Wurkkos

HDS Systems EDC #14

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hogokansatsukan

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 14, 2006
Messages
5,034
Location
Tucson
Nice review Chris.
One of the things I like about the HDS lights, is simply how tough they are. Henry takes the same design and just keeps making that stronger by literally beating the hell out of his light until something breaks, then he fixes that "weak link", and continues to beat the snot out of the new light until something breaks, then that gets fixed as well. After years of doing this, I don't think there is a tougher light out there. I much prefer this to a different "style" light that needs all the bugs worked out.
This one example, and forgive me as I posted these pictures in another thread, but thought this thread might be more appropriate for the photos.
Step back in time with me if you will, to the Arc4 and HDS 42. No bezel ring on these. While gently throwing the light as hard as one could on to cement, this lack of a bezel ring left the end prone to damage. Next generation of the light (Novatac 120), had a bezel ring to help prevent this damage, and the people rejoiced. This was not enough, as the next generation (Ra Twisty), had a serious bezel ring on it, the same we see today on the Clickies and Rotaries. This is the easiest transition to see, but there are many more. The threads became squared and stronger. The battery spring went away. Positive contact springs were added. Then there are those things we don't see. The big improvements in the electronics of the light.
Now for the show:
This is a clicky that was shot at 7 yards with a .380 Walther PPK/S. Was hit with a 90 grain bullet cast in linotype (harder than factor FMJ i.e. more penetration).
P1017102.jpg


Yes, the lens broke.

P1017103.jpg


But the light still works.

P1017104.jpg


The light did fly around 15-20 yards when hit.

Henry had asked me to shoot his lights to see how well they would handle that kind of abuse. It cerainly goes to show what kind of testing he puts his lights through.
 

Kgp

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Messages
170
beamshots.png


These were taken with the lights approximated 5 feet from the wall. The Rotary isn't quite as smooth or white as the L4, but it's noticeably brighter.

That beam looks terrible. My p4 is smooth as can be. I think going to cree was a step backwards. HDS used to have the best tints and smoothest beams ever. Now I cant say the same. I just happy with my high cri.
 

bondr006

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2007
Messages
2,083
Location
Cary, NC - Land of the CREE
That beam looks terrible. My p4 is smooth as can be. I think going to cree was a step backwards. HDS used to have the best tints and smoothest beams ever. Now I cant say the same. I just happy with my high cri.

I do not believe it is cree that is the problem. I have several xpg r-5 lights that are just as smooth as butter with beautiful tints. I believe the problem lies in the design of the reflector on the new HDS lights. My rotary looks just like the picture above. My new T-200 clicky is a little better but similar. My Thrunite XPG R-5 drop-in has no rings or artifacts. My Zebralight SC51 with XPG R-5 has no rings or artifacts. My Nitecore IFE2 with XPG R-5 has no rings or artifacts. My Nitecore EX11.2 with XPG R-5 has no rings or artifacts.
 
Last edited:

derfyled

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 29, 2006
Messages
1,058
Location
Canada
That beam looks terrible. My p4 is smooth as can be. I think going to cree was a step backwards. HDS used to have the best tints and smoothest beams ever. Now I cant say the same. I just happy with my high cri.

Well said. I think that the reflector should be redesigned.
 

bondr006

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2007
Messages
2,083
Location
Cary, NC - Land of the CREE
To support my statements in post #1586 above....here are some comparison shots. All shot on max outputs. All shot at the same distance. And all shot at the same camera settings just a few minutes ago. These are just 4 of my other XPG R-5 lights that are smooth as butter. If these manufacturers can design a reflector that gives a smooth beam; why can't Henry with the new XPG R-5 HDS lights?

Thrunite XPG R-5 drop-in
1Thrunitexpgr-5.jpg


Nitecore IFE2 XPG R-5
2IFE2xpgr-5.jpg


Nitecore EX11.2 XPG R-5
3EX112xpgr-5.jpg


ZL SC51 XPG R-5
4ZLSC51xpgr-5.jpg


HDS T-200 Clicky XPG R-5
6HDST-200clicky.jpg


HDS Rotary XPG R-5
5HDSRotary.jpg
 

P_A_S_1

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
1,272
Location
NYC
Henry had asked me to shoot his lights to see how well they would handle that kind of abuse. It cerainly goes to show what kind of testing he puts his lights through.

Pretty cool indeed! Wonder how it would fair against multiple hits to the bezel or even one to the head below the bezel? (and no I'm not volunteering my light to find out ;))
 

Chris201W

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 27, 2005
Messages
340
Location
MA
That beam looks terrible. My p4 is smooth as can be. I think going to cree was a step backwards. HDS used to have the best tints and smoothest beams ever. Now I cant say the same. I just happy with my high cri.

I think "terrible" is an exaggeration, but you're right, the Rotaries seem to have significantly worse beams than older HDS lights. It could certainly be reflector design, but really it's anyone's guess. Perhaps Henry or a third party will come out with an improved reflector at some point in the future. That might be wishful thinking.

