law enforcement and certain civilian circles today.
My belief is that as both LED and battery technology continues to advance, the forward facing (reflected) light source will ultimately be placed within the recoil spring guide and then all of the bulk and holster issues will go away. As a sidenote and something we can discuss separately in the future is also my belief that this is something that probably could have been done by now if people were willing to live with lower-but-still-sensible power outputs and weren't looking for flashlights that can double as plasma cutters.
And once a light-equipped firearm can be placed into
any holster (holsters that will take non-light-bearing guns as well), I believe that such internal lighting will become commonplace. For I believe that it is this situation that is really holding things back in regard to gun-mounted lighting becoming the norm; especially in personal defense and law enforcement applications.
Next, I still think there needs to be a better way to operate the light. Looking at the underbarrel modules themselves, there are conventional momentary switches, on/off switches and multi-position switches that are mounted to them and that are used to control what it is the light does or doesn't do. There are also remote, pressure or "tape" switches that are wired to the light, which can be adhered to other locations on the gun to control at least some of these functions. And as the functions became greater in number (on, off, high, low, strobe, etc.) or more complex (variable dimming for example), newer switching formats have become common where depending how many times they are pressed (actually: "tapped") different things happen (or happen in a different order).
So I think we have several issues going on here.
While I am fully in favor of advancing technology and in giving someone as many options as possible so that they can find which one might best suit their needs, I almost think that here, we are giving them too many. Or at least too many to wade thru under stress. Some of the lights out there can be
preprogrammed to do whatever is necessary. But not all of them work that way. Some require that your selections be made on the spot. And I have some serious misgivings about those that require the user to "switch-their-way-thru" or, more likely, "tap-their-way-thru" the various options before they get to the one that they really need at the same time they are bringing the gun to bear in a deadly force situation. Sometimes, I think our concern for the user allows us to create good tools for them but sometimes I think we give little thought as to how they will actually perform with such tools once we give them to them.
Even overlooking
that performance issue, if we merely look at things from a mechanical/ergonomic viewpoint, operating the switches (regardless of how they function),
whether they are mounted on the light or placed somewhere on the gun
, also leaves something to be desired at this point in time. Depending on hand and finger size, "reaching" the switches on the light body can be difficult for some people. It can also affect the shooting grip (if operated with one hand). And for some people, it might actually require the use of a second hand, which can be problematic if the idea of mounting the light on the gun in the first place was to "free up" the second hand (as in the case of a bunker carrier or a dog handler in police applications or of someone turning doorknobs and latches at home in civilian ones). Currently, I believe that frame mounted pressure switches aren't much better for they usually require some alteration to the shooting grip to operate them properly and/or to avoid leaving the light on when it isn't needed or is unwise to employ.
My belief here is that once the light becomes integral to the gun, a proximity switching system might become possible. I know a company that experimented with that concept years ago but the technology wasn't far enough along to fully support it at the time. But in the meantime, I think that some sort of thumb operated horizontal (already offered by at least one manufacturer) or
vertical momentary switch would make the most sense. That way, only one hand would be necessary and the shooting grip would not necessarily be disturbed during activation. While I think a vertical orientation might be better ergonomically, it could pose problems in regard to both trigger access by the non-dominant index finger and overall ambidextrous operation. There is still a lot of work to do in this regard.
There is also a lot to do in regard to employing the light tactically and this too, is both a linked and a freestanding topic as it relates to what we are discussing here today.
In my lectures, I really hammer on the negative influences regarding television and the movies. Lighting and lasers (Something to be discussed some other time?) are among the biggest issues. People almost always leave the lights "on" ("on camera") and while I am sure there might be some occasion where this could be helpful (a non-dangerous search perhaps; I've been in enough fires to know the value of a good flashlight), when the light is attached to the gun, this not only leads to other issues as Charlie touched on in his opening comments ("…seeing what's going on could involve pointing guns at things that might not need shooting."), but it is not real life.
My wish for a momentary (only) switch can help limit (not eliminate) the officer's tendency to "search" with the gun as can training and a Departmental General Order insisting that in addition to the light on the gun, the officer must also carry a handheld design for use at all times when the gun is not warranted. But such a rule within the agency can also create a "circular" issue. For if you are requiring the use of a handheld light for general purposes (meaning that oft times the light will be just that, "handheld", at a point when the firearm
might become necessary), then why not just employ
it along with the gun and forgo the light on the gun altogether? Especially when perhaps your only other option would be to holster the light, draw the weapon, and activate the light that's on it. That's asking a lot of anybody who is facing the stress of a situation that is requiring him or her to employ a firearm.
Charlie,
among others, has also suggested the use of "…a separate carrier on the belt for the weapon light so it's there if needed…" and as both an instructor and a contributor to the design of one of the more popular such belt-borne platforms, I think that there is some merit to the concept. Especially, because as a side benefit, it somewhat (not entirely) solves the problem of needing a different or special holster for the gun with the light attached. However, depending on the design and function of the device, you could be asking a lot of the officer to draw the light, draw the gun, mount the light to the gun and deal with the threat. Then, you could be asking even more of them, if after the even more stressful event of having fired the weapon, they must disassemble the two components and individually resecure them to the belt.
So while "gun lights" have come a long way in a relatively short period of time (the past twenty-some years) and I really do believe they have their place in
many applications, I am thinking that with all the shortcomings I have described just by hitting the high points here (there are still a lot more things to be said), maybe we should look to the handheld light for
most situations.
