Fenix use on Glock

[jzmtl]

Just curious, how many of you saying fenix won't work have actually tried it and found it to be lacking, instead just repeating what the previous guy said?

 

[dvas]

Delij, thanks for the time that you took to write your view... your points are something to consider, especially since I don't have any combat experience, only range experience every 2-3-4 weeks.

I don't have a clue about these lumens that are stated for different lights. I have experience with my old 2xAA Maglite and my 4xD Maglite with their original bulb and my diving 4x DD light that is using Crypton (or Xenon, i don't remember) bulb... So old these new LEDs are new to me.
I ordered a CREE Terralux LED for my MM, and I will finally 'see' what is this all about.

thanks again

 

[Monocrom]

.... I'd guess that 99% of gun owners today have little or no training at all. They don't even know the most basic rules of safety. The gun shop five minutes from my home has 11 bullet holes in the walls and display cases to prove that there are too many people with no interest in even knowing how to safely handle a deadly weapon. All that is required of them is they have the money to buy a gun and no criminal record.

Peace,
D.

Now that's just one of the broadest blanket statements I've ever seen on these forums. You were making excellent points, until you made that statement. Please don't judge all gun owners or gun ranges by the shi**y standards that you have seen. When I train, it's at the only gun range left in Manhattan. There are no bullet holes in the ceiling, and definitely not in the display cases. Darren wouldn't put up with that sort of BS. Anyone found screwing around would be kicked out on their @$$.

It's unfortunate that the range owner over by you, refuses to enforce basic safety rules. I suspect he doesn't even teach the basic safety rules. From what I've personally seen at the range I go to, that 99% figure is horribly over exaggerated.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To: dvas -

A case of 12 Surefire cells costs $21. Granted, it's going to be more than that when you factor in the shipping costs to Israel. But those cells will last you 10 years. If this is just a project you want to experiment with, perhaps it is not worth the cost. If this is something you are likely to carry for potential use against a terrorist attack or a S.D encounter, well; cost is something you just have to deal with. Life-saving gear and the accessories needed for that gear.... What can I say? You end up eating the costs involved. So does everyone else.

As far as lumens ratings go, everyone except Surefire and Pelican measures their lumens numbers at the emitter. Meaning, that when the head is attached, the lumens out the front will be considerably less than at the emitter. This is always the case. Sometimes 1/3 less, sometimes half! And yes, sometimes even worse than half. Example: Streamlight UltraStinger - Rated at 295 lumens, actual number out the front = about 160 lumens. But with Surefire and Pelican, they measure out the front. A surefire light rated at 100 lumens is going to be 100 actual lumens or even a bit more than that. Just keep that in mind.

 

[Monocrom]

Just curious, how many of you saying fenix won't work have actually tried it and found it to be lacking, instead just repeating what the previous guy said?

Bottom line, I'm saying it's not going to work. Not even the most die-hard Fenix fan can say with a straight face that his favorite brand has the level of rugged reliability needed, to work as a weapon light. Fenix has zero models designed to be used as weapon lights. That extreme level of quality isn't there. Let's be realistic.

 

[FredM]

Bottom line, I'm saying it's not going to work. Not even the most die-hard Fenix fan can say with a straight face that his favorite brand has the level of rugged reliability needed, to work as a weapon light. Fenix has zero models designed to be used as weapon lights. That extreme level of quality isn't there. Let's be realistic.

ok LETS be realistic. My Glocklight has stood up to hundreds of rounds of 40 S&W, 45ACP and 9x19. These are not magnum rounds. It is made of plastic and uses a incan bumb. Frankly its not as sturdy as a Fenix. The advantage is it used stacked batts instead of inline, has a built in mount and a well located switch. Those are the issues, not if a fenix can take the light recoil of a service pistol. I dislike a light being on my gun and don't carry with it on. The glocklight is basically a toy for me.

A drop from a few feet up is worse than a recoild from a pistol and I bet you could drop a Fenix thousands of times and not break it.


ETA

I reread my post and its to harsh but I'm not gonna edit it because the facts are there and I'm to lazy to sift out my rude tone while leaving the message. Plus its not directed at you but to the general feeling that 9mm and 45acp are some super toture devices for our lights. We abuse our lights much more than a guy who uses it on a gun does. Even in EDC.

 

[carrot]

Personally I think an L2T 2.0 held with the Harries technique should be fine. You don't subject it to much recoil like this and the Fenixes have proven themselves quite reliable. Perhaps they aren't designed or marketed for the tactical market but they are pretty unlikely to just randomly fail. I am a big Surefire fan but let's face it, the needs of the OP seem to point towards the use of NiMH or alkaline cells and Surefire has yet to enter this realm (despite displaying prototypes in 2006).

I am also surprised that nobody has come up with the most convenient answer -- rechargeable Li-ion batteries! Despite the higher initial investment, with the high cost of importing primaries, they wiill easily pay for themselves within a few uses. You can easily take a Surefire G2 or G2Z or 6P or Z2 and put the following options:
- 3.7v lamp and a 17650 Li-ion
- 9v lamp and a pair of 3.7v RCR123 Li-ions
- Cree or Seoul LED drop-in replacements, whose input range usually is around 3.7-6.0v or 3.7-9.0v
- Surefire's own P60L (L stands for LED), which is conservative on primaries and may work on Li-ions

Or the most idiot-proof way, a 9P or a G3 with the regular P90 bulb and two 17500 Li-ion batteries.

Another solution -- forget Surefire altogether and use the other brand well known to LEOs across the nation -- Streamlight. The Streamlight Strion is 6P-sized, rechargeable and runs longer than any of the aforementioned incandescent options thanks to its extremely large Li-ion battery. A bonus is that it sits in a cradle so it is always going to be ready when you grab it to go.

 

[Bloodnut]

Delji et. al.,

I too have posted on other boards re: the weaponlight issue. Here's my take. For CCW, a weaponlight is probably over the top.

For a nightstand pistol, it provides options. When the day (night, actually) comes and you have to hold the bad guy at gunpoint until the police arrive, do you want to do that with a pistol in one hand and light in the other? Or would you rather be able to maintain a good two-handed hold on the pistol while lighting the threat as appropriate.

When the day comes that you feel the need to enter a dark room and the door to that room is closed, please explain how that is going to work with a pistol in one hand and light in the other. I've done this in "real time" - not fun.

