How bright are the malkoff dropins?

I don't want to be abrasively rude about this, but I do just want to highlight that not knowing the VME head is a sign you probably have very limited experience with Malkoff lights, and the OP should take your opinion with a bit of a grain of salt.
It gives me the impression you probably have little experience (or recent experience) with Malkoff lights, as the VME is one of the 3 main head types for Malkoffs. That means it's a higher chance that your impression of the performance of a Malkoff drop-in might be of a very old model, or is coming from a distant memory.

When you get a Malkoff, you have to decide if you want an e-series ecosystem, or a P60 ecosystem, and the VME is the head that let's you bridge that by using a P60 dropin with an e-series body.
Also, that means you've been missing out on one of the most fun aspects of Malkoff; using random dropins with a single 16340 body (or the AA body with a 14500), haha.

Usually the criticisms of Malkoff come to down the cost, the size, the cost, the relatively narrow selection of emitters, the cost, the lack of a super high peak lumen number on a 5-30 second turbo mode, the cost, and the price. You might be the first person I've heard not impressed with the reflectors. Sure, people complain they're not hot rods melting their emitters to hit an arbitrary and impressive big number, but the actual beam? A novel opinion, and perfectly fine that you feel that way. It's just a very outlier view.


I'd rate the Malkoff dropins as being quite nice. They do an impressive job of being floody with some respectable throw. BUT, because they're a balanced beam, it's easy to find other lights that have more purpose specific reflectors. That doesn't make Malkoff reflectors BAD, it just means they're not in any extreme direction. If you REALLY WANT flood, you can find some other light with more flood, and if you want throw, you can find more lights with more throw. I'd argue they do strike a very good balance of throw and flood. I guess you could argue they're not as deep as they COULD be for their size, but they tend to also be able to maintain their outputs without a stepdown, which most of the "more efficient" lights seem to use.

I mean, let's be honest. Chinese companies aren't custom building reflectors for their $20 wunderlampen, they're using off-the-shelf reflectors of a set size. So, while theoretically they could use a deeper reflector for the same size, most lights of a similar size seem to just use a smaller reflector to decrease the overall size. That's why Malkoffs tend to end up "bigger for their battery size." Similarly set up Chinese lights tend to just have smaller heads with similar performance.

If your argument is that Malkoff lights aren't at the extreme end of the min/max performance equation, I think that's a fair criticism, but that doesn't mean the McLeish reflector is bad. It's constrained by the nature of the product, but I'd argue it's still a very well implemented product.

Malkoff lights are going to win the Lumens Wars or any of the Candela Wars, but they are reliable and predictable, with good performance.


I've had the opposite experience in that I "wasted" a lot of time and money chasing the high number Chinese lights that were smaller and "brighter," only to wind my way back to Malkoff BECAUSE their reflectors create such a nice and balanced beam, AND they can sustain their output so well. I have lights that are multiple times brighter - on paper - than my Malkoffs, and the real world performance isn't a huge difference...so, then the build quality and reliability DOES start to matter. Malkoff doesn't make enthusiast hot rods, he makes reliable lights you can count on and that behave in a predictable way (that's why even the most devout Malkoff acolytes tend to not be in love with even his multi-mode lights).

I'll fully agree they're not the best option if a compact design or absolute highest output are your primary concerns. You get a Malkoff because you want a light that WILL perform well when you need it, and it will KEEP performing, year after year after year, and can be repaired or adjusted to fit the "mission needs" (as tacticool as that sounds, haha).

That all being said, they're definitely "bright enough" that many people buy L, LL, LLL, or even LLLL models of the emitters. It just depends on what you're trying to do with it.
No offense taken. I don't have a huge amount of experience with their lights. But I can tell just by looking at a 6P, that it is a bad design for an LED. And I can see the downsides of an M61, that is trying to make up for those shortcomings. This has nothing to do with whether it works for anybody or not. I'm glad that it works for you. And it works for many people. That still does not mean it's a good design.

If it was built from the ground up, with the same reflector in an E series size light, with the pill threaded directly into the reflector and head, I would think it was a great light.
 
