The Malkoff Front Porch

[md17]

Matt you should delete this photo, it shows your address. This place is crawling with bots, and scammers!
.... I will delete mine afterwards..

I am an idiot. Thank you.

 

[knucklegary]

I am an idiot. Thank you.

Kathy puts a nice personal touch to our purchases with her hand notes 👍

 

[Monocrom]

Kathy puts a nice personal touch to our purchases with her hand notes 👍

Yes, what she does is definitely appreciated.

 

[HermodsRide]

Welp, This is neato. May actually get one now.

MDC XP-L 16650 3 Mode Flashlight – Malkoff Devices

Hard Anodized Black MDC 16650 (2CR123 Sized) 800-900 lumen Flashlight. This is a tailcap switch activated multimode light. The Modes are Low-Med-High. It always comes on in Low. It will easily illuminate objects at 350+ feet and will blind opponents within a 100 foot radius. The LED is a Cool...

malkoffdevices.com

 

[rgcurrey]

Welp, This is neato. May actually get one now.

MDC XP-L 16650 3 Mode Flashlight – Malkoff Devices

Hard Anodized Black MDC 16650 (2CR123 Sized) 800-900 lumen Flashlight. This is a tailcap switch activated multimode light. The Modes are Low-Med-High. It always comes on in Low. It will easily illuminate objects at 350+ feet and will blind opponents within a 100 foot radius. The LED is a Cool...

malkoffdevices.com

Saw that today and started to wonder if it could replace my MDC HA TAC. Unfortunately , I got the TAC as I like the high on first and this is low first. Who knows though, I guess maybe in a couple months I can contact them and see if they could do a one of with the High first.

 

[NH Lumens]

FYI - Lumens Factory makes a nice 18650 body that accepts E-series heads (including Malkoff EDC heads) and tailcaps.

Here's one with a Modlite Legacy head (850 lumens | 44,000 candela) with a E2T Tactican style McClicky tailcap;

 

[HermodsRide]

FYI - Lumens Factory makes a nice 18650 body that accepts E-series heads (including Malkoff EDC heads) and tailcaps.

Here's one with a Modlite Legacy head (850 lumens | 44,000 candela) with a E2T Tactican style McClicky tailcap;

View attachment 54453

That looks nice! How long does it normally take to get items from LF?

 

[scalpel_ninja]

That looks nice! How long does it normally take to get items from LF?

My order got to me within 4 days, from Hong Kong to Los Angeles. That's why the shipping is expensive.

I have one of those 18650 E series bodies and clip as shown. Honestly, the body was a bit disappointing in that the walls are thinner than expected and feels flimsy compared to the stock SureFire bodies. Lumens Factory says no use of protected cells because the diameter is really tight. I think they could have afforded to machine a larger bore and thicker walls. The knurling is also too slick for my tastes.

 

[F89]

Thicker walls wouldn't help. A larger bore makes it even worse where it counts.
The bodies are restricted by the size of the head attachment of E series.
The only way to beef up the threads would be to have a shelf at the head end (which would likely require a lengthy spring on the head to bridge the gap) and non E series tail cap whereby the battery is inserted via the tail cap end.

I'm not a fan of E series bodies bored to larger diameters either. Has to be CR123/16340/16650 for me.

Malkoff designed an option which keeps the battery inserted via the head end, but it requires an adapter type piece which looks to have a contact in place to bridge the gap I mentioned.

 

[scalpel_ninja]

Thicker walls wouldn't help. A larger bore makes it even worse where it counts.
The bodies are restricted by the size of the head attachment of E series.
The only way to beef up the threads would be to have a shelf at the head end (which would likely require a lengthy spring on the head to bridge the gap) and non E series tail cap whereby the battery is inserted via the tail cap end.

I'm not a fan of E series bodies bored to larger diameters either. Has to be CR123/16340/16650 for me.

Malkoff designed an option which keeps the battery inserted via the head end, but it requires an adapter type piece which looks to have a contact in place to bridge the gap I mentioned.

Ah, thanks for the explanation. I'm happy sticking with the stock SureFire bodies and using 16650s wherever I can.

 

[F89]

Ah, thanks for the explanation. I'm happy sticking with the stock SureFire bodies and using 16650s wherever I can.

Me too.
The E series form is such a great one. I'd like to see it continue to be supported.