The fact is, most people don't train with lights enough to be effective with them in a real confrontation. The light is mostly going by the wayside when the fur starts flying. The weapon-mounted light provides options. You don't HAVE to use it if the situation dictates, but it's there if you need it. You will still need the handheld.

As for this business that rails make pistols somehow unfit for concealed carry - I'll have to call you on that. And I've read the same comment from some pretty switched on guys. But for me, the comment simply does not hold true. My two primary carry pistols are a Kimber Warrior (railed 1911) and S&W M&P. Both carry IWB with no problems. YMMV.

In closing, there is a good reason why military and LEOs mount lights on weapons. Bad things tend to occur after dark and it is a cast iron b!@*h to run a light AND a pistol at the same time.

 

[ACMarina]

Do you carry IWB WITH the light on there??

 

[Delij]

As for this business that rails make pistols somehow unfit for concealed carry - I'll have to call you on that.

I didn't mean to say that pistols with rails were unfit for concealed carry. What I meant was that the rails just aren't useful for CCW. The rails don't get in the way, they don't make the gun any less effective, etc. - In fact I said I bought an XD for CCW....the rails just happened to be on it. Didn't bother me at all. (just ended up not using the gun, but not because of the rails, just because i wanted something smaller--if I was not in S. Florida, it might have been fine.

yeah maybe guns should be so regulated where you have to get some bureaucrat's permission before you buy one.

LOL...I just KNEW someone would say something like this.

In Florida guns aren't even registered. But personally, I would have no issue with a gun buyer having to demonstrate they know the basics of safety before a dealer will sell them a gun. Read a one paragraph sheet of basic safety rules...that's it. No records would need to be kept. They could shred the sheet of paper that would at least show that the buyer has read they are aware not to point a gun at anything they are not willing to destroy, keep their finger off the trigger until ready to fire, be aware of backstops, etc....just the very most basic of safety rules.

Nothing formal, nothing regulated by the state or any govt. agency. Just common sense and just between the buyer and seller. In fact, the gun dealers would far prefer such a requirement. But their hands are tied down here. No one needs any knowledge of anything. Just money and a clean record. They don't even have to look at the gun they buy. They can take it in the box it comes from the factory in and not know which end is the muzzle.

Now that's just one of the broadest blanket statements I've ever seen on these forums. You were making excellent points, until you made that statement. Please don't judge all gun owners or gun ranges by the shi**y standards that you have seen. When I train, it's at the only gun range left in Manhattan. There are no bullet holes in the ceiling, and definitely not in the display cases. Darren wouldn't put up with that sort of BS. Anyone found screwing around would be kicked out on their @$$.

It's unfortunate that the range owner over by you, refuses to enforce basic safety rules. I suspect he doesn't even teach the basic safety rules. .

Yup, you are right. i would not expect this kind of thing in Manhatten. Even here, it isn't the fault of the gunshop owners. People just don't pay attention.

There's a HUGE sign on the front door of the place that says "no loaded or concealed weapons permitted inside store". But because there are no requirements for any kind of safety acknowledgement (NOT LICENCING OR REGISTRATION....JUST COMMON SENSE STUFF). People can buy a gun, a box of ammo, take it home, load it, don't know how the safety works or whatever, so they walk back into the shop (not even looking at the sign on the door) with the gun they think is "broken" or 'defective" and while they are waiting to speak to someone, they play with the gun and boom!

Everyone knows what a Glock is, so they figure they should buy one. Cops carry them, TV characters carry them, hell, someone once asked me what kind of "Glock" the gun I had been shooting at the range was. It was a stainless Smith revolver!!!!! But Glock is a name they know, so they buy them.

Put a Glock in completely untrained hands, and it's a negligent discharge waiting to happen. (IMO).

What can the store owners down here really do? Anyone can buy a gun. They can buy a gun and give it as a gift to anyone at all with not even a receipt - let alone any responsibility to show the recipient where the safety is (if there is one).

i am not saying there should be more gun control. I'm saying that common sense should be part of the responsibility of gun ownership.

You have a small gun store like the one by me...maybe 5 employees on a Saturday and most of the day the place is slow. But all of a sudden there's a rush and 20 people standing around waiting to be helped. And playing with their loaded "jammed" (they may believe) guns. And accidents happen.

I can't even guess how many times I've been on the range and some guy will bring a date....girlfriend or maybe just a first date. Woman has never shot a gun before in her life. She stands at the line, points the gun at the target (maybe even keeps her eyes open when she pulls the trigger), and wow....she hits the target. She's so excited she turns around with a big proud smile and is now pointing the gun right at the boyfriend with her finger on the trigger. And in the process of turning around, she sweeps everyone on the range.

So yeah....safety awareness matters.

Again, i know this doesn't happen in Manhatten. But down here, where everyone can and most do own a gun, this stuff goes on all the time.

I will NEVER go on the range on a Saturday afternoon. It's just not worth the risk. They have closed circuit monitors with a camera on every station. But it only takes a fraction of a second for something bad to happen.

I think that the ease of getting a CCW permit here is a saving grace. At least to get a carry permit, you are required to sit through a class that is almost 100% about how to safely carry a firearm.

But to buy a gun? Just money and a driver's license (or any picture ID with a date of birth).

Peace,
D.

 

[FredM]

As for this business that rails make pistols somehow unfit for concealed carry - I'll have to call you on that

Rails don't make it unfit. Its the light on there that makes it harder to carry.

 

[Bloodnut]

I suppose we are all reading into each other's comments a bit.

The rails are a non-factor concerning the ability to conceal a pistol - at least for me. I have read others comments (on firearms boards) who take the position that they make a pistol hard or impossible to conceal.

No, I do not carry any pistol IWB with a light attached. There is a holster maker constructing some rigs out of thin kdex that allegedly allows this. I'd have try it to believe it.

Delji, have you thought of trying out some of those guybreras (sp?) that are so popular down there? That might let you carry something at bit bigger with minimal discomfort. I'm in south Alabama (read about as hot/humid as south FL - just for less time during the year). My favorite carry set-up is a light short sleeved shirt under Columbia brand fishing shirt. Blends in well and is about as cool as I can manage and still be able to carry the .45. Some days, I just suck it up and sweat.