Regardless, I wouldn't get hung up on the ring around the periphery of the beam. It's obvious against a white wall, but easy to ignore in actual use. I'm a perfectionist by nature, so things like this tend to bug me, especially on an otherwise perfect (and expensive) light. The world isn't perfect, though, so why get hung up on everything that isn't quite right? If you'd like to see a beam that really is terrible, I could post a beamshot of my A2 Aviator, on high or low, but that's nothing new.
 

gottawearshades

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
957
So, I've been keeping up with this thread for quite some time, waiting for news that Henry is caught up with demand.

I've been trying to just tune out all the people who are so upset with the beam comming from the XPG is ugly. I think these people should be in therapy, but that is just my opinion (I'm right, though).

Now, I see someone who is so unhappy with his flashlight, he shot it.

This moves the goalpost of being too neurotic about your flashlights. I mean, you're not just unhappy with the beam, but you actually see it as a threat.
 

wacbzz

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 1, 2006
Messages
1,493
Location
North of the South
This is a clicky that was shot at 7 yards with a .380 Walther PPK/S. Was hit with a 90 grain bullet cast in linotype (harder than factor FMJ i.e. more penetration).
P1017102.jpg


...Henry had asked me to shoot his lights to see how well they would handle that kind of abuse. It cerainly goes to show what kind of testing he puts his lights through.

While it seems "dramatic" that the light withstood being shot with the .380, you did shoot it in the top part of the removable and totally non-important part of the light.

Shoot the light in the body and then turn it on.

Then you, and by default, HDS, will have something there. ;)
 

Kgp

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Messages
170
I think "terrible" is an exaggeration, but you're right, the Rotaries seem to have significantly worse beams than older HDS lights. It could certainly be reflector design, but really it's anyone's guess. Perhaps Henry or a third party will come out with an improved reflector at some point in the future. That might be wishful thinking.

Regardless, I wouldn't get hung up on the ring around the periphery of the beam. It's obvious against a white wall, but easy to ignore in actual use. I'm a perfectionist by nature, so things like this tend to bug me, especially on an otherwise perfect (and expensive) light. The world isn't perfect, though, so why get hung up on everything that isn't quite right? If you'd like to see a beam that really is terrible, I could post a beamshot of my A2 Aviator, on high or low, but that's nothing new.
Yes, maybe "terrible" isnt the word I was looking for. I just expect so much more from a hds light, or any other 200.00 light. I have been a HDS supporter for quite some time. I have had a couple of the p4 lights and I just cant say enough good things about the tints and beam profiles. They are close to what I consider "perfect"

I, not like the majority, would sacrifice lumens for quality. Thats just me though.
 

Hogokansatsukan

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 14, 2006
Messages
5,034
Location
Tucson
While it seems "dramatic" that the light withstood being shot with the .380, you did shoot it in the top part of the removable and totally non-important part of the light.

Shoot the light in the body and then turn it on.

Then you, and by default, HDS, will have something there. ;)

Consider the shock the entire light took. Some think a good test is dropping the light repeatedly from 10 feet. The shock of those drops comes no where close to the over 200 ft/lbs this light recieved. And I have shot the lights in the body, at the junction of the bezel and head, at the junction of the head and battery tube. From a .22 rifle, the light did very well. 9mm carbine zips right through the aluminum but then a 124 grain bullet at over 1500 fps... one can't expect anything but to zip through aluminum with that.
 

P_A_S_1

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
1,272
Location
NYC
Consider the shock the entire light took. Some think a good test is dropping the light repeatedly from 10 feet. The shock of those drops comes no where close to the over 200 ft/lbs this light recieved. And I have shot the lights in the body, at the junction of the bezel and head, at the junction of the head and battery tube. From a .22 rifle, the light did very well. 9mm carbine zips right through the aluminum but then a 124 grain bullet at over 1500 fps... one can't expect anything but to zip through aluminum with that.

What was the result after the .22? Did the light still work? Do you have any other pictures of the light afterwards, I'd like to see the damage.
 

Shooter21

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
744
Location
Long Island
Do you guys know where i can find a video on enabling customization? i followed the manual but it didn't work. thanks in advance.
 

P_A_S_1

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
1,272
Location
NYC
Do you guys know where i can find a video on enabling customization? i followed the manual but it didn't work. thanks in advance.

I've looked through many HDS videos and have never seen anyone actually demonstrate the process. The actual process once you do it a few times becomes very easy. If i tried to explain to someone the process who is not familiar with the light they always comment on how complicated it seems. But it really isn't, just need to do it a few times and it becomes easy.
 

Shooter21

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
744
Location
Long Island
I've looked through many HDS videos and have never seen anyone actually demonstrate the process. The actual process once you do it a few times becomes very easy. If i tried to explain to someone the process who is not familiar with the light they always comment on how complicated it seems. But it really isn't, just need to do it a few times and it becomes easy.
maybe someone here can make a video i tried a few times but no luck
 

the.Mtn.Man

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
2,483
While it seems "dramatic" that the light withstood being shot with the .380, you did shoot it in the top part of the removable and totally non-important part of the light.

Shoot the light in the body and then turn it on.

Then you, and by default, HDS, will have something there. ;)

The light survives a direct hit from a bullet, and yet he still finds something to complain about. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top