 

[NH Lumens]

FWIW, in my dealings with LF I've had zero issues with these bodies.

Yes, the wall is thinner but it's also made of 7075-T6 which is a very strong alloy. In combination with Malkoff heads (which complete the circuit through the threads, not on the front edge), these bodies have operated flawlessly. The machining and finish on these bodies is as good as anything from Malkoff or Surefire. If you need to use your flashlight as a hammer these are not the best choice, but they are WAY strong enough to handle the rigors of normal flashlight use.

The 2-cell E2 body is long enough to accept an 18650 protected button top. The critical dimension is the inside diameter and cells with an O.D. greater than 18.5 mm will drop into the body. That said, I have used both Keeppower and Orbtronic 18650 3500 mAh protected cells that fit and operate without issue. Any IMR 18650 (single wrapped) will drop right in.

The E1 18350 has the same 18.5 mm I.D. but the length is a bit short for use with a protected cell. But once again an IMR 18350 flat top fits perfectly. I use these and have found them to be excellent.

If you're looking to maintain the classic E-series format but would like longer run time (or greater current capacity vs. a 16340 or 16650), these LF bodies are IMO a great way to accomplish that.

 

[F89]

I'm sure they're ok. I have a bit of LF stuff and it's quite nice, I wouldn't say the machining and finish is better than Surefire or Malkoff though.
For my use there's no need for greater capacity and definitely no need for higher draw current than what a 16340 or 16650 can achieve.
If I want more current and capacity then I'm going for a bigger light or other platform.
I'm not against solutions that fit an 18350 or 18650 into an E series, but it's not for me.

The extra strength of 7075-T6 wouldn't compensate for the thin threads would it? I'm guessing a stock Surefire is stronger.

Have you torture tested your Malkoff/LF combos?
I'm sure the Malkoff heads would survive with some dings and scratches but I wouldn't be surprised if one of the LF bodies snapped at the threads, more likely on the 18650 bodies but possibly not out of the question on the 18350.
I'm not talking crazy stuff, just drop and throw from reasonable heights, distances, and velocities that a light may likely be exposed to.

A titanium body would be cool, and likely more durable. I'm sure it'd be expensive and possibly not that generally appealing.
I'd try one in 18350/18650.

 

[NH Lumens]

Have you torture tested your Malkoff/LF combos?
I'm sure the Malkoff heads would survive with some dings and scratches but I wouldn't be surprised if one of the LF bodies snapped at the threads, more likely on the 18650 bodies but possibly not out of the question on the 18350.
I'm not talking crazy stuff, just drop and throw from reasonable heights, distances, and velocities that a light may likely be exposed to.

So, have you actually seen the Lumens Factory body fail that way?

 

[F89]

So, have you actually seen the Lumens Factory body fail that way?

Not the LF in particular but there's been stories of bored ones breaking on here in the past.
Even a well manufactured or bored body will be super thin at the threads.

That's why I asked if you've tested them?

 

[NH Lumens]

Not the LF in particular but there's been stories of bored ones breaking on here in the past.
Even a well manufactured or bored body will be super thin at the threads.

That's why I asked if you've tested them?

OK, no documented cases of these specific LF bodies breaking - that's good to hear.

Perhaps the stories you've heard were bodies that were designed and manufactured as 16 mm bodies then "bored out" with unknown machining quality (concentricity, run out, etc.) by a third party to accept 18 mm cells. IMO, this is not an apples-to-apples comparison to a body designed and manufactured to be an 18 mm body from the get-go.

In terms of testing, what would be relevant? Throwing it against a brick wall? Running it over with a truck?

I've carried lights using these bodies for years with zero issues. They've been dropped on concrete from shoulder height while firing a pistol at an indoor range, rolled off a car hood onto pavement, even landed in the bottom of a swimming pool with no water incursion. I've sat on them when carrying in a back pants pocket. They've been used as EDC flashlights get used with no structural failure of the body.

Document a case where this LF body has failed as you describe and I'll be happy to revisit the discussion.

 

[knucklegary]

Many times those broken 6P bore jobs are due to the tail threads (mainly the oring groove) not machined concentric with battery bore.
LF designs the E bodies for 18mm bore size, and made of 7075, same stuff they make aircraft landing gear components. Just saying..

 

[F89]

OK, no documented cases of these specific LF bodies breaking - that's good to hear.