 

[Bloodnut]

dvas,

Sorry we hijacked the crap out of your thread. But it's your own fault for brining up guns and lights in the same thread.

 

[Monocrom]

ok LETS be realistic. My Glocklight has stood up to hundreds of rounds of 40 S&W, 45ACP and 9x19. These are not magnum rounds. It is made of plastic and uses a incan bulb. Frankly its not as sturdy as a Fenix. The advantage is it used stacked batts instead of inline, has a built in mount and a well located switch. Those are the issues, not if a fenix can take the light recoil of a service pistol. I dislike a light being on my gun and don't carry with it on. The glocklight is basically a toy for me.

A drop from a few feet up is worse than recoil from a pistol and I bet you could drop a Fenix thousands of times and not break it.

Your Glocklight was designed to function as a weapon light. You might not be too impressed with its construction vs. a Fenix light. Doesn't change the fact that it's made to function that way. Meanwhile Fenix lights have zero lights designed to function as weapon lights. Okay, you think of the Glocklight as a toy. Let me ask you this, does it work reliably with your weapon?

I seriously doubt a Fenix light would be tough enough to survive that type of torture test. One thing's for sure, my Surefires work; even if covered in mud. And here's some proof about how well a Fenix light would work, after encountering some dirt....

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/176954

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To: Delij -

You're right..... The type of nonsense you described would never be tolerated up here. That's just ironic as Hell.

 

[Delij]

Delji, have you thought of trying out some of those guybreras (sp?) that are so popular down there?
.....(edit)....
I can manage and still be able to carry the .45. Some days, I just suck it up and sweat.

Sounds good, but i have to dress appropriately for work. I'm lucky I can usually be almost over-dressed with khakis and a golf shirt, but still, there's limits. Can't go to work in a bathing suit, and probably a guybrera or netted shirt might not fly.

As for carrying my .45 - it's absolutely my favorite gun to shoot -no doubt about it. Feels great, scary accurate, etc., but 40 ounces of steel is just a lot of weight without a OWB holster, and in Fl., open carry is a big no-no. (Wouldn't want to open carry even if allowed, but that's a whole other subject). And Florida has very loose gun laws, but it you accidently flash a concealed weapon (wind lifts an untucked shirt, whatever), "brandishing' is a serious charge down here no matter how unintentional. Friend of mine was taken to jail when he was on his motorcycle and his windbreaker rose up and exposed his gun and a trooper happened to notice. Not fun. Cost him a lot of money for a lawyer (to get him off a charge that was obviously just caused by an act of nature and with no intent of his own.....and his gun was kept as evidence for months.

dvas,

Sorry we hijacked the crap out of your thread. But it's your own fault for brining up guns and lights in the same thread.

Yeah, I'll second that apology. Probably I was the biggest offender so I should give the biggest apology.

SORRY!!!!!!

But Bloodnut is right. Bring up lights and firearms and this is what happens.

To get back on topic though (or at least to try)...If you really want a handgun mounted light, I agree....spend the money on a dedicated light designed for that purpose. A Fenix may or may not stand up to recoil, but it certainly isn't what it was designed for.

To all the others I may have offended with my opinions.....to them as well i apologize for the "hijack". But my point (at least the one I wanted to stress.....obviously I didn't do a great job) is that for almost anyone money for gadgets (on a handgun) is better spent on real training. So many gun owners just wing it. Using a gun improperly is bad mojo.

As I mentioned, I was trained over 30 years ago (over 35 now that I think about it....my how time flies) in handguns and in the use of rifles (started basic with an M14 at Fort Dix, NJ -we didn't even have M16s there yet which was what was being used in combat at that time in SE Asia (Vietnam).

I was even trained in a little bit of non-conventional hand to hand combat in AIT. But just three years ago when I decided I wanted a 1911 for home defense (and range shooting), I paid for a lesson in that particular discipline. What I had learned in the army was either forgotten or (more importantly) didn't apply to home defense at all. I'd probably have been better with WWI training when they used guns in fox holes. I never even held a handgun after my basic training.....only officers and special forces guys (and of course MPs) carried handguns. At least that I noticed.

Last word on a rail mounted light (on a handgun).....I agree that it is not a bad thing to have on a gun that is dedicated to home defense. Not that I don't believe a flashlight in the other hand is better in some ways (especially with adequate training). But having your off hand free gives one very big advantage.....that is to have it free to hold a cell phone (or any phone) with. If you hear an intruder in your home and take it seriously enough to grab a gun with one hand, the other hand should be holding the phone as you contact 911.

True that if you are about to confront a deadly situation that it is not likely that the police will get there in time to intervene. But calling 911 is essential anyway. Can never hurt. Just might help.

It may take 5 or 10 minutes for the police to actually arrive when seconds count, but it may take only seconds for a bad guy to hear sirens coming your way.

The very best outcome of any potential threat is to have the threat go away. If the sound of an approaching siren makes a bad guy run, that's a big success!!!

Anything is better than a situation coming down to an actual shooting.

I've been lucky enough to have served in combat and never shot anyone. I have seen how it does affect those who did. I can only imagine that the after-effects would be more severe in a shooting away from a war zone.

But I was not lucky enough to not get shot. I got off easy, but I still have nightmares about it. Seeing your own blood stays with you forever (I didn't even feel the wound for what seemed a long time after I saw the blood and realized it was coming from me). I never think about the pain anymore. It hurt like hell after a very short time, but pain is easy to forget. But the blood.....those nightmares will probably last a lifetime.

Bottom line is avoid shooting or being shot at all costs. Lock your doors, keep lights on. Lock your windows. Keep a phone handy. Never flash cash in a public place. Stay out of unfamiliar neighborhoods. On and on.

Don't set yourself up to be a victim.

I lived in Colorado and had guns. I was trained in the use of guns in the military. I've had a CCW permit in Florida for a dozen years or so.

But I honestly believe that growing up in NYC made situational awareness part of my life from as far back as I can remember (I know I rode the subways alone when I was maybe 7 or 8). I'll always believe that that awareness all New Yorkers naturally develop has been my best and most effective defense against letting myself become a victim.

But most Americans are not raised in NY and don't ride subways as kids. For them, money spent on training is money well invested.

And again I'm sorry it took me so many words and I went off on so many tangents to try to make that one point....it's where I started and now where I hope to finish (finally! :wave:. )

I hope I can possibly have influenced even one person to consider spending some money on training as opposed to on gadgets for self defense. If I did, all this typing will have been worth it.