I recently drafted an article for someone where I mentioned that the first police-type flashlight I used back in the '70's more closely resembled an aluminum baseball bat than it did a lighting instrument. Over time, the technology allowed me to get more light out of smaller packages and the last police-type flashlight I actually used for work was only a fraction of that size. Today, things are even smaller and often made from a resilient polymer instead of a lawsuit-inviting metal. As a liability conscious trainer, I'm afraid that I must disagree with the suggestion to "carry a big flashlight because they are such handy clubs" for while I certainly understand they can serve well in that role, I think that
somewhat smaller ones can be employed very effectively not as a billy but as a striking device much in the manner of an oversized Kubotan® or a Monadnock Persuader™.
But I also believe that the size of even some of today's "police" flashlights (the widely used and well-respected Streamlight® PolyStinger® for example is only about 7½" in length) can be improved upon for personal use. If you still want to be able to use the light as some sort of impact weapon, that same company makes a blinding miniaturized handheld (their Stylus Pro®) that is about 5 5/16" long and only about 5/8" in diameter. I carry their MicroStream®, which is only 3½" long and about 5/8" in diameter. It clips to my pocket like a knife but takes up even less room and it fits
within the width of my hand when used. Its push-button (momentary and on/off) tail cap allows me to use it with a number of accepted and long proven gunfighting flashlight techniques.
As a civilian these days, I think carrying such a light on my non-dominant side, allows me to illuminate my way in the dark at home, thru a power failure in a hotel while traveling and in just about any other occasion I can think of. And because I have become used to always employing it with that hand, it in no way interferes with my possibly having to draw or produce a firearm as I would under any other circumstance. All this goes back to my friend Ralph's remark about the need to always have the light with you and being able to employ it seamlessly with whatever you are doing at the time.
As to the techniques people use these days, they are many and a lot of them have almost become "traditional" by now. Light bodies are available to facilitate syringe grip techniques. Some people still bring the fronts/faces/palms of their hands together and head-mounted switching or adjustable angle "heads" facilitate that. And many people, either due to simplicity, limited range of motion physically, or only a limited amount of time to practice and become/continue to be proficient, still prefer techniques that employ the kind of tailcap mounted momentary switches that I tend to like.
The biggest issues today (besides the need to practice, practice, practice) tend to revolve around the design of the light and how it and one's own personal habits can get you into trouble.
I already mentioned how television and the movies misrepresent the use of tactical lighting and one of the most glaring (sorry) but I am sure interesting to "watch" programs (by the untrained anyway), was the X-Files. Routinely, they not only left gun-mounted lights "on" but generally, all the lights they used (gun-mounted and handheld) featured lenses/bezels that all but glowed when the lamps were illuminated. This looked great on TV: shafts of brilliant white light slashing thru generally hazy rooms like light sabers. But generally those beams traced right back to their source and even at those times when there wasn't enough in the air to create that (in real life, dangerous) effect, the glowing ring around the end of the device itself would give the user away to anybody nearby who was either off to the side or behind.
Yet those lights weren't modified for TV, they were one of the more popular brands at the time.
So not only must you be careful for "mechanical" things like that (flaws in the design of the light itself) but as light outputs are increasing
but sometimes beam quality and dispersion characteristics are not, it is way too easy to have an awful lot of light reflecting back off of things and onto you. This bounceback can not only unintentionally illuminate you but it can also easily mess up your vision in much the same way such gun-mounted and handheld lights are being used to mess up the vision of others.
It can happen in many ways but one of easiest to describe here is when rolling out from behind cover to look and/or take a shot. Following good procedure, you are behind and some distance away from the covering object. You move to the side, exposing the muzzle of the gun and its sights. You blip the light to illuminate the area downrange and while some of the light goes that way as expected, if the diameter of the beam is too large (or perhaps larger than expected), part of it (not that portion that follows your line of sight thru your sights) will reflect off the back side (your side) of the barrier possibly illuminating you and possibly affecting your low light vision. With some of the extremely high outputs that some of these lights provide, such reflection issues can actually result from the interaction downrange as well. And that can happen in
any situation; with or without the barrier. This was not a problem with most of the lights from our past.
Finally Charlie, we should probably talk strobing separately. I agree with some of what "Maggot" has to say and as you know, I was very much involved in this concept when it first appeared in some of the more sophisticated hand and gun mounted lights. I think it can have great applications in Law Enforcement but I think its use for civilian defense should be discussed in depth when we have more time. The needs, the situations and the legal aspects are all different
there and need more than just a cursory once-over
here.
And in closing, I'd also like to leave the door open on beam shapes and configurations. Work in that area can eliminate the overspill issues I mentioned above. They can also can create a more uniform light within the entire projected (covered) space. The spaces themselves, can be tailored for specific shapes and/or sizes. And depending on how things work (there are competing technologies here), a conventional head can be designed to project more than one shape or configuration. Bushnell is offering one of their lights with this technology. It offers a single square beam that that projects as a "block" of amazingly uniform white light.
And that idea of "white" light too needs to be addressed, as there are perceivable differences in how we "see" colors within light projected from the LED's discussed here and those we see under the more traditional incandescent (bulb-type) lamps that us "old folks" are used to. Work has been done by some people to filter their "colder" (harsher) and sometimes bluish-white light in order to more closely resemble the "warmer" (and familiar) colors most people raised with the earlier and more conventional forms of handheld lighting remember. While I think that over time, most people will just get used to (adjust to) the new "colors" as they got used to mercury and sodium vapor municipal lighting, the real potential value of such filtering efforts for law enforcement purposes should be the greater similarities between (or parallels to) the way colors appear under sunlight (natural light) and the light projected by such devices.
Whew! I hope you find this interesting. And just remember Charlie, you asked me to chime in here! Hope things have been good with you.
