Flashlights and Handguns for Home Defense

TheRoadWarrior

New member
I have the urge to put a light on my handgun for home defense, but I'm having second thoughts after a cop told me that they don't because the enemy just has to aim center mass on the light and game over. He preferred a separate light so you can aim freely and use the light when you need it, and also to be able to be stealthy, he said it is better to let your eyes adjust and look and listen for an enemy, get a bead on them and then shine the light. I may be inclined to agree with that idea, because I know my house best, where to get cover or hide, get the drop on someone coming up my stairs.

I also think about the possibility that the enemy has their gun drawn and finger on the trigger, I think I have the drop on them and shine the light in their eyes and it makes them panic and shoot wildly and rapidly before I can even get a shot off. Perhaps stealth would be best, just double tap them in the dark and ask questions later? My state has castle law. ;)
 

gnarSKYLER

New member
Another reason I won't put a flashlight on my gun is that you have to point the gun at whatever you want to see? I don't know if you have kids, so what happens if your wife or significant other gets up at night to get a drink and you think it's an intruder? Handheld. Flashlights are the way to go
 

BarryLee

New member
While I am by no means a tactical expert I do agree it is better to not have the light mounted on your gun. I think it provides more flexibility and just seems to make more sense to me, but again just my opinion.
 

Stooge

New member
Also, if you turn a light on to find and identify a target, chances are it's going to let the bad guy find you before you find him.

My instructor gave me a tip, which i follow. I have a box of inexpensive light sticks next to the bed. If I hear someone up the hall, I grab a few, crack them and toss them out in the hall. This not only lets the bad guy know that someone is on to him. Many will flea at this point. But to get to you, the bad guy has to walk out into the light, with no idea where you are.
 

Twycross

New member
I also think about the possibility that the enemy has their gun drawn and finger on the trigger, I think I have the drop on them and shine the light in their eyes and it makes them panic and shoot wildly and rapidly before I can even get a shot off. Perhaps stealth would be best, just double tap them in the dark and ask questions later? My state has castle law.

First, if you believe that somewhere in your house, somebody/s is waiting finger on trigger, why would you go search them out? Have you ever done any MOUT/house clearing exercises? I have. It's a nasty business. You can do everything right and still get shot.

The last part in particular is troubling. Killing an unknown, unthreatening person for the mortal offense of being in your house is a terrible idea, even if the law permits it. Maybe it's your daughter's boyfriend sneaking in/out. Maybe it's one of your family on a midnight run to the bathroom. Maybe it's your roommate, or the neighbor who broke in to inform you that your house is on fire (it's happened). You must be able to positively identify your target before you shoot.

As far as the light on/off the weapon goes, that's just personal preference IMHO.
 

Stooge

New member
I agree you should not go looking for a bad guy in your home. Not only do you run the grave risk of running into an ambush yourself, there is a legal concern. Seeking out a bad guy in your house can make you appear as the aggressor. If you do have to shoot someone, you should absolutely make sure that its utterly and totally clear that it was in self DEFENSE.

As to shooting someone for just being in your house, I agree, partially. It kind of plays into the idea of not going on the hunt. If I'm awakened in the night by shattering glass or something of that nature, I arm myself first and foremost. My next action is to secure and gather my family into a defendable location...back bedroom, on the floor, behind the bed. Then I call 911 and wait for help to arrive. The gun only comes into play if someone comes down the hall and attempts to enter that bedroom. But if someone does come down that hall, they WILL get shot. I'm not going to endanger myself and my family by waiting to make a positive ID and seeing what his intentions are. It won't be a family member on a midnight stroll, as I will already have the family secured, which is my case is just my wife. If it's a neighbor coming to tell me my house is on fire, I'd have an expectation that as soon as he enters the house he's announcing his presence and yelling that the house is on fire. If he comes down the hall toward the bedrooms without announcing himself, well there's just going to be one less idiot in the world.

Of course that doesn't cover the home invasion scenario where someone just kicks down your door when everyone is up and about. You just have to play that one by ear, as there are way too many variations in the scenario to plan it out in advance. Of course, in that case, the aggressor is going to be pretty apparent and the threat immediate.
 

Lee Lapin

New member
Nothing says you can't have a weapon mounted light and a hand-held light as well. Different lights, different jobs, different tactics. Get some training in low light shooting if you don't know how to use a weapon mounted light... and NEVER shoot at a target you have not positively identified as hostile.
 