Two years ago on St. Valentines day (evening) my training paid off. I actually drew my gun in a mugging in a parking lot in Ft. Lauderdale. I was with a date who didn't have a clue I was carrying a gun (oddly it was one of the rare times I carried my XD). Anyway I credit my training and also the reading of a great book every gun owner should read..."First Response" by David Kenik...forward by Mossad Ayoob. David is a contributor to many gun forums and his book has something for every gun owner. And if you have a question for him, he is accessible by email and on most of the popular gun forums.

I did not have to fire a shot. No one was hurt, lives may have been saved, and there were no legal consequences to deal with at all.. No civil suits, no criminal investigations, nothing.

Without proper training, God only knows what the results might have been. The book cost me $14 (got it signed by David too since I bought it from him directly after reading a post he had written about it's pre-publication on a gun forum we are both members of.

$14..... The price of a few batteries we all so readily spend our money on for our flashlight hobbies with barely a thought.

Later that night, we got to spend Valentines day in the proper way. A very far cry from what might have been. Maybe I should send David a belated thank you note - better to get laid than to get stabbed. I don't care who you are, who'd argue with that???? LOL

Peace,
D.

 

[Monocrom]

But I honestly believe that growing up in NYC made situational awareness part of my life from as far back as I can remember (I know I rode the subways alone when I was maybe 7 or 8). I'll always believe that that awareness all New Yorkers naturally develop has been my best and most effective defense against letting myself become a victim.

Peace,
D.

All I can say is, things have definitely changed since you lived up here. My fellow New Yorkers are some of the most oblivious examples of humanity that you'd ever hope to see! The tourists are worse. But sometimes, not by much!

 

[Patriot]

I have had a CCW permit for many years. I have owned handguns for home defense for even longer. I was trained to use all kinds of weapons in the military over 30 years ago. As a civilian, I cannot think of single reason where a weapon mounted flashlight (on a handgun) would be preferable to an unmounted light.

With all due respect Delij I'm glad that you mentioned that you're up for hearing other opinions because I really have to disagree with many of the fundamentals of which you're speaking. I don't want any reader to walk away from this thread and believe that you don't need sights for defensive shooting, hand held light is better than weapon mounted, or the there isn't really a reason to own a weapon with tritium sights.

You said that you "cannot think of a single reason where a weapon mounted flashlight (on a handgun) would be preferable to an unmounted light." Well, lets just toss the obvious one out there and then filter down to the less obvious. How about if one of your hands was disabled during an adrenalin filled moment or during a fight which resulted in crushing or the loss of fingers. Actually that reason one of the last on my list I wanted to break the tension with "a single reason." I've instructed quite a few people both experienced and greenies to shoot with a weaponlight in low lighting conditions. Not one of those people thought that it was easier physically or mentally to shoot with a separate flashlight in another hand and that includes the Roger's technique. As part of the realization shock that we want the students to experience, we let them shoot with hand held lights first for an entire shooting session. There is usually a lot of strange muscle coordination going on and loose, less than confident shooting along with it. When we hand them their gun back with a light mounted on it, after firing they exclaim..."Why were we doing it the other way!" or "holy cow!..what a difference." This isn't to say that a person with lots of practice can't get proficient with unmounted techniques but the same person will always shoot a little better or even extraordinarily better with a mounted light. When a light is mounted to your weapon, you're only having to control and point one device and the beam happens to be pointing in nearly the exact same location where your sights are aligning, which happens to also be where the bore is aligned. There is a reason why weapon lights are so productive in combat right now. The old techniques were costing lives. The weaponlight is an evolution from less effective techniques. You're drawing a big line in the sand between military and police applications vs. the application of self defensive. Hey there are many differences for sure, but many aspects are exactly the same in both cases. To say that a soldier needs a weaponlight in a dark hallway while a would be rape victim in a dark hallway doesn't is just non-sense. Military and police are often going to an action and into harms way, while a civilian is often just trying to defend his life from a cornered or defensive position where flight isn't an option. The same advantages that apply to a police officer with a weaponlight also apply to the civilian.

They don't fit in holsters (for the most part). They generally require fine motor skills that are lost in the stress of use in actual self defense conditions. They are small and not nearly as versatile as a handheld light, and they provide a target for a threat (which is true with any light, but a hand-held light can be manipulated in ways a rail mounted light cannot be)

Yes, handguns with weaponlights require a different holster...just like the police use and there are many options out there now. As far as fine motor skills go, the action of switching on a weaponlight is no more motor skill intensive than pulling the trigger of the gun itself or deactivating the thumb safety. I really consider that a non-issue as I've yet to see even a new shooter struggle the physical action or mental step of activating the light. True these handgun weaponlights are small but how exactly is that relative when all of them put out far more light with a much more useful beam than the 3D maglite you described reaching for? What kind of additional manipulation do you plane on with the light in you weak hand that couldn't be done with the light on you weapon? I don't want anyone to think that a weaponlight replaces a handheld light. Obviously you can't investigate a noise in you front yard with a firearm attached to your flashlight. But, if you are in a situation where you have determined that your firearm should be drawn, then having a weaponlight is far better than manipulating two separate objects. You can even drop your flashlight and draw a weapon once the use of deadly force has been determined.

Along with night sights, I think that they are a waste of money. I will never understand the popularity of night sights for self defense..they do nothing at all to illuminate a target - in fact in realistic self defense distances, I don't think sights are useful at all.... I practice shooting without sights for self defense. To me, sights are great for target shooting. Or hunting (I guess...I've never hunted for sport). I do target shoot, and for that, sights are essential. To hit an assailant 8 feet away in a life or death situation, I don't expect to have any time to line up sights. Or even the steadiness to try if I did have the time.

Since seeing your sights is paramount how is a device that allows you to see them a "waste of money?" You go on to further say that even sights themselves aren't useful at all due to "realistic self defense distances." How is one to determine or control what type of shooting distance he might be involved in? Sure, most situations put aggressors within a few yards of the defender but what about all of the situations that aren't close. Many of today homes have such large interior spaces that you might never be close to an intruder, but yet he sees you and decides to shoot at you. There are often times where you might be in a dark area while a intruder is in a partially illuminated area...enough for you to see him but still not enough light to quickly acquire a sight picture. You may have your own ideas about how things work, but many of today's combat shooting techniques, police training, and defensive shooting trends and schools are in conflict to what you are saying.

