Running a SF ML3T's KX9T head on an M6 body

As we now know, based on a handful of outstanding forum reviews of Surefire's new ML3T combat light, the KX9T head will indeed fit on an M6 body, but will only operate in low mode. Though I suppose it would be a bit unfair to either characterize this as an oversight on Surefire's part, or to attempt to lay any blame at their feet for this apparent degree of incompatibility, it remains, nonetheless, a rather bitter disappointment to M6 owners that this current state of affairs exists. This disappointment is only magnified when you consider just how much better suited the M6 body is to meet the actual power requirements of the KX9T head.

I highly suspect that in two or three years time Surefire will announce the development of an M6LT which will render this issue obsolete. In the meantime, however, two questions come to mind.

1) Will this incompatibility between platforms make it less likely that SF will eventually offer the KX9T head as a stand alone product?

2) Assuming the KX9T head will be made available as an accessory some day, is there a large enough base of M6 owners to justify some industrious CPF modder/aftermarket specialist devising a new M6 tailcap that will allow for the use of high mode?

I would definitely go for it if a tailcap is developed. I don't see why it wouldn't be too hard.

Bronco said:

As we now know, based on a handful of outstanding forum reviews of Surefire's new ML3T combat light, the KX9T head will indeed fit on an M6 body, but will only operate in low mode. Though I suppose it would be a bit unfair to either characterize this as an oversight on Surefire's part, or to attempt to lay any blame at their feet for this apparent degree of incompatibility, it remains, nonetheless, a rather bitter disappointment to M6 owners that this current state of affairs exists. This disappointment is only magnified when you consider just how much better suited the M6 body is to meet the actual power requirements of the KX9T head.

I highly suspect that in two or three years time Surefire will announce the development of an M6LT which will render this issue obsolete. In the meantime, however, two questions come to mind.

1) Will this incompatibility between platforms make it less likely that SF will eventually offer the KX9T head as a stand alone product?

2) Assuming the KX9T head will be made available as an accessory some day, is there a large enough base of M6 owners to justify some industrious CPF modder/aftermarket specialist devising a new M6 tailcap that will allow for the use of high mode?

Click to expand...

Who would have thought it wouldn't have taken S.F. even that long? of course it has the opposite problem, but i still I can't beleive there is not more excitement here about it being available for preorder now!

I think people are disappointed that there is not real increase in runtime/output compared to the M3LT/UB3T and that the Incan models have been discontinued...

I don't think too many people on this forum are overly excited about the companies direction at this time.

Yeah that's too bad it had to be at the expense of the incan version.

I'm still excited regardless of minimal increase vs. the m3lt, because if brightness is the same surely that means a much longer runtime with double the batteries, & some people prefer the m6 form factor. I think s.f. had been waiting until they were working with an led they could use that will hopefully match their incan m6's performance, so that sHould be bright enough. I'm excited anyway. Just not as much about the price!

The current specs for the M6LT are 800 Lumens for 1hr 20min.

The updated specs for the M3LT are 800 Lumens for 1.75hrs...

So it appears the M3LT has similar runtime, at this stage.
Will have to wait for the actual release of the M6LT.

I understand what you are saying about the preferred form factor. However if I am going to be burning 2x the batteries there better be a fair increase in runtime to justify it for me.

I am excited to see the M6LT's release though. Don't know just yet if I will be getting one though.

DimeRazorback said:

The current specs for the M6LT are 800 Lumens for 1hr 20min.

The updated specs for the M3LT are 800 Lumens for 1.75hrs...

Click to expand...

No way LOL less runtime with 2x the batteries. That has to be an error, or they wouldn't sell any of them.

That's what I thought/hoped...

keep in mind that regulation may have a big factor in the runtimes, surefire calculates their runtimes down to 10% output. so sure, the runtime on the M6LT may be a lot lower, but it may also be pumping out 800 lumens a lot longer.

The most important thing to keep in mind regarding the apparent specification disparity of the proposed M6LT and the new (current) M3LT is that the M6LT is proposed. If SureFire release the M6LT then its the specification it comes with that what should be compared with the M3LT.
Secondly, we all know that until we have runtime/output charts performed by people with both the runtimes cannot be accurately compared.

Don't count your eggs before they've been officially released by SureFire.

Size15's said:

The most important thing to keep in mind regarding the apparent specification disparity of the proposed M6LT and the new (current) M3LT is that the M6LT is proposed. If SureFire release the M6LT then its the specification it comes with that what should be compared with the M3LT.
Secondly, we all know that until we have runtime/output charts performed by people with both the runtimes cannot be accurately compared.

Click to expand...

good point. may need to wait until the actual release of the M6LT and then ask a dealer what the box says in regards to output/runtime

Scrap question, found my answer.