IMR and surefire lights

Per Arne

Enlightened
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
276
Location
Norway
Hi,

If going rechargable, I think I would chose the protected 18650 Li-ion 3.7V - 2200mAh way, because of the longer runtime. I've also read somewhere here on CPF that the 18650 would maybe soon be in 2500mAh...

LeefGear has some nice tubes but I would recommend surefire bezel and tailcaps. LeefGear had some tailcaps but they are hard to find. Try www.lighthound.com.

PA
 

RyanA

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 16, 2007
Messages
1,621
Location
Rhode Island
Seconded, the IMRs are more useful in situations where you need more current (for example you need lots of volts with a high amp draw and don't care about runtime, all in a small package), but regular Li-ions have better capacity (lots of volts, with improved runtime in a small package with low current demands). No one battery is best. It's a bit of a balancing act between voltage, discharge rates and capacity.
 

ampdude

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 7, 2007
Messages
4,532
Location
USA
I would go with the IMR's. They use a safe chemistry, unlike the black label lithium ions. So you don't have to worry about them bursting 1300F flame in any particular direction. And the IMR's are more versatile, in case you want to use a high drain setup as well. And they don't need a protection circuit, which makes them thinner and more reliable. The little bit of extra runtime on a low drain setup the lithium ions may have is just not worth it for me. If I want more runtime, I'll use primaries! Way better than lithium ions. IMR is the way to go.
 
Last edited:

conan1911

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
64
Location
Fountain Valley
I cant pretend to know all the other items you are speaking of but when it comes to SureFire....you get the point.

First, the 660 is not at all like a 6P the only thing that is the same is the fact that it uses two batteries and the same lamp. That would be like putting a Mustang engine in a Festiva and saying it is the same thing. They serve very different purposes.

Second, using Lithium-Ion batteries with a the P60 will blow it. See it all the time.

Third, years ago we did have an adapter to make a Classic series weaponlight rechargeable. (A13) Of course this means using the SureFire B65. The reason we quit showing this was rechargeable isnt reliable from a tactical standpoint. Example, if a LE officer has a 660 in his/her trunk and isnt diligent to insure it is constantly charged they may go into a situation ill prepared. BTW, we do still have a few left.

I hope this helps.


Stuart@surefire
 

signal 13

Enlightened
Joined
Jun 28, 2008
Messages
291
years ago we did have an adapter to make a Classic series weaponlight rechargeable. (A13) Of course this means using the SureFire B65. The reason we quit showing this was rechargeable isnt reliable from a tactical standpoint. Example, if a LE officer has a 660 in his/her trunk and isnt diligent to insure it is constantly charged they may go into a situation ill prepared.

Stuart@surefire

Good advice...this is exactly why I chose to use the Malkoff M60 in my SF M95 weaponlight on my rifle instead of using LiIons w/ the M30.
 

nzgunnie

Enlightened
Joined
Nov 19, 2005
Messages
886
Location
New Zealand
I'd suggest you stick with the P90, it will be plenty bright enough, but being SF it is designed to be used in the Z32 bezel, and will run just fine one either the AWRCR123s or the IMRs.

If you want something brighter you could of course go to the P91 or EO-9 on two IMRs.

Are you sure about the 3P thing? My 660 body (L60) is longer than a single CR123, but shorter than a 17500.
 

mdocod

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
7,544
Location
COLORado spRINGs
Hi Youfoundnemo,

As for the cells/lamps you should use...

IMR16340 all the way and here's why:

1. No PCB to break under recoil pressure.
2. Safer chemistry than either CR123 primary or regular LiCo (black label AW and most other li-ion) cells.
3. Better performance under high drain rates.
4. Very Very low self-discharge with no PCB to increase self discharge rate (they have a parasitic drain that shows up as more significant self-discharge in smaller cell sizes).
5. Good cycle life and overall reliability, same cell chemistry used in power tools which translates to "durability."

Sounds like all of the things you would WANT in a rechargeable weapon-light eh? How many years till surefire catches up? Oh wait.... they are too busy rolling around in the piles of money from CR123 sales to notice.... hehe (please understand that I am joking, I own and enjoy SF lights, (that have ben converted to li-ion))....

With that said, if the flashlight and switch you are using are specified for use with a P61, then it is safe to say that the switch should be able to handle up to 2.5 amps. With that in mind, most of your options are going to be the same or less than that anyways.

As for the bulbs:

When in a "3P" configuration, I would suggest the HO-4 to get a little more runtime. should be close to 17 minutes. You might also try a Wolf-Eyes 3.7V D26, I hear they are really good performers overall.

When in a "6P" configuration with 2 IMR16340s, any of the 9V style lamps are worth a look, decide based on how much output you want to trade for runtime. I'd say pick up an ES-9 and an EO-9 to use as your LOLA and HOLA lamps. (~39 minutes and ~15 minutes respectively), try those options out and see how you like them. If it's still not bright enough try a P91 or LFs up and coming 500 lumen D26 for use with IMR cells. (they should be similar)... The P91 will only run for about 10 minutes so keep that in mind.