I think a comfortably sized hand-held flashlight is an ideal companion to a handgun for home defense. For concealed carry, a rail mounted light is going to require a holster that makes concealment even more difficult.

Yes, I agree that it's an ideal companion but it's not a replacement for a weaponlight. This comfortably sized flashlight is for investigating and ascertaining, the weaponlight is to illuminate you target while firing. Larger holsters by their nature are more difficult to conceal, but that's a small sacrifice to make.

I've owned exactly one pistol with a rail on it (a Springfield XD9 SC) and I have since sold it. (not because of the rail, which was very small and only took specially designed lights and lasers for such a small rail anyway). A fine gun, but too bulky for concealed carry for me, not a fun range gun and I have better guns for home defense. So as good a gun as it was, it had no purpose for me.

Well, you sold it because the gun was "too bulky and not as fun." That has nothing to do with the whether or not a weaponlight is superior to the tool in each hand technique.

As a law enforcement officer, or a combat soldier, then the reasons for light rails become obvious and useful. Even necessary.

I addressed this earlier on. You're drawing a large enough distinction to say that police and soldiers can benefit for weaponlights while no one else can attain the same benefit. Civilians and police can find themselves in the exact same scenarios. The same advantages that an officer attains from a weaponlight are the same advantages that a civilian will experience. The physics involved will be the same in either case.

I carry a tiny gun CCW (Kel Tec P32) and a tiny light in my pocket - a Fenix or Ultrafire or other single cell cree light.

At home, I keep a full size .45 1911 (and other large guns...too large to carry concealed) and an assortment of flashlights handy.

If I ever heard an intruder in my house (has never happened, thankfully), I believe the light I would go for first would be the largest one i keep nearby....a 3 D cell Mag.

I've talked about this on several gun boards. Also, I have questioned the usefullness of night sights for self defense. In all the years, I have never heard one single argument that I felt justified the use of night sights. Yet they are among the most popular extras sold to gun owners. To me, they serve no purpose at all (other than maybe at a shooting range) - I feel the same way about rail mounted lights and lasers for self defene.

Well, you obviously mix and match weapons which is fine I suppose. I love variety and shoot all types. The thing that surprises me is that normally people that don't think they need sights live and sleep with a particular gun with a particular grip angle and size with a trigger pull that is a consist ante feel because it's all they know. I have an advantage over some others who are reading this in that I know that even griping your gun with a sweating hand can effect the way that you shoot. I think that this whole night sight dislike is tied directly into you saying that you don't use sights in the first place, so of course you're not going to see the advantage of night sights either. Let me put it this way, if shooting firearms without sights was ideal or even close behind sighted fire, most of the world would be doing it. I've been fortunate enough to shoot IPSC and USPSA with some of the finest shooters in the world and even on close range combat courses we all still use our sights. Although it may be a quick peripheral look at very close range, we're still making use of them. That's to say that if they weren't there at all, (removed from the gun) it would look like a silly goose carnival because there would be such low scores and lots of laughing.

Just my 2 cents. And of course proper lights for weapon rails are expensive. So for me, they are not only useless, but expensive to boot. Again....I see no reason for them in civilian use at all. But I'm open to hear other opinions

Maybe people buy them because they have a "cool factor"? But IMO a hand-held larger light is just a far superior asset if a light is needed.

Personally I think weaponlights are kind of ugly on a gun. They change the balance, even if it's only a slight amount in some cases, and overall size. Even if there are some out there who want them for the "cool factor" that you mentioned, it doesn't override the fact that to most of us they're just darn good tools. The reason that they're expensive is because they're specialized. They evolved out of necessity and manufactures put a lot of thought and design into them making the top brands as good as they are.

 

[jzmtl]

Bottom line, I'm saying it's not going to work. Not even the most die-hard Fenix fan can say with a straight face that his favorite brand has the level of rugged reliability needed, to work as a weapon light. Fenix has zero models designed to be used as weapon lights. That extreme level of quality isn't there. Let's be realistic.

So basically you are saying you pulled your conclusion out of thin air, based solely on your personal opinion.

 

[Delij]

Hi Patriot....

Well I guess this is not ever going to be resolved. And that's good (except we've hijacked a thread....or maybe made it into more than "is a Fenix adequate as a weapon light, which I think has been resolved).

Anyway, I appreciate your outlook and I agree with much of what you say. I;ll go so far as to say that you've convinced me on a few points that I was just wrong. Although much of the discussion is rather subjective...matters of opinions are always that way. They make life interesting.

You said that you "cannot think of a single reason where a weapon mounted flashlight (on a handgun) would be preferable to an unmounted light."

I thought I had already retracted that opinion. Aside from what you said here, I had already said that having a free hand to use on a 911 call negated that 'cannot think of a single reason' statement. I was wrong.

Well, lets just toss the obvious one out there and then filter down to the less obvious. How about if one of your hands was disabled during an adrenalin filled moment or during a fight which resulted in crushing or the loss of fingers.

Yes, good point. I always tell other shooters that they must practice and be prepared to shoot with their off hand for just this reason. (can be a less severe injury, but the theory holds true no matter what the extent the main hand is hurt).

Not one of those people thought that it was easier physically or mentally to shoot with a separate flashlight in another hand

I accept that. My disagreement is (as i said) I feel a separate flashlight is more versatile. Also, I prefer not to have to point a gun at something just to see what it is. So ideally I suppose having both a handheld flashlight AND a weapon mounted light gives you the options we'd all want if we could have everything.

Guess I got carried away with my main contention....the one I lost by going on tangents...that spending money on training was money better spent (in most cases) than money spent on accessories. Tactical accessories for typical civilian use.

Why were we doing it the other way!" or "holy cow!..what a difference." This isn't to say that a person with lots of practice can't get proficient with unmounted techniques but the same person will always shoot a little better or even extraordinarily better with a mounted light. When a light is mounted to your weapon, you're only having to control and point one device and the beam happens to be pointing in nearly the exact same location where your sights are aligning, which happens to also be where the bore is aligned. There is a reason why weapon lights are so productive in combat right now. The old techniques were costing lives. The weaponlight is an evolution from less effective techniques. You're drawing a big line in the sand between military and police applications vs. the application of self defensive.

you're right on all counts. And here I guess we just should agree to disagree. Because yeah..I do think combat and self defense are two very different disciplines. They require different techniques and different equipment too. Not always, there's certainly a cross-over, but in general, they seem more different than alike....again..this is my opinion and experience. I know of others who've had experiences that would make them see things differently.

