Malkoff M60 vs. Optics HQ 256L vs. Scout M600C

N

N/Apower

Enlightened
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
530
14xi77k.jpg


Same room, same distance, different furniture on the last pic.
Gene quotes 90min run-time
TNVC quotes 2.5hr run-time
Surefire has been tested at 90min run-time.

Thoughts on OTF lumens? Tint? What does everyone think? Just kinda posting up a direct comparison and wondering what can be learned from it. Am I not alone in thinking my M600C is "warmer" than my M60 was?
 
Last edited:
M

Mercaptan

Enlightened
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
406
I have an M951 with a Malkoff M60 in my Midlength AR.

It works well for intermediate rifle range. I have never attempted to figure out the true battery life of the M60. Also, note that I initially had a contact issue - first one needs the Beryllium ring from Malkoff and the spring on the back of the drop-in needed to be stretched (in my case).

ar152za6.jpg




Each of the different modules you listed have a different purpose: E-series compatibility for the Optics HQ head and KX2C head, while the Malkoff M60 is for 6P style/sized bodies.

Each factor has it's pros and cons. When you decide further on the form factor I think it'll be easier to determine what you want.

My line of thought went a little something like this:

I originally wanted an M600C for my AR. Then I looked at the tailcap options - no good. Only a pressure pad. I like the idea of having a pressure pad and a clicky switch on the same platform. I rarely use the vertical-foregrip mounted pressure pad, instead I opt for the rear clicky. The setup of the XM07 drove me towards the M951 platform.

From choosing the M951 platform I wanted something that could throw a decent bit (hey it's a rifle!). Malkoff suited that bill, and several other reviewers pointed out its durability on weaponlights.

Your mileage may ultimately vary.
 
Last edited:
N

N/Apower

Enlightened
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
530
I have an M951 with a Malkoff M60 in my Midlength AR.

It works well for intermediate rifle range. I have never attempted to figure out the true battery life of the M60. Also, note that I initially had a contact issue - first one needs the Beryllium ring from Malkoff and the spring on the back of the drop-in needed to be stretched (in my case).




Each of the different modules you listed have a different purpose: E-series compatibility for the Optics HQ head and KX2C head, while the Malkoff M60 is for 6P style/sized bodies.

Each factor has it's pros and cons. When you decide further on the form factor I think it'll be easier to determine what you want.

I compared the P series TNVC drop-in (same as Optics HQ).
Also, your issue with the 951 is due to the shock-isolated bezel. Kindof a no-no for LED's as it traps heat.

I have already tested all 3, the M600C out-threw the others and it is what is slapped on my KAC rail. I just wanted to throw up some beam-shots (however lame) for people to reference and discuss.
 
Last edited:
M

Mercaptan

Enlightened
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
406
I compared the P series TNVC drop-in (same as Optics HQ).
Also, your issue with the 951 is due to the shock-isolated bezel. Kindof a no-no for LED's as it traps heat.

I have already tested all 3, the M600C out-threw the others and it is what is slapped on my KAC rail. I just wanted to throw up some beam-shots (however lame) for people to reference and discuss.

So then is it recommended I drop the bezel and throw on a C2 head?

Now I'm plum confused.

Did you fix the exposure and the like for the pictures you posted?
 
N

N/Apower

Enlightened
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
530
So then is it recommended I drop the bezel and throw on a C2 head?

Now I'm plum confused.

Did you fix the exposure and the like for the pictures you posted?

The photos were taken with a camera-phone on the same setting for all photos. As far as I can tell it doesn't adjust much of anything by itself.

I wouldn't say to drop the bezel, but keep an eye out for the LED running "blue" or whatnot. I am not sure at what point a shock isolated bezel will overheat an LED, I just know that they are not good for them.

PS. Nice setup! Who made that rifle? It is kinda rare to see a staked castle-nut. I think I can make out the staking on yours. Looks like some good stuff! BCM upper=top-notch. What is the lower?


I myself am building an M16A4 clone. I have everything but the GG&G VFG and the Sabre Defence A4 rifle (both on-order) in-hand.
So far:

Troy BUIS
KAC RAS M5 rail
M16 GI sling
M600C with Z61 tail-cap and LaRue mount
Trijicon ACOG RCO A4 w/LaRue 4XDOS mount/Flip-caps and ARD
PRI gas-buster
Spare bolt from Sabre
MIAD grip with spare-bolt core
USGI buttstock cleaning kit (not that I will use it, but nice to have in case of SHTF)
AAC Blackout flash hider

I wanted the best light for what I needed: Light weight (no balance issues). In-line mount (so I could rest the forend). Throw out to 100m (this scout does 75M VERY WELL! and through the ACOG it does decent out to 100m as long as you arent looking for facial recognition. Even then it might works decent.)