Eric
 
Last edited:

ampdude

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 7, 2007
Messages
4,532
Location
USA
5. Good cycle life and overall reliability, same cell chemistry used in power tools which translates to "durability."

That was one of the last questions I had on these batteries. Are these based on the A123 cells used in some power tools? If that's the case, then I assume there are no worries for cold weather use like there are with lithium ion cells..
 

naked2

Enlightened
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
903
Location
Upland, CA
You might also try a Wolf-Eyes 3.7V D26, I hear they are really good performers overall.
Lighthound has the Wolf-Eyes 100 Lumen 3.7 volt Turbo Bulb on sale right now for $2.99. :thumbsup:

Input "cpf" into the "apply coupon" box in your cart for 2% off. After you enter that code, enter this one also: "twitter", for another 7% off (yes, the "Hound" lets you "stack" coupons!), for a total of 9% off your entire order (that's $2.72 for the WE lamp!). The twitter code is only good until tomorrow though.

The Hound also now has both AW's IMR 16340s and IMR 18650s in stock. Each are a dollar more than AW sells them for at CPFMP, but with the current discount, IMR16340= $6.36 and IMR18650= $9.56. Plus if you spend at least $75, domestic shipping is free!

I think I should post this at CPFMP "good deals" as well!
 

naked2

Enlightened
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
903
Location
Upland, CA
Bummer, I just checked the Hound, the IMR18650s are out of stock. But they still do have the 16340s and the lamps.
 

mdocod

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
7,544
Location
COLORado spRINGs
That was one of the last questions I had on these batteries. Are these based on the A123 cells used in some power tools? If that's the case, then I assume there are no worries for cold weather use like there are with lithium ion cells..

A123 is a nano-lithium phosphate chemistry, nominal 3.2V and around 50% the energy density as compared with Lithium Cobalt (regular li-ion). nano-lithium-phosphate can tolerate insane abuse, but at the sacrifice of that energy density.

IMR cells from AW are based on a lithium manganese oxide chemistry that has about 20-30% less energy density than Lithium Cobalt. It is a safe chemistry that can handle some serious loads, but isn't quite as abuse tolerant as the nano-phosphate cells...

Eric
 

mdocod

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
7,544
Location
COLORado spRINGs
Lighthound has the Wolf-Eyes 100 Lumen 3.7 volt Turbo Bulb on sale right now for $2.99. :thumbsup:

Input "cpf" into the "apply coupon" box in your cart for 2% off. After you enter that code, enter this one also: "twitter", for another 7% off (yes, the "Hound" lets you "stack" coupons!), for a total of 9% off your entire order (that's $2.72 for the WE lamp!). The twitter code is only good until tomorrow though.

The Hound also now has both AW's IMR 16340s and IMR 18650s in stock. Each are a dollar more than AW sells them for at CPFMP, but with the current discount, IMR16340= $6.36 and IMR18650= $9.56. Plus if you spend at least $75, domestic shipping is free!

I think I should post this at CPFMP "good deals" as well!

The lamp you have linked to is a 36mm mini-turbo lamp that will not fit a surefire. It is designed to be loaded into the Wolf-Eyes 42mm turbo-bezel (found on 6 and 9 series mini-turbo configurations).

Good effort, but sorry :(

Eric
 

ampdude

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 7, 2007
Messages
4,532
Location
USA
A123 is a nano-lithium phosphate chemistry, nominal 3.2V and around 50% the energy density as compared with Lithium Cobalt (regular li-ion). nano-lithium-phosphate can tolerate insane abuse, but at the sacrifice of that energy density.

IMR cells from AW are based on a lithium manganese oxide chemistry that has about 20-30% less energy density than Lithium Cobalt. It is a safe chemistry that can handle some serious loads, but isn't quite as abuse tolerant as the nano-phosphate cells...

Eric

Thank you for that reply Eric, that was exactly the information I was hunting for. I am more confident in the IMR chemistry than lithium ion, double bonus that it no longer has a PCB to fail, but I would like to see some more serious abuse testing done at -0F before I place my faith in them as high as I do in Surefire lithium primaries.
 

mdocod

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
7,544
Location
COLORado spRINGs
Thank you for that reply Eric, that was exactly the information I was hunting for. I am more confident in the IMR chemistry than lithium ion, double bonus that it no longer has a PCB to fail, but I would like to see some more serious abuse testing done at -0F before I place my faith in them as high as I do in Surefire lithium primaries.

these are all technically li-ion chemistry cells. To distinguish between them, we name the primary cathode material in the cells. In your comparison here, the proper way to say this is technically "I am more confident in the LiMn chemistry than LiCo."

I'll give an example of why: "I have more more confidence in ford than I have in gasoline cars"

Eric
 
Top