To say that a soldier needs a weaponlight in a dark hallway while a would be rape victim in a dark hallway doesn't is just non-sense. Military and police are often going to an action and into harms way, while a civilian is often just trying to defend his life from a cornered or defensive position where flight isn't an option. The same advantages that apply to a police officer with a weaponlight also apply to the civilian.

All true, but statistically a civilian self defense situations in which a potential rape victim (for an example) would wind up in a dark hallway "urban combat" scenario is pretty remote. Not impossilbe, just unlikely.

As far as fine motor skills go, the action of switching on a weaponlight is no more motor skill intensive than pulling the trigger of the gun itself or deactivating the thumb safety. I really consider that a non-issue as I've yet to see even a new shooter struggle the physical action or mental step of activating the light.

Easy for me to concede this...I've never used one so it was a guess on my part. But I've seen TRAINED soldiers have a hard time disengaging safeties and generally having a hard time with fine motor skills when under enourmous stress.....And while you can argue that their training was rushed (and it was during the Vietnam war), it was still a lot more than the training most civilians have now. Which is NONE.

Obviously you can't investigate a noise in you front yard with a firearm attached to your flashlight. But, if you are in a situation where you have determined that your firearm should be drawn, then having a weaponlight is far better than manipulating two separate objects. You can even drop your flashlight and draw a weapon once the use of deadly force has been determined.

Again we agree....clearly it is never any one's preference to aim a gun to use a flashlight. A point I brought up earlier. Sadly a point that I worry is lost on some over-enthusiastic gun owners. (I hope I'm wrong).

As an aside, I can tell you for a fact that the Palm Beach Sheriff's office proceedure is to ALWAYS carry a flashlight when exiting a patrol car.

You go on to further say that even sights themselves aren't useful at all due to "realistic self defense distances." How is one to determine or control what type of shooting distance he might be involved in?

This point I'll stand pretty firm on. And in fact the law requires retreat before use of deadly force if possible. And from distances beyond "realistic self defense distances", it's the better choice anyway. In a life or death situation, 20 yards with a handgun is out of range for most shooters. Flight rather than fight is usually the ticket at such a distance (or greater). And it would be an unusual instance in which at such a distance it isn't possible to at least find some kind of cover if a clean getaway isn't possible.....at least that's my impression...from both training and observation

. Never heard of anyone being mugged or raped in the middle of a large open field. Or a deserted strip of beach.

Sure, most situations put aggressors within a few yards of the defender but what about all of the situations that aren't close.

'all the situations'? As i said above, they would seem very rare. What would be an example of an outdoor encounter in which it is necessary to use deadly force at a considerable distance (as a civilian)?

Many of today homes have such large interior spaces that you might never be close to an intruder, but yet he sees you and decides to shoot at you.

I don't know about that. "home-field advantage" should work in the favor of the homeowner. I suppose anything is possible though.

There are often times where you might be in a dark area while a intruder is in a partially illuminated area...enough for you to see him but still not enough light to quickly acquire a sight picture. You may have your own ideas about how things work, but many of today's combat shooting techniques, police training, and defensive shooting trends and schools are in conflict to what you are saying.

ok...here we just disagree. Until recently I lived in a very large home. In the situation you describe here, that 'home-field advantage' becomes even stronger. In fact this is unusual enough a scenario that it would nullify the more common need for the 'castle doctrine' to be necessary. In my large home, I'd play "hide and seek' and work my way into a position of definite tactical advantage. Or better yet, make my way out of the house. This is a good example of where training pays off.

. Larger holsters by their nature are more difficult to conceal, but that's a small sacrifice to make.

OK...here we are talking about something I never meant to address....carrying a gun with a weapon light.....SWAT stuff. Civilians do this? (i'm sure some do). But in my world this is overkill. A "sacrifice' I just would not make. Each to their own.

Well, you sold it because the gun was "too bulky and not as fun." That has nothing to do with the whether or not a weaponlight is superior to the tool in each hand technique.

yes I said the rail had nothing to do with the fact I found the gun not useful for it's intended purpose when I bought it....which was as a CCW weapon. It was just too wide for me. Again....the rail was a non-issue. And again, it would never occur to me to carry a weapon with a light. My life will never center around my CCW weapon. This is why I carry the smallest and most easily concealed gun I know of. But that's just me. I know of people (civilians) who always carry a backup gun...even two, plus spare magazines, etc. If I ever needed more than 8 rounds, I'd be out of luck.

I addressed this earlier on. You're drawing a large enough distinction to say that police and soldiers can benefit for weaponlights while no one else can attain the same benefit. Civilians and police can find themselves in the exact same scenarios. The same advantages that an officer attains from a weaponlight are the same advantages that a civilian will experience. The physics involved will be the same in either case.

Yes, you did address this before. And so did I. And we just disagree. A soldier is likely (or it's at least possible) to have a target hundreds of yards away. A policeman may be involved in a shootout from across a street. (Think bank robbery...whatever). A civilian who is hundreds of yards away from a threat is duty bound to flee. Even from across the street....same deal. It is not lawful to engage in a shootout at such distances. And the law aside....why even bother? Who walks around with a rifle or carbine? What effect does a handgun have at 100 yards or more? Or even 100 feet? Not much.

The thing that surprises me is that normally people that don't think they need sights live and sleep with a particular gun with a particular grip angle and size with a trigger pull that is a consist ante feel because it's all they know.

I agree. The only gun I practice with not using sights is the gun I carry as a CCW weapon. Every other gun I practice with using sights. And when I practice without using sights, i use a silhouette target at maybe 20 feet. All other shooting I use bulls-eye targets and sights (some adjustable...even a red-dot until just recently).




I

I think that this whole night sight dislike is tied directly into you saying that you don't use sights in the first place, so of course you're not going to see the advantage of night sights either.