I feel the m60 drop ins work best inside a C series Surefire head. M60 inside a VME or MD head aren't the best looking versus the MDC heads. The lens opening on the MD and VME are too small and causes rings around the beam. Using a unibit and boring out the openings on the VME and MD heads is the best option. The diameter on those are too small. The Nichia 219b drop ins from Illumn are a great example, the beam is so much better/smoother from a wider lens opening such as a surefire C series head. I'm on team MDC because if the reflectors are the same, I'd rather have it in a smaller package. However this is my take on it and what I've noticed over the years that I've Lego'd so many variations. MD needs a bigger reflector and bigger diameter lens opening IMO

He should be using led 5050 footprints on the standard MD size heads along with a bigger reflector for the M60 drop ins. I'm sure Don Mcleish makes bigger reflectors for his larger diameter lights
 
Last edited:
No offense taken. I don't have a huge amount of experience with their lights. But I can tell just by looking at a 6P, that it is a bad design for an LED. And I can see the downsides of an M61, that is trying to make up for those shortcomings. This has nothing to do with whether it works for anybody or not. I'm glad that it works for you. And it works for many people. That still does not mean it's a good design.

If it was built from the ground up, with the same reflector in an E series size light, with the pill threaded directly into the reflector and head, I would think it was a great light.
Oh, thank goodness. I really didn't want to come across as trashing on your view.

You'd probably like the Malkoff e-series (MDC) stuff. It's great, and it IS a bit smaller, but I REALLY love the P60 stuff because swapping emitters around is super fun and useful for those of us who really, really like single mode lights.

If I want a light for my desk, a light for my pocket, a light to walk to the mailbox, a light to walk through the forest, a light for a night hike - I can just reconfigure my heads and bodies to give me exactly what I need at a given moment. It's really, really fantastic. Plus, the Malkoff P60 dropins allow you to use the High/low ring, which is just...the best.

Like I said, I'm not really into the min/max of performance, but I am into the min/max of reliability and durability, so I am more than willing to have a slightly less efficient reflector so I can enjoy the GOOD performance of Malkoff lights with all the versatility the ecosystem affords.

I can't emphasize enough - Malkoff dropins perform WELL. They're not BAD, even though they might not be OPTIMIZED.
I have and Acebeam E75 that's 3000 lumens with multiple 519A emitters, and my 950 lumen neutral XP-L M91BN looks about the same when I'm outside using it. I get a LITTLE more light along the edge with the E75, but I get all the versatility of a Malkoff dropin with the M91BN.

I truly find the Malkoff dropins to have a EXCELLENT balanced reflector. I think Surefire can also make a very well balanced reflector. I have a suspicion your "disappointment" might come from the throw of the reflector, which it is not focused on. But, to be fair to Malkoff, the only lights I have with a TRULY throwy reflector tend to have a massive reflector, or use a lens cover. I have a pair of Acebeam Tac AAs with a head about as big as the VME, and my Surefire EDC1-DFT has just a giant, deep reflector - but, both those lights have impressive performance from those dedicated throwing reflectors. I think the Armytek Wizards and Skilhunt H150 have some of the BEST flood beams around, but they use special lense to achieve that. There are threads around here of people making special filter lenses for Malkoffs (though that didn't seem to take off), and the Wildcat uses such a feature.

For car guys, this reminds me a bit of the "buy a factory built sports car" argument vs. the "supe up your civic" crowd (or, "buy a competition pistol" vs. "customize your Glock"). Obviously, there are gains to be made in buying a performance minded product, BUT there's something to be said about the endless customization of parts, and being able to set things up just the way you like.
 
Oh, thank goodness. I really didn't want to come across as trashing on your view.

You'd probably like the Malkoff e-series (MDC) stuff. It's great, and it IS a bit smaller, but I REALLY love the P60 stuff because swapping emitters around is super fun and useful for those of us who really, really like single mode lights.

If I want a light for my desk, a light for my pocket, a light to walk to the mailbox, a light to walk through the forest, a light for a night hike - I can just reconfigure my heads and bodies to give me exactly what I need at a given moment. It's really, really fantastic. Plus, the Malkoff P60 dropins allow you to use the High/low ring, which is just...the best.

Like I said, I'm not really into the min/max of performance, but I am into the min/max of reliability and durability, so I am more than willing to have a slightly less efficient reflector so I can enjoy the GOOD performance of Malkoff lights with all the versatility the ecosystem affords.

