New Surefire M3LTs. Lens problem?

Hi guys.

Just got my new M3LT-S today that I bought during Surefires Thanksgiving sale.
Anyway, the beam is ok, but looked a bit odd somehow from what I was expecting from beamshots Id seen and reviews.

As I was looking it over, I noticed that in the center of the lens, I can clearly see the LED and circuit board. Its like the center section of the fresnel lens is missing. Cant say I like it at all.
I guess I wont be getting it from Santa for Christmas, as Surefire takes forever and a day to return repairs. And after Christmas, they are closed for a while.
Do they not inspect lights anymore before shipping them?

Of course its possible that this is how they are making them now, but seems pretty odd to me if thats the case, as Id never seen one like this before.

Thoughts?

[/URL][/IMG]

Here is another view.
[/URL][/IMG]

That's the same design as my newer M6LT that was purchased a couple of months ago. It is different than my M3LT and UB3T which were both bought in February 2012.

The photo below shows (from left to right) the M3LT, M6LT and UB3T.

Does it affect the beam? Any beamshots?

ganymede said:

Does it affect the beam? Any beamshots?

Click to expand...

It makes a big difference in the beam pattern.

Then thats a problem for me, as I bought it as a thrower. With this configuration, its not a thrower at all, or not nearly what it was before the change. Heck, the old 400 lumen light looks to have more throw than this configuration does (although it was way underrated anyway).
Im still going to call Surefire tomorrow and ask WTF. They still show the old style lens on their site, and still describe it as a TIR, which this certainly is not.
Ive got a ton of Surefires, but the last two have been disappointments. First the R1, which had to go back for a bad battery and loose body that they didnt fix, and the ridiculously stiff tailcap, and now this.
I always defended them against the "overpriced" crowd, but if this keeps up, its going to be harder and harder to do.
Had I known about this before I bought it, I wouldnt have. Id have gotten the E2D Defender Ultra....or some other smaller light.

I guess I should ask, 880arm, since you have the older style, and basically the same output in the M6LT, so you get the same throw from both? Seems like a lot more spill....which isnt something i was after.
I was going for more of the LX2 beam, but more powerful.
I wont know for sure until I can get out somewhere and can put it up against some of my other lights....but just playing with it out to a few hundred feet I wasnt all that impressed.
Maybe the change in the lens didnt affect the throw all that much, but it seems like a bare emitter wouldnt do nearly as well without some type of reflector/lens, and this new design lacks anything at all around the emitter, which seems counter productive. Maybe its not.....but its not what I expected to get, which is why Im posting, trying to get info. I guess the question is, new vs old, does it matter?

That lens you got is the new lens for this light but I agree with you I like the old lens better.

Thanks for the beamshots 880arm! Looks like a lot more spill from the new optic!

Can you do a slightly longer distance shot to see how does the new optic throws?

Thanks.

ganymede said:

Thanks for the beamshots 880arm! Looks like a lot more spill from the new optic!

Can you do a slightly longer distance shot to see how does the new optic throws?

Thanks.

Click to expand...

It is a nice beam, if you are looking for less throw and more flood.
Hopefully 880arm can do a shot or two, since he has both optics. Judging from his shorter distance shots though, Im guessing its no contest that the old will out throw the new by a good margin. The hotspot is quite a bit larger with the new optic vs the old.
I tried beamshots a while back and cant get them to turn out well. Need to mess with the camera setting I guess, and practice a lot more.

To my eye, and just under 100 yards, the beam profile looks very similar to the R1 Lawman. The R1 has a bit more spill, but the hotspot is the same size (and in myu case, whiter too as the M3LT-S has a more yellow tint to it, not that its bad, just different tint). Thats the problem I have, is that I had a light that would do what this one now does.
And to do this, it doesnt need that huge head either. They could have just changed to a reflector, which is sort of what they did anyway, by removing the center of the optic. They already have lights that do what this one does, so I guess I dont understand why they did it.

My option at this point is to either find someone with the old style that would trade me, or send this one back to Surefire for a refund and attempt to purchase an M3LT with the older style optic.

Well just for fun apparently, I called Surefire and asked about the change. First the guy insisted there was no change and that I needed to screw down the tail cap further to get high mode. After some more explanation he finally understood or didn't, but he got someone else and asked them. I never spoke to the other person, but it's basically the newest revision. He couldn't tell me other previous recent revision or this one but did say it (last one) happened in August of this year. He couldn't tell me details as to why the optic change and wasn't interested in finding out, not the best experience I've had with their service, but I might try again later as I am interested to know why they decided to do it and never had too much trouble finding out minor details before.
I should say too, I'm not all that disappointed in the light so much as I am the change and not having any idea about it when I bought it. Could end up to throw as far as the old optic but with a bit more spill. I'll wait till I can test it out in the country before I pass too much more judgement. Should have before hand, but I didn't.


Would still be interested in comparison shots if someone could between the two different optics.