Not a "dislike"....just that i don't see an advantage to them. I just mentioned that I had a red-dot (Halo) sight on my Ruger MKII target gun. The very ultimate 'night sight". But it in no way helped me to see my target...just the sight. What good does that do? You cannot hit what you can't see. Period.

. I've been fortunate enough to shoot IPSC and USPSA with some of the finest shooters in the world and even on close range combat courses we all still use our sights. Although it may be a quick peripheral look at very close range, we're still making use of them. That's to say that if they weren't there at all, (removed from the gun) it would look like a silly goose carnival because there would be such low scores and lots of laughing.

Of course!!!! But how can you compare when you are scoring when a tenth of an inch (or a hundredth) separates the best from the rest? In self defense shooting, it's about stopping your threat...usually this just means how many times you can quickly hit your target center mass. Fractions of an inch may make the difference in whether your target lives or dies, but that isn't the object. The object of a self defense shooting is just to STOP your target, not necessarily to kill him (or her).

Personally I think weaponlights are kind of ugly on a gun. They change the balance, even if it's only a slight amount in some cases, and overall size. Even if there are some out there who want them for the "cool factor" that you mentioned,

LOL...I did not say I thought they had a 'cool factor'. What I meant to imply was that certainly others do. I have seen people hang so many gizmos on an M15 with rails everywhere that you can barely make out what kind of gun is under all that stuff ....and what do they use these rifles for? Usually nothing at all. Just take them out and admire them and then put them back away. This is very common for "assault weapon' owners.
Do they need $10,000 worth of optics and lights to hunt prairie dogs with?


The shop I talked about with the 11 bullet holes sells more AR15s and Ak47s than all other kinds of rifles combined. Maybe even more than they do handguns. I've asked the guys that work there what people use them for, and the answer is pretty much always "just to look at and show their friends'.

But most of that stuff has been developed because they serve real purposes....but not for civilians.

And though some people hunt with these guns, I don't know how many places allow semi-autos for hunting. Or even such small calibers (.223).

Besides, they are not really effective on large game. An M16 was designed to wound 170 pound humans. A .308 or 30-06 or .270 Mag. (I could go on and on) were all designed to kill 2.000 pound animals. (which goes to prove that the assault weapon ban is all about cosmetics).

it doesn't override the fact that to most of us they're just darn good tools. The reason that they're expensive is because they're specialized. They evolved out of necessity and manufactures put a lot of thought and design into them making the top brands as good as they are.

I never said anything contrary to this. All I ever said about weapon lights was that i would not use a Fenix as one, and that I felt they were suitable for military and law enforcement more so than for civilian use. That doesn't stop civilians from buying them. In fact people LOVE buying military equipment.....but like I said above, mostly it's for looks. Seriously, how many people who buy them have a use for a $6000 night vision rifle scope? But in about five seconds on Google you can find pages and pages of places that sell them mail order. Nothing wrong with having one if you can afford such toys, but how does one find a use for one? Back to the 'cool factor'.

Unless you have a major problem with mice or rats. Of course traps or cats work too.:duh2:

All I can say is, things have definitely changed since you lived up here. My fellow New Yorkers are some of the most oblivious examples of humanity that you'd ever hope to see! The tourists are worse. But sometimes, not by much!

I don't doubt that things have changed drastically. I left NY after high school. That was in 1964. It was a very different world. Five years later I went back to grad school at Columbia and lived in that part of Harlem. That really tuned me into my surroundings. Scared me too. Though I rode the subways alone as a young kid, I wouldn't venture it up there as a 23 year old. At least not at night.

peace,
D.

 

[Patriot]

Guys, I think the Fenix issue is still lingering for no good reason. We're stuck upon whether the light is rugged enough to survive the abuse on a handgun while forgetting that it would be an ergonomic monstrosity and not suitable for that reason alone. It would be too long and doesn't have any good method of activation as a weaponlight. To the people that are saying, "come on give Fenix a chance it might survive that kind of abuse," I say, who cares what it might succeed or fail at. The point is that they weren't designed for it and who's going to test it? Surely you're not suggesting that the OP guinea pig the concept....? Even if a handfull of CPFers performed rigorous testing of Fenix lights on handguns for months it would prove next to nothing compared to way dedicated weaponlights have been tested. Companies like Surefire and Insight have rigorously tested these products before they're even sampled by soldiers in training. Now, many of these products have seen hundreds of thousands of hours during actual field use and continue to undergo development throughout the model's life span. That's the difference and why I don't condone a general use flashlight for use as a weaponlight. If somebody wants to put a Fenix on their handgun then do it as an individual and go shoot cans or something. In good faith we shouldn't suggest an unproven idea to sombody who may be putting their life on the line, as if we were saying, 'try a Pepsi.'

 

[Patriot]

Delij

I thought I had already retracted that opinion. Aside from what you said here, I had already said that having a free hand to use on a 911 call negated that 'cannot think of a single reason' statement. I was wrong.

Sorry, I hadn't seen your most recent post because I was writing my post at the time.

I accept that. My disagreement is (as i said) I feel a separate flashlight is more versatile. Also, I prefer not to have to point a gun at something just to see what it is. So ideally I suppose having both a handheld flashlight AND a weapon mounted light gives you the options we'd all want if we could have everything. Guess I got carried away with my main contention....the one I lost by going on tangents...that spending money on training was money better spent (in most cases) than money spent on accessories. Tactical accessories for typical civilian use.

No problem, and we both agree that having both is superior.

All true, but statistically a civilian self defense situations in which a potential rape victim (for an example) would wind up in a dark hallway "urban combat" scenario is pretty remote. Not impossible, just unlikely.

Honestly I don't know if this is still true, but I believe that I had heard that most attacks on women had happened within their own dwelling. From that perspective I think the scenario is relevant and likely. Not to mention that half of our lives are spent inside of our homes. A dark hallway within ones own home might just be the most likely 'battlefield' of the civilian.

This point I'll stand pretty firm on. And in fact the law requires retreat before use of deadly force if possible. And from distances beyond "realistic self defense distances", it's the better choice anyway. In a life or death situation, 20 yards with a handgun is out of range for most shooters. Flight rather than fight is usually the ticket at such a distance (or greater). And it would be an unusual instance in which at such a distance it isn't possible to at least find some kind of cover if a clean getaway isn't possible.....at least that's my impression...from both training and observation. Never heard of anyone being mugged or raped in the middle of a large open field. Or a deserted strip of beach.