I can't emphasize enough - Malkoff dropins perform WELL. They're not BAD, even though they might not be OPTIMIZED.
I have and Acebeam E75 that's 3000 lumens with multiple 519A emitters, and my 950 lumen neutral XP-L M91BN looks about the same when I'm outside using it. I get a LITTLE more light along the edge with the E75, but I get all the versatility of a Malkoff dropin with the M91BN.

I truly find the Malkoff dropins to have a EXCELLENT balanced reflector. I think Surefire can also make a very well balanced reflector. I have a suspicion your "disappointment" might come from the throw of the reflector, which it is not focused on. But, to be fair to Malkoff, the only lights I have with a TRULY throwy reflector tend to have a massive reflector, or use a lens cover. I have a pair of Acebeam Tac AAs with a head about as big as the VME, and my Surefire EDC1-DFT has just a giant, deep reflector - but, both those lights have impressive performance from those dedicated throwing reflectors. I think the Armytek Wizards and Skilhunt H150 have some of the BEST flood beams around, but they use special lense to achieve that. There are threads around here of people making special filter lenses for Malkoffs (though that didn't seem to take off), and the Wildcat uses such a feature.

For car guys, this reminds me a bit of the "buy a factory built sports car" argument vs. the "supe up your civic" crowd (or, "buy a competition pistol" vs. "customize your Glock"). Obviously, there are gains to be made in buying a performance minded product, BUT there's something to be said about the endless customization of parts, and being able to set things up just the way you like.
The MDC is a really nice looking light. Not a huge fan of the drivers Gene chose for it, but that's semantics. I'm sure they're a fantastic light. Again, I don't have a problem with the reflector in an m61. It makes a good, balanced beam. My "issue" is that it's a small reflector is a largish flashlight. All that wasted area dedicated to all that brass. He wanted to make a p60 drop in that had good sustained output for the platform. Since the stock design has such a poor thermal path, he just made a big heat sink instead. Which was a good solution. At the time. Just think we've moved passed it.

I also get the easy of swapping emitters and reflectors. It's fun. I was really into the whole p60 thing as well 12+ years ago.

Oh and I totally agree. That high/low ring is badass. I think I still prefer the 2 stage surefire tail switch. But, the high/low ring lets you use the wonderful McClicky, so I can't decide which I like more.

And why would anyone customize, or even buy a Glock? Haven't they heard of the 1911?
1728984835602.png
 
And why would anyone customize, or even buy a Glock? Haven't they heard of the 1911?
1911 are more prone to failure vs a Glock. 37 parts (Glock), 58 parts (1911). I would always choose a stock Glock, especially for self defense carry purposes. People who add all these trinkets and funny boy aftermarket parts to their Glock are removing that great reliability feature that a stock Glock are well known for

I do agree that Genes drivers aren't great. He needs a fresh update, and also add LVP considering most of his lights have a voltage of 3.8-9v. Not a fan of running multiple li-ions with no LVP
 
1911 are more prone to failure vs a Glock. 37 parts (Glock), 58 parts (1911). I would always choose a stock Glock, especially for self defense carry purposes. People who add all these trinkets and funny boy stuff to their Glock are removing that great reliability feature that a stock Glock are well known for

I do agree that Genes drivers aren't great. He needs a fresh update, and also add LVP considering most of his lights have a voltage of 3.8-9v. Not a fan of running multiple li-ions with no LVP
I was only joking about the Glock thing. I actually prefer a revolver. Not for any intrinsic safety or reliability issues. I just shoot them better
 
You can't really compare an incandescent to a led. Incandescent throw. That's what they do 60 Lumens of incandescent will throw quite a ways. And led? Not so much. The M61's were meant to be a good combination between throw and flood. And they do a good job of it. A stock Surefire P60 will not even be close to a M61. The throw will be close but the flood will be way brighter.
I think this post (#12) answered the question very well.
I think the OP would be very pleased with an M61 NL versus the P60, especially hours later when the battieries are still putting out a regulated beam.
 
Last edited:
Oh there's no doubt that revolvers are more reliable. Just not why they're my preference. I like the way they feel and shoot
Revolvers are in interesting scenario in that if something goes wrong, it goes very wrong, while failures with auto-loaders are often really easy to remedy.

Timing will ALWAYS eventually get off with a revolver, and that usually requires a professional gunsmith to remedy. If your revolver jams, it's pretty much pistol whipping time. If your auto-loader jams, you just rack the slide and move on in your process.