Lights I tried: M961XM07: Too heavy, short battery life with MN11, not as much throw as my scout. Great contrast though!

6P with M60: AWESOME spill, not enough throw
6P with M60W: same as above, but with great color rendition
6P with TNVC: Same as Malkoff M60 but without the spill as much.
9P with Dereelight *list of numbers* 1.2A single-stage smooth reflector Q25A. GREAT! color, looks incan, but the beam was very narrow with the SMO.

M600C: under 5oz. Throws out to 100m. Color rendition decent, but not in the same league as the incan or "warm" LED's. HUGE! hot-spot makes for a great weapon light.

and that has been my journey to finding a perfect weapon-light for this build. Every part of the build was researched to death, lights were the only thing I was ignorant on and this forum helped a lot!

Will post a pic of the setup in it's own thread when I finish!

In the mean time, those are my beam-shots ^ :)
 
Last edited:
Justin Case

Justin Case

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
3,797
Also, your issue with the 951 is due to the shock-isolated bezel. Kindof a no-no for LED's as it traps heat.

It's not clear to me why people seem to believe that a shock bezel "traps" the heat generated by a drop-in. The bezel fits over the "neck" of the weaponlight or handheld flashlight body. The drop-in sits inside of the neck. Since the thermal contact between the drop-in body and the neck is often minimal, that's your weak link, not the bezel type. Add some aluminum foil to fill the typically small gap and you'll have lots of surface area in intimate thermal contact with the flashlight neck and no heat being trapped.

That said, I just tested a DX11836 drop-in in a SureFire fore-end for an HK MP5 and the light got quite warm after about 30 minutes of continuous running. If a shock bezel traps heat, it sure didn't seem so in this case.
 
Last edited:
M

Mercaptan

Enlightened
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
406
Truth be told, I just ran some runtime tests with my Malkoff M60 and I think it's defective.

I ran 10 trials and the average runtime was 47 seconds before it went into a 'low power' mode - where it was putting out somewhere near 5 lumens.

I tried altering the cells, li-ions, using a 6PL body instead - and the drop in still goes to a low, moon-mode after about a minute with the 951 (3 minutes for the 6PL body). Color me confused. I'll have to call Gene about this.

Now I just feel like an idiot because I've flicked the light on for short bursts (less than 30 seconds) while doing live fire, because that's what I'm accustomed to. I never left it on for duration during testing because it's not the way I've been taught. Thankfully I didn't learn this under 'adverse conditions.'
 
N

N/Apower

Enlightened
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
530
Truth be told, I just ran some runtime tests with my Malkoff M60 and I think it's defective.

I ran 10 trials and the average runtime was 47 seconds before it went into a 'low power' mode - where it was putting out somewhere near 5 lumens.

I tried altering the cells, li-ions, using a 6PL body instead - and the drop in still goes to a low, moon-mode after about a minute with the 951 (3 minutes for the 6PL body). Color me confused. I'll have to call Gene about this.

Now I just feel like an idiot because I've flicked the light on for short bursts (less than 30 seconds) while doing live fire, because that's what I'm accustomed to. I never left it on for duration during testing because it's not the way I've been taught. Thankfully I didn't learn this under 'adverse conditions.'


few seconds vs 3 minutes. See how much that shock isolation matters? Call Gene. He will make things right.
 
N

N/Apower

Enlightened
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
530
It's not clear to me why people seem to believe that a shock bezel "traps" the heat generated by a drop-in. The bezel fits over the "neck" of the weaponlight or handheld flashlight body. The drop-in sits inside of the neck. Since the thermal contact between the drop-in body and the neck is often minimal, that's your weak link, not the bezel type. Add some aluminum foil to fill the typically small gap and you'll have lots of surface area in intimate thermal contact with the flashlight neck and no heat being trapped.

That said, I just tested a DX11836 drop-in in a SureFire fore-end for an HK MP5 and the light got quite warm after about 30 minutes of continuous running. If a shock bezel traps heat, it sure didn't seem so in this case.

The tin-foil helps a lot. Otherwise, shock isolation is designed to keep the module "floating" as much as functionally possible.
 
Justin Case

Justin Case

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
3,797
IMO and if I recall the design of the Z32 bezel correctly, "floating" a Malkoff drop-in in a Z32 is irrelevant. The Malkoff's plastic optic face contact a regular SF bezel on a small, anodized ledge. The contact is minimal and it is between plastic and anodized aluminum. That hardly seems to be a good thermal contact. So what that the Z32 contact with a Malkoff is on a shock-absorbing (floating) contact? The comparison is to an already lousy thermal contact in the standard bezel.

