4sevens Maelstrom G5 or Quark Turbo 123/2?

[ACRbling]

Hey all,

I think I'm going to pull the trigger on another 4sevens light. It'll be my 4th :thumbsup:

I already have the 123/2T in R2, R5 and R4 NW. I can't seem to get enough of these lights. Perfect size, looks and performance.

Well at first I was thinking of building a turbo model with the 3-9v head, 18650 body and flat tactical turbo tail. 49+25+12= $86

Then I considered buying the 123/2 Turbo as a whole and also purchase the 18650 body + flat tactical turbo tail. 75+25+12= $112

Theeennn I figured for a few more bucks, wouldn't it be a better decision to get a Maelstrom G5?!

Does the performance difference between the two models justify the cost difference? If the G5 had the tactical UI of the turbo model, this would be a no brainer for me..

 

[tre]

Maelstrom will throw farther and puts out a few more lumens. I am fairly certain quark parts will not work on a maelstrom. That means no flat tail cap on a maelstrom which it sounds like you want. To me the maelstrom is worth the extra $. New updated interface is great too. Also, you can find a maelstrom for less than $112 if you buy from a dealer and use a cpf discount.

 

[paulr]

Maelstrom seemed too big/heavy and had too much crap in the UI. A version with the Quark 2-level tactical UI would interest me more too.

 

[LEDburn]

Maelstrom will throw farther and puts out a few more lumens. I am fairly certain quark parts will not work on a maelstrom. That means no flat tail cap on a maelstrom which it sounds like you want. To me the maelstrom is worth the extra $. New updated interface is great too. Also, you can find a maelstrom for less than $112 if you buy from a dealer and use a cpf discount.

What exactly is this new updated interface?

 

[pjandyho]

What exactly is this new updated interface?

The new interface now comes in max, high, medium, and moon mode on the second set of controls.

The previous one was high, medium, low, and moon mode.

 

[tre]

The new interface now comes in max, high, medium, and moon mode on the second set of controls.

The previous one was high, medium, low, and moon mode.

Exactly. Max was previously olny available on set one with strobe, beacon, and other stuff we will not use. Now there is no reason to switch between sets. At this point all you need is a quarter twist of the head to switch between levels. No more switching between sets.

While the maelstrom is only very slightly larger than an Eagletac t20c2, jetbem rrt2, or quark turbo, it noticeably has more throw and brightness than all - very noticeably

 

[ti-force]

G5 vs Turbo 123-2:

Click here for more info and additional beamshots.

 

[ACRbling]

Thanks for the input guys!

Ti-force, that's quite a difference in throw. The g5 also lights up the surrounding area nicely. Awesome.

 

[ti-force]

Quite a difference indeed :thumbsup:. Do keep in mind that these images are overexposed some, so the lights actually appear brighter in the images than they do in actual use. I've found that I have to do that to show the entire beam pattern, and to keep noise out of the images. Just thought I'd tell you; don't want to mislead anyone


123-2 Turbo vs 123-2 XP-E R2

123-2 Turbo vs 123-2 XP-G R3 (NW tint)

 

[ACRbling]

Thanks again for the help ti-force :thumbsup:

Do you think the g5 with a nw r4 swap would ruin it's throwy beam profile?

 

[nathan225]

I would get the maelstrom. I got one and its great I love it

 

[ti-force]

Thanks again for the help ti-force :thumbsup:

Do you think the g5 with a nw r4 swap would ruin it's throwy beam profile?

All things being equal, it shouldn't. You should mostly notice the tint difference, but you would be dropping down one flux bin (from r5 to r4) so you could loose some lumens, plus warm and neutral white emitters aren't as efficient as cool white emitters, but all and all I think you would be much happier if you're after the NW tint that the r4 emitter can provide.

If you really wanted a thrower, you could swap an XP-E in there :naughty:, but that would cause a loss of some spill/flood. The XP-E Turbo warm white emitter light below makes a good deal less OTF than the XP-G Turbo cool white light, but you can see how the hotspot is much smaller :naughty:



AA-2 Turbo XP-G R5 vs AA-2 Turbo XP-E P3 7A-7D (Custom Warm White):

 

[ACRbling]

Yeah I figured since the nw r4 and cw r5's were the same die, they should have similar beam profiles. But on my 123/2's, the nw r4 is much floodier with a larger hotspot, compared to the r5.

So is swapping the emitter as simple as unsoldering, applying thermal glue and resoldering leads?

Haha, haven't even ordered the light yet and I'm already planning to mod it.

Thaaaanks

 

[ti-force]

I've seen the same thing before and I think it may be a difference in focal length with the reflector. I'm not sure it that's what it is, but it's all I can think of.

As far as modding a G5, I haven't actually removed the emitter from one, but I wouldn't think there would be much to it. Separate the head, remove the plastic piece that's used to center the emitter, unsolder the leads, then you should be able to remove the MCPCB. My experience with Quarks has been that they don't use glue for the MCPCB, but rather a thermal paste. I'm assuming this holds true for the G5, but I'm not certain. Remove the XP-G R5 CW emitter and re-flow solder your XP-G R4 NW emitter to the MCPCB, then place the board back in the light with some thermal paste under it (I normally use Arctic Silver 5 thermal paste, but the standard Arctic Alumina thermal paste should work just fine), re-solder the leads and reassemble, then you're good to go.