Another reason I won't put a flashlight on my gun is that you have to point the gun at whatever you want to see?

Yes, if you tape your 1960s vintage 2 celled (AA batteries) Eveready penlight (http://www.ebay.com/itm/VINTAGE-OLD...959?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item5ae5a70d0f) to your gun, then you may have to point your gun at what you want to see. If you have purchased a tactical light in the last 10 years, it will be bright enough to illuminate much of the room just be pointing it at the ground. A couple of mine are more than bright enough to illuminate things in front of me by pointing the light the opposite direction. Of course, you don't want to do this to backlight yourself, but today's lights are really much brighter and don't require being shown directly at somebody to identify tem inside of a typical home.

Handheld. Flashlights are the way to go

Of course, it can be hard to hold your gun, flashlight, and ... cell phone as you are dialing 911, staunching blood flow, trying to open doors/windows, manipulate your keys, give hand signals, carry your baby daughter, drag you wounded spouse to safety, etc.

I agree you should not go looking for a bad guy in your home. Not only do you run the grave risk of running into an ambush yourself, there is a legal concern. Seeking out a bad guy in your house can make you appear as the aggressor. If you do have to shoot someone, you should absolutely make sure that its utterly and totally clear that it was in self DEFENSE.

In many, if not most, states, there is no duty to retreat and intruders in your home can be considered a lethal threat whether you are looking for them or not.
 

Frank Ettin

Administrator
In my most recent class at Gunsite we did a number of night exercises using a flashlight. The Gunsite perspective on a gun mounted light: they are good for shooting, but one still needs a flashlight for looking and seeing. Remember Rule Two of gun safety -- “never let the muzzle cover something you are not willing to destroy.” One needs to be able to illuminate something without pointing a gun at it
 

Stooge

New member
In many, if not most, states, there is no duty to retreat and intruders in your home can be considered a lethal threat whether you are looking for them or not.

So you think that if you walk into a room at night and see a lone man carrying your TV set toward the front door, and you shoot him in the back, that all you have to do is hold up the castle doctrine and you're off scott free?

We have the castle doctrine here. But all it does is remove the requirement to RETREAT. You can stand your ground. It does NOT authorize you to go hunting anyone you find in your home, without cause. So says my attorney. And as someone else already said, I'll take her advice over internet opinions.
 
Last edited:

Frank Ettin

Administrator
Application of a State's Castle Doctrine and/or whether there can be a duty to retreat is off topic for this thread.

A primary reason not to go looking for a suspected intruder (unless absolutely necessary in order, for example, to get innocents to a place of safety) is that it puts you at an extreme tactical disadvantage. And in any case, you will still want a light source if you wait in a safe room.
 

m&p45acp10+1

New member
I remember reading about a police officer that ended up shooting a suspect trying to actuate the weapon mounted flashlight. I will not get into it a whole lot.

For me I prefer a light that is not mounted to my handgun. I am not a police officer, I am not military. I do not wish to pretend that I am one. I live in a small duplex. I have a dog. If he starts going balistic, the first thing that is happening is the house lights, and porch lights are getting turned on. I will be in my bedroom behind the bed with my girlfriend and my shotgun. She will do tne calling. I speak this as a matter of personal choice.

The only thing in the past near 3 years that has gone bump in the night in my aprtment has been me bumping into something on my way to the refrigerator.
 

TenRing

New member
I went through this thought process several times and each time I came to the conclusion that a weapon mounted light is likely to cause more trouble than benefit. My 3D Cell LED Maglite is separately held in my support hand and it is bright enough to temporarily blind and disorient an intruder. I won't use the light unless I have the decided tactical advantage because it shows the intruder which direction to spray his bullets. If he had the mindset to break in, I can't count on him leaving just because he saw my light.

It's my house and I care who gets hurt. The intruder is presumably prepared to shoot indiscriminately if it means avoiding capture. The less visual and sound information you give him, the better off you're going to be.

The concept of a safe room is good but the concept goes literally up in smoke if the perp starts a fire in your house. Many times perps will start fires to cover up their crimes. Google it. You can't afford to wait patiently behind the bed not knowing what mayhem the home invader is creating for you downstairs. The sooner you get him and his partners out, the better for you and yours. That's why the Castle law is so important. When you're at home, there is nowhere else for you to run. Find the threat and neutralize it but do it to your advantage. It's your castle, not his.
 

