Are Handgun Weapon Lights Being maligned?

[Wildalaska]

I just got this email from Surefire, make of it what you will. I have my own objections to weaponlights for civilians, none of which are adressed or applicable here.....

Email follows

Dear SureFire Customers and Supporters:

Recently an article appeared in an email newsletter distributed by the Force Science News of the Force Science Institute, quoting its own Dr. Lewinski. The article and Dr. Lewinski make several troubling assertions that must be rebutted in the (long-term) interest of officer safety. The gist of the article and Lewinski is that grip-activated pistol-light switches are unsafe. I paraphrase (to clarify), quote, and respond to some of the more disturbing assertions below.

1) You cannot train officers to keep their finger off the trigger under stress. According to the article, "...despite training to the contrary, officers in high-stress situations tend to move the finger onto the trigger..."

Response: If true, this has nothing to do with grip-switches, but it would support a ban on the use of firearms in general. But obviously, it is not true; officers can be trained to keep their fingers off the trigger in high-stress situations. If the fact were otherwise there would be thousands of unintended discharges each day.

2) The device is unsafe. The article states, "At least twice in recent months the device has been associated with shootings in which officers reportedly said they thought they were turning on the flashlight..."

Response: In 1986 SureFire introduced the first light designed specifically for mounting on handguns. This light (equipped with remote switching) was quickly adopted by SWAT teams, including LAPD's D-Platoon. In 2004 SureFire introduced the current X-Series WeaponLights, intended primarily for attachment to handguns. There are well over 100,000 SureFire X-Series lights and tens of thousands of optional grip-activated "DG" and "SL" switches in use today, and our competitors have sold hundreds of thousands of other pistol-mountable lights themselves. During this 24-year period the only reported safety-related incidents involving such lights are the two incidents mentioned above. These figures alone prove that SureFire WeaponLights, and weapon-mounted lights in general, are safe.

3) According to the article, Lewinski asserts that, "...an officer pressing his middle finger against the flashlight switch pad will produce a sympathetic reaction in the index finger. If that finger happens to be inside the trigger guard and on the pistol's trigger, the reaction may be forceful enough to cause an unintentional discharge."

Response: Sympathetic Response is a real phenomenon, but it's not the boogeyman and it can be addressed with training. Think about it: our trigger finger doesn't magically pull the trigger when we use our thumb to manipulate the safety or the magazine release. Nor does the trigger finger unconsciously jump into action when we use our opposite hand to activate our radio, handheld flashlight, or pepper spray. The answer to Sympathetic Response is training and adherence to Rule #2 of The Four Basic Rules of Firearms Safety: Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target and you are ready to fire.

And please note, if an officer experiences Sympathetic Response while his or her finger is on the trigger when it shouldn't be there, it would not matter which light switch the officer is using, or whether the officer has a weaponmounted light at all. The point is, the officer's finger is on the trigger when it shouldn't be there.

4) The article quotes Lewinski as saying, "When you think you're doing one thing but are actually doing another, the result often is directly opposite of what you intended."

Response: I believe he is referring to the phenomenon of reverting (under stress) from an intended action (activating the grip switch) to another action (pulling the trigger).

Let's borrow Lewinski's own analogy of drivers stepping on the gas pedal when they meant to step on the brake pedal. Can this happen? Of course, it's called a mistake. Does every driver do it? No, in fact, most do not. Do trained drivers-such as highway patrolmen, or professional racecar drivers-make this mistake? No, not in any number that is statistically significant. Again, the issue here is training. You cannot make officers safer by taking away their equipment-you must provide them with adequate training.

Dr. Lewinski lists research as one of the services he provides. Yet-with the newsletter in question-he has published what most would assume to be a professional opinion-based on just two isolated incidents (out of 24 years of safe use) that he read about in news reports, incidents that are still under investigation and that he is not privy to at this time. While he may have conducted legitimate research regarding human dynamics during deadly force encounters, he does not appear to have done any research particular to SureFire products or the use of weapon-mounted lights. For that reason alone I find the article to be unprofessional and certainly not qualified to stand as an expert opinion.

I assume Lewinski is acting out of a real concern for officer safety-and not to generate future engagements as an expert witness. But I fear the article may actually have the opposite effect by frightening some administrations into depriving their officers of crucial safety tools. Regardless, Lewinski's opinion is just that.

The greater issue is whether officers are provided adequate training to ensure they can safely use the tools they have. To address that issue I have attached a separate document, unconcerned with Dr. Lewinski's opinions, entitled, Officer Training for Low-Light Conditions: A Matter of Life and Death.