 

[jcalvert]

Hey all,

I think I'm going to pull the trigger on another 4sevens light. It'll be my 4th :thumbsup:

I already have the 123/2T in R2, R5 and R4 NW. I can't seem to get enough of these lights. Perfect size, looks and performance.

Well at first I was thinking of building a turbo model with the 3-9v head, 18650 body and flat tactical turbo tail. 49+25+12= $86

Then I considered buying the 123/2 Turbo as a whole and also purchase the 18650 body + flat tactical turbo tail. 75+25+12= $112

Theeennn I figured for a few more bucks, wouldn't it be a better decision to get a Maelstrom G5?!

Does the performance difference between the two models justify the cost difference? If the G5 had the tactical UI of the turbo model, this would be a no brainer for me..

To ACRbling,

I just received the newest version of the G5 on Thursday and it qualifies to me as what I consider a "medium-small" torch which I carry with a Nite-Ize 360 degree holster. It's now my "night busting" thrower in this size category by far (17k+ lux).

A couple days ago, I put together a request in the "LED Flashlight" sub forum for:
"HELP!!! Newbie's searching for a 1x/2x CR123A/RCR123A/1x 18650 4"-5" EDC Flashlight".
Other than the multitude of criteria I put together for this type of light, length is the primary focus I'm asking for help with.

Anyway, on my own current short list for this search includes the Quark 123/2 Turbo. With the designs, features and functions being pretty equal, to help you make a decision, I put together a short, rudimentary comparison list for you.

Maelstrom G5
1. 350 lumens
2. takes all the requisite batteries
3. 6" long & 5ozs.
4. $110.00 at Planet Optiics w/ free U.S. shipping

Quark 123/2 Turbo
1. 230 lumens
2. CR123 Primary batteries only
3. 4.9" & 2.8ozs.
4. $75 through 4Sevens (haven't price shopped yet)

Now, all you have to do is factor in whether customizing the Turbo into an 18650 light is worth it!

Since I'm neither a techie nor a flashoholic, the G5 is a no brainer for me as a holstered torch at 1.1" longer & 2.2ozs more than the Turbo. But, for me the Turbo may end up being my choice in the 4"-5" cargo/carpenter jeans/coat pocket EDC category.

I hope this helps!

BTW, I can't seem to find a spell check above the window when doing these replies. Am I missing it? Or where is it. (I am so accustomed to MS WORD's functions.)

All the best,
John

 

[ti-force]

BTW, I can't seem to find a spell check above the window when doing these replies. Am I missing it? Or where is it. (I am so accustomed to MS WORD's functions.)

Don't know of a spell checker here, but you would LOVE Google Chrome. It spell checks for you everywhere you type :thumbsup:.

 

[ACRbling]

Jcalvert,

Thanks for your input! I've made my choice and I'm going with the g5:devil:

As for the spell check, I don't think you have anything to worry about. I actually read your previous thread asking about a 1-2 cr123 light. As I was reading, I swear I recall thinking to myself, "this guy has serious writing skills!"

Ti-force,

I actually think the g5 would be easier to mod then the smaller quarks. The head comes apart easily and there's probably more space to work with.

As far as reflow soldering, I don't have access to a reflow solder station, so that's out of the question. I think I'm going to borrow the mcpcb+led from my 123/2 and try it out.

How do you accomplish your reflow soldering? I've seen the oven technique, but it seems a little iffy to me.

 

[jcalvert]

Don't know of a spell checker here, but you would LOVE Google Chrome. It spell checks for you everywhere you type :thumbsup:.

First, I apologize to ARCbling for getting your thread off topic. I promise this is my last post away from your original question.

So ti-force, you would think with all options that are provided for what is basically word processing, spell check would be provided.

So would Google Chrome help here and how does it work? (You only really need to respond if it's less complicated than WORD. Because I could just draft my replies on WORD, use spell check, and then copy & paste or cut & paste.)

Thanks!

John

 

[ti-force]

First, I apologize to ARCbling for getting your thread off topic. I promise this is my last post away from your original question.

So ti-force, you would think with all options that are provided for what is basically word processing, spell check would be provided.

So would Google Chrome help here and how does it work? (You only really need to respond if it's less complicated than WORD. Because I could just draft my replies on WORD, use spell check, and then copy & paste or cut & paste.)

Thanks!

John

I agree, LOL... If you care to talk more about this after this post, I'd be more than willing to discuss through pm's, but basically, Google Chrome is an internet browser just like IE or FireFox (just in case you didn't know). The spell check feature may not work perfectly on every webpage, but so far I haven't noticed it not working. It doesn't really help you with word placement, but it does help you with spelling.

The spell checking is done instantly; once the last letter and a space is entered, the browser checks the spelling automatically, and any word that's not recognized will be automatically underlined with a red line. It would look like this:

 

[ACRbling]

No worries! Talk in here all you want!