I do believe surefire made a revision to the optic sometime earlier this year or late last year. There was a ub3t thread and someone mentioned a change in the optic. I think surefire made the change to allow for more spill but to be honest it really takes away from the intended function of the optic and that's to maximize long distance illumination.

Well, I did a bit more long distance foliage hunting tonight.
My suspicions were confirmed. My R1 throws almost every bit as far as the new M3LT optic does.

BTW, it was about 150 yards or so before the hotspot was anything but a hotspot. I didnt measure exactly, as its about 18 degrees with single digit wind chill.
Shined it on trees/bushes and buildings at that distance and the only difference was the hotspot on the M3LTS was just a hair smaller.

Its going back.
I guess Ill be on the lookout for an older style M3LT now.

I really cant believe Surefire took a step back with this light. Its advertised as: (from their site) "A large-diameter Turbohead, a Total Internal Reflection (TIR) lens, and an ultra high-output LED emitter come together in the M3LT to produce a powerful, focused beam suitable for spotlight/searchlight applications"
its not that light anymore. Its not focused like it was. Its no more suitable for "spotlight/searchlight applications" than my R1 is.
Very disappointed right now...sorry for all the ranting.
Maybe they are starting to live up or down to their perceived reputation. I dont know. I do know that Ive always been impressed with my Surefire purchases until this one.
Nothing else I can do about it though, but send it back and buy something else from someone else I guess.

I'm spending too much time at work (and it's too cold out anyway) so it will be a while before I get any new beamshots. I did dig up a couple more photos from October and made a GIF to compare my M3LT (with older style TIR) and M6LT (with clear window TIR) . . .



According to the latest SureFire catalog, the specs of the lights are as follows:

M6LT - 900 lumens - 34,500 candela
M3LT - 800 lumens - 30,500 candela

Based on those specs, the M6LT hotspot should be about 17 lux while the M3LT would be around 15.1 lux at the distance this photo was taken (the "target" was the cushion on the swing). The difference is small enough that I don't think I would recognize the difference and in the photos they look pretty much the same to me.

Obviously the beam profile and tint of my two samples are different. If you take a close look at the photos I posted in the earlier post, it appears that the M3LT beam is more intense at a point about 8 feet from the center hotspot (take a look at the white birdbath to the right of the swing). This is also shown in the animated GIF by the way the M3LT throws a lot more light on the ground, just in front of the "target."

Note: There is some difference in how the tripod head is positioned in the two photos. This is because the M3LT sits "in" my holder while the M6LT, with its larger body, sits on top of the holder. In both cases I manually adjusted the aim so that the hotspot of each light was aimed at the cushion. Of course there is plenty of room for human error with this "system" so take it FWIW :shrug:

Based on the published specs of the R1 Lawman (16,000 candela) it should measure around 0.71 lux at 150m vs. 1.36 lux for the M3LT.

At the end of the day, there is no denying that the beams are different and if you are dissatisfied with the beam profile (i.e. you expected, and prefer, more of a tunnel of light) then you should send the light back. However, I don't think you will see much, if any, "real world" difference with regard to usable throw distance if you find one of the lights with the full Fresnel lens. That's just my 2 cents!

I'm so happy the M3LT I bought this summer is the old-style full fresnel. The tight spotlight beam is the whole reason I got the light.

880arm, thanks for the shots.

I notice as Im looking around at beamshots from all kinds of lights that maybe what Im doing in looking at just trees, etc, that I need a target of some kind, not a tree or building, but a smaller object.
Maybe then Ill see a difference. Maybe I just need to quit messing with it for a while and take it out after a few days on a nice clear night and find or set up some "targets" at certain distances.

It sure seems like on your gif that they are not all that far off from one another....and the lux ratings would seem to agree.

Maybe my eyes just suck and I dont really need a thrower because I cant see that far anyway...lol.

In any case, your input is greatly appreciated!

Did they update the description of the light after this lens change when you bought it?

Phry said:

Did they update the description of the light after this lens change when you bought it?

Click to expand...

No. Same description and while the picture isnt a direct shot of the lens, its not a picture of the current light.
They make no mention of any changes/updates. The outputs are listed as identical too, which would seem a bit odd, unless its a different LED too, which it could be. Thats why I was asking Surefire directly. I sent an email last night, maybe Ill have better luck that way finding out what changed, and if the specs are accurate. They were great with a few questions I had about the R1 when the battery went South. It takes a bit longer...but the info is generally better.

BTW, the TIR lens is a complete piece, its just more clear in the center, with the ridges that appear on the old lens missing in the center portion of it. When I first got it and was looking it over, it appeared to have nothing there at all, which isnt correct. Id assume it is still doing something with regard to light focusing, just in a different way than the old one did.

There is an old style user M3LT-s in the marketplace for a good price...... http://www.cpfmarketplace.com/mp/showthread.php?307795-M3LT-S-175-Lets-get-this-gone

Thanks Tonkem. That is a good price, and I made sure its no longer available....lol.

I guess I can do my own impromptu test between the old and new version, if I can get my camera set up right.