I have been carrying a Glock 17 with a Surefire X300-U for a while now. Before that I was carrying a Glock 19 with the same light. Both of the pistols light combos create a bit of standoff (meaning the light is bast the muzzle of the handgun). I have always viewed this as a positive since if I had the gun pressed up against someone in a very close self defense scenario the light would prevent the gun from being push out of battery and therefore not functioning. My question is, how important do you guys feel this standoff is? I know there are a lot of compact lights out there that fit flush with the muzzle on a Glock 19 or the fact that the X300 fits flush with the Glock 34 or a full sized 1911. Is this concern about standoff legitimate or is it such a small factor it isn't worth worrying about?
Handgun lights and standoff.
- Thread starter locke1117
- Start date
Chriscanbreach
Established
Obviously avoid that situation at all costs, but if you’re surprised and stuck there.
It is a possibility, however in my experience (with sims) the fight is so violent the gun remaining out of battery where I can’t fire it has never happened. What more often happens is the slide being interfered with by one of the combatants arms, legs, or bodies and causing a malfunction.
If the gun is unexpected even one shot tends to create distance where the malfunction can be cleared. If he or they hang on you may find using their face and other body parts for one handed manipulations can create distance as well. It’s also very easy to shoot through and hit friends or innocents along with just shooting yourself.
I guess the answer is it doesn’t hurt to have stand-off created by a light or other devices but it’s unlikely to be the answer.
If you’re LE or Mil there is great eye opening training out there and I’m sure there is for civilian as well.
It is a possibility, however in my experience (with sims) the fight is so violent the gun remaining out of battery where I can’t fire it has never happened. What more often happens is the slide being interfered with by one of the combatants arms, legs, or bodies and causing a malfunction.
If the gun is unexpected even one shot tends to create distance where the malfunction can be cleared. If he or they hang on you may find using their face and other body parts for one handed manipulations can create distance as well. It’s also very easy to shoot through and hit friends or innocents along with just shooting yourself.
I guess the answer is it doesn’t hurt to have stand-off created by a light or other devices but it’s unlikely to be the answer.
If you’re LE or Mil there is great eye opening training out there and I’m sure there is for civilian as well.
I think the standoff distance is a plus, but I think you have to weigh that against the comfort and concealment of the holster and the brightness and utility of the light. I'd place those four factors above the standoff provided by a larger light. I also wouldn't count on the larger light preventing a malfunction in close quarters combat. The pistol may be oriented against the suspect at an angle that pushes the slide out of battery despite the WML.
AlphaJuliet
Amateur
The alternative that I know of for keeping the firearm in battery during contact shots is putting your thumb on the back of the slide and pushing forward. This induces a malfunction in the way of a failure to cycle, thus creating another problem. You'll get a round off, but now you have to solve the resulting issue.
The standoff doesn't hurt. I can think of two LE incidents where the standoff came in handy or the lack thereof was a fight-changer. Jared Reston's and Jim Van Alstine's. Reston advocates having the standoff for contact shots due to his experience. In Van Alstine's, the suspect's firearm was out of battery because he pushed it out of battery against Van Alstine's head, causing a malfunction. This allowed Van Alstine time to draw his firearm and deliver fight-ending shots.
The standoff doesn't hurt. I can think of two LE incidents where the standoff came in handy or the lack thereof was a fight-changer. Jared Reston's and Jim Van Alstine's. Reston advocates having the standoff for contact shots due to his experience. In Van Alstine's, the suspect's firearm was out of battery because he pushed it out of battery against Van Alstine's head, causing a malfunction. This allowed Van Alstine time to draw his firearm and deliver fight-ending shots.
Fatboy
Established
Another example is Darren Wilson. His pistol was pushed out of battery giving him a dead trigger. He was lucky in that once pressure on the slide was released all he had to do was squeeze the trigger again to fire (that's a solid positive for TDA guns) compared to a glock where a dead trigger means you may have to rack to ensure the gun is fully ready to fire once it's in battery again.
Yondering
Regular Member
This. I don't think it's a bad thing to have, but I wouldn't rely on it and personally would still block the slide forward if making a contact shot.
In my experience in training, a light works well for standoff against a firm body part like a skull or sternum, but can fail against soft parts (especially with pudgy people) where the light just sinks in.
Thanks for all the great responses. I have both a Glock 17 and a 34 I enjoy both of them but am thinking that the stand off and the slightly more comfortable carry of the 17 will allow it to keep it's spot as my CCW. I'm not sure if the added barrel length and sight radius is worth it or not.
We've done a lot "braced contact" shooting in live fire (as taught by Don Gulla) over the past 7 or so years and also experimented with several other ways of keeping the slide closed with 2 hands and 1 hand, using Glocks, TDA Sigs, 1911s, and XDs.
My experience has been that if you force a loaded Glock out of battery, and then release it, it will invariably return to in battery and fire if you press the trigger.
Pre Gen 4s have a recoil spring that isn't as strong as the G4/5 guns, so it may be possible (I haven't tried it, I'm just guessing) that should you have a worn out recoil spring with a dirty, unlubed Gen 1/2/3, it may not return the slide to battery under spring pressure.
Regardless, to test Fatboy's premise, I just compared 2 Glock 17.4 and a 19.5, with loaded chamber and loaded mag (dummy rounds).
I took the slide out of battery from a small amount, all the way to the cartridge ejection starting (cartridge tilting toward the ejection port).
The slide closed every time, fully, and the action was cocked when the slide went back into battery.
To retract the slide past that, you are going to get into creating feedway stoppages, so I didn't test further.
FWIW
Chriscanbreach
Established
@Fatboy
I’ve never had a Glock fail to fire when held out of battery and then pulling the trigger. As soon as it’s back in battery it fires when the trigger is pulled.
I’ll pull some guns out and test them today.
Unfortunately all of the combatives I’ve done have been while armed with a Glock and a carbine.
I’ve never had a Glock fail to fire when held out of battery and then pulling the trigger. As soon as it’s back in battery it fires when the trigger is pulled.
I’ll pull some guns out and test them today.
Unfortunately all of the combatives I’ve done have been while armed with a Glock and a carbine.
Chriscanbreach
Established
This should be a good baseline. All will be tested out of battery trigger pulled.
Chriscanbreach
Established
Gents. After my little test I need to make a new post. We have a problem and the Walther PPQs are the only ones failing this test.
Repeated test pressing trigger in a variety of ways, attempting to obtain a different result.
Slide always successfully closed (recoil spring pushes it closed).
@ chriscanbreach - nice work