It should be noted that Force Science News is a communications vehicle for the Force Science Research Center, of which Lewinski is the executive director. Quoting yourself in your own publication and referencing your own studies is questionable at best. And finally, the article ends with this statement: "Lawsuits have been filed in both shootings." For clarification, SureFire has not been named in those lawsuits.

Respectfully,

Derek McDonald
Vice President of Marketing, SureFire

Relevant experience includes but is not limited to:

U.S. Navy Gunners Mate "A" and "C" schools
U.S. Navy Small Arms Instructor / Range Master
P.O.S.T. certified instructor of Officer Survival in Low-Light Conditions
SureFire Institute founding instructor cadre member
NRA Law Enforcement Tactical Handgun Instructor
Simunition Scenario & Safety Instructor
Hundreds of hours providing training to, and conducting informal interviews of, law enforcement officers with regard to lethal-force encounters, specifically as it relates to the use of low-light tactics and lighting tools


WildthreemoredaysofagonyandtheniamfreeAlaska ™©2002-2011

[AK103K]

If you dont, or arent willing to practice with what you got until you dont have to think about it, its likely to be an issue at some point.


So far, I havent shot the dog or myself when the coons and possoms get testy by the trash cans at night. And thats four things to think of at once, with at least two of them going in different dirctions!

Im not even adding the worry Im supposed to have about the SIG Mosquito its mounted on not working too.

(it works by the way, just as Rocky and ole "its poss i bule".. )

[Sarge]

In the regular course of business I encounter a good number of people I'll shine a light directly on, but few who I'll point a gun directly at. Personally, I like to keep those functions separate.

Frankly, I note poorer muzzle discipline when officers are lighting people and things up with their pistols. I just can't bring myself to accept that because it's 'tactical'.

[pax]

In the interest of a good discussion, the Force Science article being rebutted is "Transmission #173" which isn't up on the FSC website yet, but will (eventually) be found online at http://www.forcescience.org/fsinews/archive/

A brief quote for purposes of discussion only:

"In normal, nonstressful conditions or even under mild stress, the mechanism in question is likely to work as intended," [Force Science executive director Dr. Bill] Lewinski says. "But under high stress, when an officer's hand movements tend to be automatic and rapid, it can be a much different story.

"Because the problem is not likely to be corrected even with considerable training, the Institute recommends that for the safety of officers and subjects alike this particular switching device be avoided."

pax

[paul84043]

The whole point of putting a light on a gun is kind of a catch 22 and flies directly in the face of one of the golden rules of guns period. Never point your guh at something you're not PLANNING on shooting.
Is it convenient? Yes....so is using your scope to spot people while you're out hunting, but is that a good practice either? Hell no!.

It wasn't that many years ago that Tac rails didn't exist, cops and spec-ops held lights in the other hand while aiming the weapon in the standard crossover configuration that still works just fine and doesn't necessarily force you to point your barrell directly at something just to shine light on it.

I personally have 0 Tac rail mounted flashlights....

[AK103K]

You dont "have" to point the gun at anything to light things up. You can usually light a room with it pointed to the floor. Its all how you use it, or misuse it, thats up to you.

Even with one on the gun, I'd still have a handheld light along. Sometimes, you just need a light.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

FYI - not my opinion pro or con - just info.

From Surefire:

http://www.surefire.com/surefire/con...nd%20Death.pdf

[gearhounds]

A rail mounted light should not be used for anything but lighting up a target you're ready to shoot. Personally I advocate a handheld tac light over a rail mounted light for general illumination. Much easier to activate under stress without as much danger of sympathetic response. Plus, when I shine on a suspect/group of same, I prefer to hit them in the eyes to gain as much advantage as possible.

I won't knock someones elses tactics, as long as they train extensively in proper use.

"Even with one on the gun, I'd still have a handheld light along. Sometimes, you just need a light."

+1

[Glenn Dee]

Great Post, Great subject.

I am of the opinion that firearms, and lights should be kept seperate. I know there's nothing to keep an officer/operator from having a seperate light for situations that dont involve firearms.

IMO based on all the house/apartment/warehouse/wooded area/and vehicals I have cleared. The firearm mounted flashlight is again IMO poor tactics.

Those who choose or are mandated to use them I think add a thin layer of something else that can go wrong.

That having been said my opinion of the Sure Fire product line is... well I'm blown away. I own several. It's good stuff made for professional's. I have one by my bedside, one in my desaster bag, and use one when working the odd security detail. While I was a police officer we didnt have these neat things. If we had... I sure would have invested in one. I probably just wouldnt have hung it from my .38

[Daryl]

I can certainly see both sides of this, but can honestly say that weapon-mounted lights aren't for me. I only own one firearm with a rail, and it has nothing attached to it.