Perhaps the stories you've heard were bodies that were designed and manufactured as 16 mm bodies then "bored out" with unknown machining quality (concentricity, run out, etc.) by a third party to accept 18 mm cells. IMO, this is not an apples-to-apples comparison to a body designed and manufactured to be an 18 mm body from the get-go.

In terms of testing, what would be relevant? Throwing it against a brick wall? Running it over with a truck?

I've carried lights using these bodies for years with zero issues. They've been dropped on concrete from shoulder height while firing a pistol at an indoor range, rolled off a car hood onto pavement, even landed in the bottom of a swimming pool with no water incursion. I've sat on them when carrying in a back pants pocket. They've been used as EDC flashlights get used with no structural failure of the body.

Document a case where this LF body has failed as you describe and I'll be happy to revisit the discussion.

So from what you're saying, you haven't specifically tested them but you've been happy with their durability based on the drops and knocks you've experienced while EDCing them.

I think there's a reason why Malkoff designed his 18650 body the way he did and why Surefire created a different design for their dual fuel lights like the EDC1/2-DF Turbo.
The reason being that the walls behind the threads are super thin on an E series compatible light when using 18mm cells without using an alternative design.

I'm positive I could break one but it may well be the case that the abuse required would be excessive to what should reasonably be expected?
I won't be testing one, so unless the manufacturer or retailers have, I won't be documenting anything.

 

[F89]

Many times those broken 6P bore jobs are due to the tail threads (mainly the oring groove) not machined concentric with battery bore.
LF designs the E bodies for 18mm bore size, and made of 7075, same stuff they make aircraft landing gear components. Just saying..

An accurately done bore, preferably done upon initial manufacture is ideal but you can't engineer around the limits of the design. That being the limitation of the available material left over at the E series head end to fit an 18mm battery.
7075 will be stronger (less than double 6061?) but those walls at the threads are just so thin.

Aircraft landing gear and thin E series threads are very different things even when similar or same materials are used.

I'm not trying to rattle any cages here, just saying that I don't like the thin walls at the head end of these bodies. I know others have expressed similar concerns.

 

[NH Lumens]

I'm positive I could break one but it may well be the case that the abuse required would be excessive to what should reasonably be expected?

Precisely.

Your concern about durability is certainly a valid one. But in regards to impact resistance, what should be the measure of durability for a flashlight?

The ANSI FL1 standard addresses this. While some may argue the validity of the testing standard, it is nonetheless a bona fide standard that flashlight manufacturers are supposed to use for their testing.

Here is the description of the ANSI/PLATO FL1 impact testing (original document here);

Impact Resistance

Products are dropped onto a concrete surface with all their intended parts and additions, including batteries, hand straps, etc. Minimum drop height is one meter.

• Higher drop heights can be used for testing and product claims;however, any product claiming a drop height different than 1 must meet all passing requirements listed below:
• Each sample is dropped 6 times using impact orientations that approximate a cube.
• Each sample must be released on each orientation of the approximated cube.
• Samples must be marked prior to the drop test in a manner that can assure that all 6 drop orientations are tested.
• Samples shall be in the "off" position with batteries in place.
• The test sample is held in the desired orientation with its lowest part at the correct height. Drop the sample onto the impact surface.
• No additional impetus shall be given to the sample other than the acceleration due to gravity.
• The sample shall be allowed to come to rest after each drop.

I will conduct a test to this standard using a single, fully functional light assembled with the LF E2 body. For the testing I will make the following changes to the testing protocol;

• The light will be dropped six times using the cube approach (dropping the light head down, tailcap down, level, etc.) as per the protocol.
• The light will then be dropped six more times at a 45-degree angle with the head facing downward. This will result in six strikes that specifically target the LF body head threads with shear force.
• Since the lights are marketed as self-defense lights and are intended to be held at shoulder to eye-level height using the FBI, Harries or Rogers-Surefire hold, I will use five feet as the drop height.

Since this is going to cost me money (taking product out of inventory and making it unsalable), I will document the testing and use it as marketing collateral. I've already conducted the IPX7 water testing at one meter for 30 minutes on these lights, but will conduct that test again after the impact testing.

I think this would be an honest and objective evaluation, and put to rest any concern about the practical durability of the LF bodies and the lights assembled with them.