Auto-loaders typically have to worry about failures to feed (magazine issues), failures to load (usually feed ramp issues), and failures to eject (usually an ammo issue). All firearms can run into failures to fire or squib rounds.

So, while you tend to have more points of failure, they're generally very quick and easy to move past.

For example, the Beretta 92 really is phenomenally reliable. It has a MASSIVE cut in the slide to reduce failures to eject (stovepiping can be a real thing with underloaded ammo), it feeds rounds directly into the barrel, so it doesn't have the feed ramp issues of tilting barrels (like Glocks and 1911s), and it uses a hammer, so it tends to still detonate hard primers (whereas striker fired guns may struggle with them). The 92 also uses the locking mechanism from the Walther P38, so it's really cool.

You also have straight blowback auto-loaders, which eject rounds without needing an extractor. That's fun.

Of course, you can find REALLY fun, gas-operated auto-loading pistols.

I LOVE revolvers, but auto-loaders have definitely proved their reliability, and while I'm not a fan of the ergonomics of Glocks, I don't think anyone can say they're an unreliable firearm - and be taken seriously.
 
Compressed magazine springs eventually wear out.
Sorry my friend, magazine spring compression failure is a MYTH

This was debunked many years ago






 

If it was built from the ground up, with the same reflector in an E series size light, with the pill threaded directly into the reflector and head, I would think it was a great light.
Interesting to note: The well-known modder Tana (of SingLED and TripLED fame) informed me the reflector in the E series doesn't actually focus the entire beam, just the edges. So it's more of a mule with the beam edge pulled into the center.

I tested this by blocking the center of the beam by sliding my finger in from one side and the "hotspot" was still present until my finger blocked out 2/3 of the beam.
 
Yes all reflectors are like this. Put a coin right in the middle of the lens and there is almost no difference in the beam. It's crazy. Someday I'll have to google this and see why that is😂
 
Interesting to note: The well-known modder Tana (of SingLED and TripLED fame) informed me the reflector in the E series doesn't actually focus the entire beam, just the edges. So it's more of a mule with the beam edge pulled into the center.

I tested this by blocking the center of the beam by sliding my finger in from one side and the "hotspot" was still present until my finger blocked out 2/3 of the beam.
Ya my lumens factory led module is like this. Basically a mule. It's why I don't use it
 
Sorry my friend, magazine spring compression failure is a MYTH

This was debunked many years ago






Literally seen it happen a few times. Keep in mind, I volunteer as a firearms instructor. Though the main culprit seems to be very cheap magazines from those wanting to save a buck. Human nature being what it is.... Thousands for the best pistol, pennies for the holster and any spare magazines.

Though, will admit, not as bad as a person who can't figure out why his pistol won't fire.... "There's your problem, your firing pin is broken. How long have you been carrying this?"

Also, if someone tells you no human-being is capable of snapping a metal belt buckle apart, you laugh at them and show them mine; from literally two days ago. (And no, that was not intentional.)
 

Attachments

  • brokenbuckle.jpg
    brokenbuckle.jpg
    445.7 KB · Views: 21
Literally seen it happen a few times. Keep in mind, I volunteer as a firearms instructor.

While I've never volunteered as a firearms instructor, I've been shooting since I was 8 (1972), hunting since I was 12 (1976), and have held CCW's since I was 21 (1985).

I also was attached to Tactical (SWAT) Teams for over 25 years, as a TEMS Medic, having shot and trained with them.

I also have introduced hundreds of people to firearms over the years and have assisted many of them when they encountered "problems", both equipment and training issues.

I've never had/seen magazine compression failure but have (as you say) seen failures of "cheap" magazines, unrelated to spring compression failure.

Spring compression failure was debunked many years ago.

Though the main culprit seems to be very cheap magazines from those wanting to save a buck. Human nature being what it is.... Thousands for the best pistol, pennies for the holster and any spare magazines.

See above

I do agree with you about cheap magazines, and cheap firearms.

I've seen many "problems" with those.

Also, if someone tells you no human-being is capable of snapping a metal belt buckle apart, you laugh at them and show them mine; from literally two days ago. (And no, that was not intentional.)

LOL, I can only imagine, my friend.

Hope all is well with you.
 
Top