Other's opinions will vary, and they're welcome to them as long as they don't point it at me.

Daryl

[raimius]

Seems like more of a tactics and training issue to me...

Don't want to point your light at the thing you are trying to see in a dark room? Shine it at the ceiling. Most are painted a light color, and reflect light very well. I can easily light up my living room to daylight visibility with a 120lumen flashlight (gun mounted or not).

[8shot357]

I wish they made a million candle gun mounted light that is not almost as my head.

Blind them before you shoot them.

[WESHOOT2]

There seems to be no consensus as to equipment, or training, or tactics.
There does seem to be sufficient opinion, though.

[blume357]

I'm pleasantly surprised that most folks above feel the same way I do... that putting a light on a gun is a bad idea.... just flies in the face of proper gun handling, in my opinion and you'd be doing this at the worse possible time...

It's one thing to be lighting up possums and racoons knocking over your trash cans and entirely different to have someone walk around a corner in the middle of the night when you are already scared sh%^less...

[AK103K]

In that case, would it really matter if the light in on the gun, or up against it in the off hand?

[TailGator]

would it really matter if the light in on the gun, or up against it in the off hand?

Yeah, with the mobility of a normal wrist, you can have the gun at the ready and still pointed down or up relative to the flashlight beam.

I don't use a mounted light because I don't consider myself to be adequately trained in its use, and I am not at all sure that I would maintain good muzzle discipline while using one. Some of the earlier posters, though, who pointed out the utility of using the floor or ceiling as reflectors, appear to have had the training I lack, though. Shouldn't the training be the difference in whether they are used or not?

[Sarge]

That's just my point. Under the duress of an imminent, potentially-deadly encounter I do NOT want my gun, or for that matter my flashlight, pointed at the ceiling. Yes, there may be a time when both of them need to be pointed at the person in question.

If I bolt them together, I relinquish the ability to decide which and when. If I've got a light on my belt I can do that.

[Glenn Dee]

AK

Good question. My answer is that the light and the gun are two different tools. We certainly use the light more often than the gun. In a stressfull situation IME we work to some degree on learned behaviour, and muscle memory. I think this is natural behaviour freeing up more of our sensory, and mental resources to effectively deal with the threat. (My theory is that your body/brain combination is your primary weapon)

Having two tools to do the same jobs in different situations IMO takes up (for lack of a better term) more available memory. And provides a new level where something can go wrong. For example... An Officer is searching for a dangerous subject and wants to use his pistol light. The pistol light fails. It's human nature to try and get it to work... Time Wasted. Then he has to transition to his Other light... more time wasted. Time with the officers mind buried in something other than the threat. It may only be seconds...


A regular flashlight could fail too... But he's more likely to notice, and repair it in a non critical situation because he use's it more often.

Another issue I have with pistol mounted lights is they provide a perfect target. If a perpetrator wants to shoot a policeman he's only got to aim at the light and will probably get a head shot.

Having had the experience of doing more premis clearing than I can remember, I can say... It's not like on TV. Anyone clearing or searching for a perp. must understand that if you can see him... He can see you. Again if you give your body a chance it'll work wonders.. you'd be surprised how much you can see if you let your eye's acclimate to the ambient light. Also depending on only sight can make you miss things... hearing, and smell also work acutely in times of stress. It's hard to hear thing's when your moving around.

I could go on and on with this subject. But I believe that I'm starting to rant at this point.

Glenn D.

[Sarge]

In a stressfull situation IME we work to some degree on learned behaviour, and muscle memory. I think this is natural behaviour freeing up more of our sensory, and mental resources to effectively deal with the threat. (My theory is that your body/brain combination is your primary weapon)

God bless you, Glenn. I have been preaching this for decades.

[AK103K]

One thing I dont understand with the argument between mounted vs not mounted is, whats really the difference between using a light with the Harries technique and using a gun mounted light?

In both cases, the light and gun are indexed as one, so either way, if you light up something or someone, the gun is pointed where the light is.

I understand that you dont "always" need or want the gun along with the light, but thats why you have a second light anyway. If you feel things are scary enough that you need both, then the light and gun should be going to the same place at the same time, and not in different directions.

Maybe some of this has to do with the "switch" too. My light uses the switch at the back of the light. I dont like the pressure pads on my handguns. If used two handed, as would be my preference, the thumb of my left hand uses the momentary switch (left side, down is momentary) and the light would be used intermittently. My "gripping" the gun, really has nothing to do with the light coming on, nor does it cause my trigger finger to move in response to the grip. I already have a firm grip, just like I would if the light want there.