Frank Ettin

Administrator
TenRing said:
...Find the threat and neutralize it but do it to your advantage...
The reality is that there is no way to go looking for the threat that is to your tactical advantage. If there really is someone there who means you no good and is willing to engage you, he will be the one with the element of surprise.

You may have to go out looking if there are unaccounted for innocents, but otherwise, solo house clearing is generally a bad idea.

(a) If you go looking, and there is indeed a BG there, you will be at an extreme tactical disadvantage. You can easily be ambushed or flanked. You may also have given a BG access to family members to use as hostages. Or there maybe more than one BG, one of whom can get to your family while you're occupied with the other one.

(b) When (whether you called them or they were called by a neighbor who may have also seen or heard something) the police respond, they don't know who you are. You are just someone with a weapon.

There used to be an annual event called the National Tactical Invitational at which some 130 of the top security people and firearm trainers gathered, by invitation only, to test skills and examine tactics. One of the events is a force-on-force exercise using simunitions in which the "Good Guy" must clear a house against a single "Bad Guy." During the first six of these annual events, only one "Good Guy", in one year "survived" the exercise and he was head of NASA security firearms training at the time. And one, and only one, made it through the seventh year. The tactical advantage of the ensconced adversary is just too great. And remember, these were highly skilled, highly trained instructors/operators.

These are some past threads on the subject. You'll notice that in general the folks who have had training and/or done this sort of thing for a living recommend against solo clearing unless absolutely necessary.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=317285

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=314788

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=328646

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=365308

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=383046
 

TenRing

New member
Interesting. I'm not one of those experts but I have had some training and I don't do this for a living, nor would I want this type of job.

Even so, each year there are lots of ordinary citizens around the USA and literally dozens each year around metro Detroit who do survive these house clearing scenarios. This is a regularly reported event around here and it is not unusual at all.

I think those who do this successfully know that they have an advantage in their particular case. Otherwise, I doubt that they would take unnecessary risks. I wouldn't do it unless I knew that I had an advantage and I won't always have it but sometimes I will.
 

Frank Ettin

Administrator
TenRing said:
...each year there are lots of ordinary citizens around the USA and literally dozens each year around metro Detroit who do survive these house clearing scenarios....
Really? I'm aware that ordinary citizens have managed to successfully handle intruders. However, I have not seen any reports of ordinary folks successfully undertaking a true, solo house clearing, i. e., a situation in which the householder suspects that there is an intruder in the house, the householder goes looking for the intruder, and there is in fact an intruder in the house willing to engage the householder. And I challenge you to provide reliable, published report of such actually having taken place.

This post describes a time in which it didn't work out too well for the householder.

TenRing said:
...I think those who do this successfully know that they have an advantage in their particular case. Otherwise, I doubt that they would take unnecessary risks. I wouldn't do it unless I knew that I had an advantage and I won't always have it but sometimes I will.
Actually, those that do this sort of thing do it only because the situation requires them to. The person who goes looking will never have the advantage. For example, see --

  • This post:
    Striker071 said:
    ...I am technically one of the trained professionals that would deal with a bump in the night or a silent alarm. I have done force on force training where a BG is in a warehouse and you are tasked with investigating it. It was a 50/50 split on the number of times I had a chalk cartridge make contact with my body. I was told that I was better than most at doing it...

  • This post:
    VHinch said:
    To those advocating clearing your house on your own, I strongly suggest getting some FOF experience at a reputable training center. Nothing drives home the point of how dangerous it is better than getting repeatedly shot with Simunitions for 8 hours.

    I have also been trained in building clearing, and I absolutely will not do it unless I have no other choice. "No other choice" in this context is defined as either my wife or child is on the opposite end of the house from me with a BG between us.

  • This post:
    The Canuck said:
    Okay, off the top. I have been trained to clear houses. Will I do it without at least three buddies who are good at it? Oh heck no. Will I do it solo if I can get away with not doing it? Absolutely not.

    When you go room-room in a clearing exercise you are entering into an aggressor/defender situation. Sure its your home, but when you are going room to room you are the one who is aggressing. You are moving and making noise all the while the person you are trying to clear out will most likely stay static and listen and watch. When he sees you in the poor light, he will be better able to engage you before you will see and engage him. Ask any LEO how they feel about house clearing....