I made this statement with the assumption that flight was not an option. Then problem with thinking how longer range deadly force scenarios could develop is that we can't think of them. Life is stranger that fiction and it may be hard to envision the situation until it happens. There are scenarios in which a person could be trapped or have their exit blocked while being fired upon. Maybe they wouldn't be within the magic "defensive distance" but nevertheless have to return fire. Umm....a dead end in an ally maybe...um a parking garage. Any scenario where a determined bad guy recognizes that you're armed and backs off but doesn't give up altogether and still presents grave and imminent danger to you....maybe he's shooting, maybe he's trying to run you over with a car. I can only use my imagination here. The thing is that you can't count on the 'typical' situation. None of us know what hand we're going to be dealt. You said that you fire without sights at 20 feet. My question is what are you going to do when it's 27 feet or 34 feet...and how to you make the determination of when you're going to fire with your sights vs. not aim? I know that for me anything beyond about two yards and I'm going to cover the target with the front sight, even if it's not a conscious thought. At 4 yards it will be more of a conscious thought. At six yards it will be more and escalate until it's very deliberate. My point is that no matter what, the sights are playing a roll even if you don't realize it. I would challenge you to remove the iron sights from your 1911 and shoot a fist sized group at 21 feet. I don't think it's possible without tens of thousands of rounds of practice. Even then if you got proficient at it everything would change at 30 feet. Anyhow, sights will always be a fundamental part of any shooting scenario short of being so close that you can't fully extend the arms.

I don't know about that. "home-field advantage" should work in the favor of the homeowner. I suppose anything is possible though.

When were talking about hypothetical situations we have to concede they we would never be able to think of every possible situation. I think that it's very possible to be able to see a figure with a mask while not being able to see your sights. You don't need much light to see a threatening situatuation..but you need a lot more light to acquire that tiny matt black front sight if it isn't self illuminated. It's amazing how little light you need to get around your own house or recognized a person who shouldn't be there but the same light that allows you to do that won't allow you to fire a single round.

yes I said the rail had nothing to do with the fact I found the gun not useful for it's intended purpose when I bought it....which was as a CC weapon. It was just too wide for me. Again....the rail was a non-issue. And again, it would never occur to me to carry a weapon with a light. My life will never center around my CC weapon. This is why I carry the smallest and most easily concealed gun I know of. But that's just me. I know of people (civilians) who always carry a backup gun...even two, plus spare magazines, etc. If I ever needed more than 8 rounds, I'd be out of luck.

ok...I understand. I think part of this may have been in your post that I hadn't read yet. For me...I'm really against generalizations such as how much ammo you need because I'd be out of luck anyhow. If the design of the gun happens to allow for more ammunition without undo bulk then I think it's great. I know that there are a lot of FBI officers out there that were very happy to have 17 rounds in there gun and spare mags. The reason being because they've seen other officers loose their lives running out of ammo. Anyhow, I'm getting into a different area now. My point is that it's ok to be prepared for the scenarios that we could never imagine.

Yes, you did address this before. And so did I. And we just disagree. A soldier is likely (or it's at least possible) to have a target hundreds of yards away. A policeman may be involved in a shootout from across a street. (Think bank robbery...whatever). A civilian who is hundreds of yards away from a threat is duty bound to flee. Even from across the street....same deal. It is not lawful to engage in a shootout at such distances. And the law aside....why even bother? Who walks around with a rifle or carbine? What effect does a handgun have at 100 yards or more? Or even 100 feet? Not much.

I think we sorta got mixed up in here with the different subjects at hand. Remember that we were speaking about weaponlights...and illuminating bad guys at hundreds of yards would be unlikely for even soldiers. I was trying to impress upon you that these weaponlights are being used every day in very close quarters not unlike what a civilian might encounter. Much of the fighting in Iraq is door to door, hallways, rooms etc. SWAT team are also using weaponlights primarily in close quarters right...? I mean we both know that they're not sniping with them after all. So, in realizing the fact that the main use for weaponlights is during close range encounters then that easily spills right over into the civilian application where things normally do happen in close proximity. Close range is were the weaponlight shines....literally and figuratively. That's were their main advantage is. If the military and police have understood this then it's reasonable to assume that civilians can benefit also. The private sector figured out these tactics a long time ago and trained the military and police.

LOL...I did not say I thought they had a 'cool factor'. What I meant to imply was that certainly others do. I have seen people hang so many gizmos on an M15 with rails everywhere that you can barely make out what kind of gun is under all that stuff ....and what do they use these rifles for? Usually nothing at all. Just take them out and admire them and then put them back away. This is very common for "assault weapon' owners.
Do they need $10,000 worth of optics and lights to hunt prairie dogs with?

Oh, sorry that you though I didn't understand you. Maybe I worded that poorly. I understood that you were saying that 'some people' might look at is as a 'cool factor.' I think what happens is that the professionals use these tools everyday and the non-professionals like to duplicate the look or tell themselves that they needs all of these implements. In the end, I don't care what their motives are..lol If they want to adorn their AR...have at it. If they practice with it then they might actually be somewhat effective with they'll actually ever need it or not.

Of course!!!! But how can you compare when you are scoring when a tenth of an inch (or a hundredth) separates the best from the rest? In self defense shooting, it's about stopping your threat...usually this just means how many times you can quickly hit your target center mass. Fractions of an inch may make the difference in whether your target lives or dies, but that isn't the object. The object of a self defense shooting is just to STOP your target, not necessarily to kill him (or her).

Well, I'm not comparing directly because it might not be the difference between a tenth of an inch or a hundredth of a second. Complete misses happen all the time during that kind of competition and even though we're under pressure, it's not a life and death situation. Defensive shooting requires us to shoot center mass, not unlike USPSA competition requires an A zone hit for the highest score. The same marksmanship rules and techniques that apply to the defensive shooting practices also apply to actual defense (again with regards to marksmanship...aligning the weapon and firing as many accurate rounds as required) The object of self defense shooting to STOP your target uses the same marksmanship that gives us the best score in competition.

Anyhow it sounds like we're a lot closer on some of this stuff than I originally thought. I notice that you expounded greatly in you post that I didn't see. Hopefully others will find some use in all of this verbiage and we kept the hijacking to a minimum. I think we tried to keep it about weaponlights the best that we could.