Now when I use it one handed, like when I have the dog along, it gets used a little differently, and my trigger finger is on the light switch. It has to be if I want light, and it cant be on both the trigger and the light at the same time. On that side of the gun, pushing down on the switch locks the light on, which is better for "critter" use, but not something Id want for people use, but it is what it is. Once the light is on, my finger is right there at, or on the trigger.

If you spend a little time with one and learn to use it, and practice, I dont think its as scary as some will tell you. The light by itself is a powerful weapon, even in the daylight, but even more so in the darker places. Youre not stuck using it in just one way, unless you only know one way.

[aryfrosty]

Sounds to me like that quacker "Dr." Lewinski is running of at the mouth about something he obviously knows nothing about. Only thing good I saw in that article was that he listed erroneous assumption #1 as #1...Once you read that Officers can't be trained to keep their trigger finger off the trigger you automatically know that he doesn't know jack about the subject. I was a street cop for 25 years and have now been retired for 16 years and I STILL keep my finger off the trigger. If a Cop alibied an ND by saying he thought he was turning on the flashlight he was in the same gutless group who always seems to say, "I thought it was unloaded."

[AK103K]

Looks like there was typing going on between between the time I started typing and hit the "reply" button on my last post. The phone call in the middle just aggravated it more.

That's just my point. Under the duress of an imminent, potentially-deadly encounter I do NOT want my gun, or for that matter my flashlight, pointed at the ceiling. Yes, there may be a time when both of them need to be pointed at the person in question.

Yea, thats pretty much my feeling too.

I sometimes think that for some, range safety rules have been so beat into their heads that common sense gets pushed out when it comes to certain things. In these cases, this isnt the range, and some of the normal safeties have been removed and you should be in a different mode at this point.

If I bolt them together, I relinquish the ability to decide which and when. If I've got a light on my belt I can do that.

I agree, but I can see having both in some cases.

I normally dont have one on a gun I carry, and as I said earlier, I mosty use mine for little critter duty, if its a bear instead of a coon, I'll probably have bigger worries at that point.

Having two tools to do the same jobs in different situations IMO takes up (for lack of a better term) more available memory. And provides a new level where something can go wrong. For example... An Officer is searching for a dangerous subject and wants to use his pistol light. The pistol light fails. It's human nature to try and get it to work... Time Wasted. Then he has to transition to his Other light... more time wasted. Time with the officers mind buried in something other than the threat. It may only be seconds...

Thats a very good point. KISS really is the best thing if you can keep to it. Its hard if youre a gadget person though.

Another issue I have with pistol mounted lights is they provide a perfect target. If a perpetrator wants to shoot a policeman he's only got to aim at the light and will probably get a head shot.

Wouldnt this be more of a "use" thing, and how you were taught to use the light? If you always have the light on and stay in one place, I can see your point. But if youre using the light intermittently, and moving after each "flash" (if you flash at all), you wont be where the light was. I realize you can be limited sometimes as far as movement goes, but you can generally go off line somewhere

[44 AMP]

Equipment determines training, training determines what tactics may be used, and the real world determines which tactics are successful in any given situation.

A light on a handgun, like a "safety" on a trigger, can and is safe and sucessful for many people, many,many times per day. That being said, I don't think either of them is a particularly good idea. And that is because when things do go wrong, they tend to go wrong badly.

Training (and we are talking about proper and sufficient training) varies in effectiveness with the individual. Recently a case was settled where an officer shot (and killed) a man in the back, because he "thought" he drew his TASER and actually was holding his firearm. Certainly he was trained to recognize the difference, but when it came down to it, obviously did not.

A light on a handgun, regardless of switch placement carries different risks than a separate light. They can be very useful, and are used safely all the time. But when not used absolutely correctly, I feel the level of risk is hugely increased. One can make valid arguments either way, and find real world examples supporting both sides, but personally I always wonder how we managed all those years when the only way a light got mounted on a firearm was with duct tape.

I think the ariticle referenced was "aimed" in the wrong direction. The problem is guns being fired when they are not meant to be fired. The light switch doesn't fire the gun, the officer does. One may argue that a particular placement/design of the switch might increase the odds for confusion, but I don't see it being able to create the confusion to begin with, that comes from the individual officer and how they react.

Doesn't saying that "we should avoid using..." a particular design (when other people apparently manage well enough) really just saying "we can't train the five thumbed apes we hired to an acceptable level of safety"?

One has to wonder.

[mrgoodwrench76]

Any tool can be dangerous in the wrong hands. Untrained hands are usually dangerous for any tool. Learn how to use your tool before use is implemented.

[AK103K]

Learn how to use your tool before use is implemented.

Careful now!