  • This post:
    JoeFromSidney said:
    I've been through house clearing training (Tactical Defense Institute) and night-time use of flashlight. Two points.

    First, I would not attempt clearing my own house, let alone one I was visiting, unless there were visitors at risk (normally only my wife and I are present). Going through a live-fire house shooting at bad-guy targets is one thing. Going through my own house risking getting shot by a bad guy is something else entirely. Assuming it's a night-time invasion, I'd stay in the bedroom, call 911, and shoot anyone who tries to get in. If it's during the day, I have guns located around the house. I'd get one, call 911, then let the bad guy come to me....

  • This post:
    44Magnum said:
    I took a class that taught room, hallway, and stairway clearing in low light conditions. I am NOT a professional, but here's what I took from the experience:

    * The homeowner is at a disadvantage the moment he begins clearing.

    * Get off a staircase, or die. You break too many planes at once and it really requires a partner to do properly.

    * The intruder generally knows you're there when you begin to clear.

    ...

    Despite having instruction, I would NEVER voluntarially clear my house....

  • This post:
    VHinch said:
    ...Despite being well trained in building clearing in a prior career/life, it's high on my list of things not to do unless absolutely necessary, and the only reason I would consider it necessary is if I have to do it to get to my daughter. Clearing a building by yourself is a great way to get yourself killed,...
 

TenRing

New member
Your points are well taken and well understood. We just have a difference of opinion and that's fine. Since you challenged me to find one published incidence of a homeowner clearing his house, here's one.

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/local/canton-homeowner-shoots-intruder-in-the-leg-20111012-ms

As I stated in an earlier post, there are many more examples and they are easy to find. I just posted the first one I found. You may say that this example doesn't meet the strict definition of "clearing a house". I say that when a homeowner wakes up from a nap, arms himself and confronts multiple intruders, he has cleared his house. The news reports don't relate each minute detail of the incident, but I think this is sufficient to illustrate my point.

I don't mean to be argumentative. I'm just making the point that homeowners clear their own houses on a routine basis, notwithstanding the advice of the experts.
 

Frank Ettin

Administrator
TenRing said:
...Since you challenged me to find one published incidence of a homeowner clearing his house, here's one.

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/local/canton-homeowner-shoots-intruder-in-the-leg-20111012-ms

As I stated in an earlier post, there are many more examples and they are easy to find. I just posted the first one I found. You may say that this example doesn't meet the strict definition of "clearing a house". I say that when a homeowner wakes up from a nap, arms himself and confronts multiple intruders, he has cleared his house....
Nope, I don't buy t this as "house clearing."
...Two men managed to unlock the door and head inside. Both started up the stairs, but they were met by the owner, who happens to be a bail bondsman and had his service weapon in hand.

When the intruder reached for his weapon, the homeowner said he fired his several times....
It's one thing to be present at the time, and close to the point, of entry and confront an intruder then and there. It's quite another to suspect that there is an intruder somewhere in the house and to then go searching for him.
 

TenRing

New member
Nope, I don't buy t this as "house clearing."
Well, there were multiple home invaders who broke into the man's house and he confronted them, wounded one and held him for police and ran the other off. Existentially, the house was cleared of intruders as a direct result of the homeowner's actions.

It's one thing to be present at the time, and close to the point, of entry and confront an intruder then and there. It's quite another to suspect that there is an intruder somewhere in the house and to then go searching for him.
Wow! Now it really gets interesting. The homeowner could not have known how many intruders were in his house unless he was psychic. He had to decide whether it would be better to go search and investigate or to stay put. He decided to go search and he found them near the stairway. Would you have felt better if the homeowner had stayed put and called 911 as the thugs rushed into his bedroom to kill him? Mind you, this was a forced entry by at least two perps in broad daylight. It was not a case of investigating a
bump in the night at 3 AM. This was only one example of many available. As I stated before, this type of thing is a very routine occurrence in metro Detroit and other areas of the country.

It seems that you were trained to accept only a narrow definition of house clearing and that house clearing looks a certain way and that it must only be done by certain people. It is different in each case with different people under different circumstances. There are no rules when one if fighting for one's life. When you force the thugs, rapists, thieves and methheads to leave your house, your house is clear.
 
Top