While I haven't tried out his recommended technique exactly, a variation of it (dowsing the light, moving laterally, and laying down some suppressive fire) allowed me to move out of an ambush when I took Hoffner's force-on-force class.
LOW LIGHT GUNFIGHTING - FOR INDIVIDUALS
At our Jungle Gunfighting Camp in Piedras Negras, Costa Rica we conducted the maiden voyage, so to speak, of our new Low Light Gunfighting Course. Although this course will normally be a two day affair, we compressed the curriculum into a one day/evening event. Those of you who have trained with us in the past, think of Interactive Gunfighting Class with the lights off.
We spent some time working on the true dynamics of low light gunfighting. In short, if there is enough light for you to discern the attack at its inception, then simply deal with it without a flashlight. If the environment is truly dark, meaning you need an additional light source, then you will have the light in hand. Otherwise you will not.
Moreover, although there may be a general apprehension about being in a certain area in reduced light (for example: a bad neighborhood at night), the fight is still generally unexpected otherwise you would be using a bigger weapon, not be there, have a team with you, etc.
I prepared my lesson plans for the lone citizen who finds himself in such situations and not for a Surefire-equipped SWAT team sneaking up on a crack lab at zero dark thirty. The dynamics of these fights are vastly different than what Joe Stock-broker will face in a dark garage.
Also, we know there are schools out there who specialize on this subject. In the past years, some of my students, and a few instructors have attended said schools on “fact-finding� missions. Alas, the vast majority, if not all, of the existing research and material being presented out there is specifically designed for the Police/Spec-Ops folks and ignores the CCW Private Citizen. We are taking big steps to change that.
The dynamics of confrontation don’t change when the lights go out. Close, unexpected, and fast…and likely multiple adversaries.
You do not need a portable lighthouse or a solar flare for this. Rather something small, handy, and bright that is convenient to grab and take with you. Very few super-techno-tactical flashlights fill that requirement as they are too big and clumsy for anything other than uniform use. Additionally, attachments that must be proactively engaged such as special buttons or lanyards that must be pre-set will be of little use in these events. Monkey-simple operation and fail-safe procedures will win out every time.
In the class we spent some time during daylight and fading light learning how to incorporate the flashlight into the shooting equation. I showed some very simple integration methods and we worked them exhaustingly on the move. I showed a neck index technique taught by Tom Givens, and our own Modified Harries. We also discussed the use of the small light as a palm stick and how to use its illuminative qualities to precede your own physical attack.
A word must be said about flashlight positions. Almost all of them are designed for either stationary square range shooting (i.e. The Harries and Chapman), or for a stalking-based spec-ops application. None that I have seen have been purpose-designed for quick reactive applications (beginning light in support hand and gun concealed in holster). Questions were asked about other methods such as the Surefire, the FBI, and a couple of others. I encouraged everyone to use what they wanted to use but to test it in force on force and give a fair analysis afterwards.
Our first drill using Force On Force was a standard face to face shootout at 4 meters. For those who came in late, we dispense with the pre-fight incident management and shoot-no-shoot decisions here. We do this, not to minimize the need for such things, but rather to learn the dynamics of what to do when such things fail. We begin at the engagement phase.
Both good guy and bad guy were armed - Airsoft pistols in holster concealed (open carry training beyond the basic level, when one normally carries concealed, is silly and ego-based). The premise was that the good guy has some sort of indication or clue of threat and illuminated the bad guy. At this point the bad guy was free to draw and shoot the light-holding good guy. That was the only instruction given.
We had 22 of these bouts (22 students going once each against each other as good guy and as bad guy). Here are some findings -
The initial blast of light is extremely disorienting to the bad guy. The level of light is irrelevant as long as it is bright enough. “Bright enough� seemed to be a small light with two lithium batteries. LEDs seemed to have more of an effect than the incandescent bulb lights. At the close ranges we were working at, the super-bright, techno-tactical lights (which could illuminate trees across the canyon) didn’t have much more effect than standard lights.
If the good guy used this momentary light blindness to move off the X, he avoided getting hit initially by the bad guy’s “gunfire�. If he stood still in place, he was hit by the reflexive shots from the now-blind bad guy. Similarly if he backpedaled, he was hit. If he shuffled stepped (as one grad of an American low light school tried to do) he got hit. The only way to avoid being hit was to move laterally or diagonally very quickly. Sound familiar?
There were two common methods used.
One was to flash the light (quick on and off in the bad guy’s face) and move. This gave the good guy a view of what he had and allowed him to get out of the way. A second burst of light allowed him to get on target and shoot the other guy down.
The second method used was to flash him with the light and keep it on as you moved off line. This allowed the good guy to keep the bad guy in sight and begin firing at an illuminated target sooner.
Both were successful, but I saw the most dramatic results with the first method. Keeping the light on allowed the good guy to see the bad guy as he moved, but it also allowed the bad guy to orient his gun towards the light. In essence, it gave the bad guy a reference point to get his gun on.
In one instance the good guy flashed the bad guy and moved in at a 1:00. The bad guy dropped to his knee and began firing at the last known position of the light. As the good guy closed in he reilluminated him and shot him from the side at close range. This very spectacular and unscripted resolution drew hoots of approval from the students watching.
Everyone used some sort of light and gun on same angle method. Generally they used the Givens cheek index when moving to support side or the Suarez/Harries when moving to dominant side. We did not see any FBI positions, or twisted tension methods as they simply did not allow for sufficient speed or flexibility of movement.
Oh, something else. I occasionally interjected a strobe equipped light into the mix, trading it to students preparing for the drill. No one, and I mean no one, liked the strobe for this purpose. It certainly disoriented the bad guy, but it disoriented both bad guy and good guy. All preferred a simple bright LED without a strobe function. I have my theories on the strobe. Specifically that its use is in pro-active SWT police activities and not so useful for individual defense.