I maintain that if you are worried about drawing heat away from a Malkoff or any other drop-in, then what matters is surrounding the main body of the drop-in with enough metal so that the drop-in body makes a large area, intimate thermal contact with the neck of the flashlight body.

Worrying about the thermal conducting difference of a Z32 vs standard bezel is PII - preoccupation with inconsequential increments.
 
S

supes

Enlightened
Joined
Jul 22, 2004
Messages
347
Location
GA,USA
Cool beamshots, N/Apower. I believe outdoor and with a bit more distance could show the different attributes of throw and flood of each light source even more.

Do any of you have a Surefire X300 to compare to these? I'm curious as to the X300's beam to the KX2C and others.

thanks
 
N

N/Apower

Enlightened
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
530
Cool beamshots, N/Apower. I believe outdoor and with a bit more distance could show the different attributes of throw and flood of each light source even more.

Do any of you have a Surefire X300 to compare to these? I'm curious as to the X300's beam to the KX2C and others.

thanks


Yes, I do, but it was not taken in the same lighting (ambient light pollution) or at the same distance (3M vs. 4M).

It looked and was identical to the KX2C. It is the same thing. The only thing was I think my X300 was maybe 200* warmer or something. Nothing that couldn't vary between samples of the same unit.

I prefer the M600C for my application. I traded the X300 for a M600A and bought a KX2C head and sold the KL4.

If my camera was not a cell-phone, I would love to do out-door shoots. I have 55 acres of light-pollution free land at my current disposal to do them on.
 
Last edited:
N

N/Apower

Enlightened
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
530
IMO and if I recall the design of the Z32 bezel correctly, "floating" a Malkoff drop-in in a Z32 is irrelevant. The Malkoff's plastic optic face contact a regular SF bezel on a small, anodized ledge. The contact is minimal and it is between plastic and anodized aluminum. That hardly seems to be a good thermal contact. So what that the Z32 contact with a Malkoff is on a shock-absorbing (floating) contact? The comparison is to an already lousy thermal contact in the standard bezel.

I maintain that if you are worried about drawing heat away from a Malkoff or any other drop-in, then what matters is surrounding the main body of the drop-in with enough metal so that the drop-in body makes a large area, intimate thermal contact with the neck of the flashlight body.

Worrying about the thermal conducting difference of a Z32 vs standard bezel is PII - preoccupation with inconsequential increments.

I see your logic, but the poster above you claims there was a several hundred percent increase in run-time before thermal regulation kicked in when he ran it in a non-shock isolated bezel equipped light.
 
Justin Case

Justin Case

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
3,797
I see your logic, but the poster above you claims there was a several hundred percent increase in run-time before thermal regulation kicked in when he ran it in a non-shock isolated bezel equipped light.

Are you referring to post #7? He said he tried a 6PL body, not a non-shock bezel. Also, the run time before moonglow mode was 47 sec vs 3 min (180 sec). Yes, that could be viewed as several hundred percent increase. Or more likely a defective unit, which is what the poster suspects. Three minute run time for a Malkoff, or any drop-in, before cutting light output so drastically has to be due to a defect.

I can run my M30 for a lot longer than 3 min using a Z32 and I don't get any tint shift or moonglow mode. The shear weight of the brass heat sink would also argue against a properly working unit from heating up that fast as to affect function. I definitely don't get that sort of rapid heat build-up with the Deal Extreme 6090 and 11836 drop-ins and those have a rep for running warm and don't have heat sinks anywhere close to the weight of the Malkoffs.
 
Last edited:
N

N/Apower

Enlightened
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
530
Are you referring to post #7? He said he tried a 6PL body, not a non-shock bezel. Also, the run time before moonglow mode was 47 sec vs 3 min (180 sec). Yes, that could be viewed as several hundred percent increase. Or more likely a defective unit, which is what the poster suspects. Three minute run time for a Malkoff, or any drop-in, before cutting light output so drastically has to be due to a defect.

I can run my M30 for a lot longer than 3 min using a Z32 and I don't get any tint shift or moonglow mode. The shear weight of the brass heat sink would also argue against a properly working unit from heating up that fast as to affect function. I definitely don't get that sort of rapid heat build-up with the Deal Extreme 6090 and 11836 drop-ins and those have a rep for running warm and don't have heat sinks anywhere close to the weight of the Malkoffs.


I agree it is a defective unit, I did not catch the part that he used the shock isolated head on the 6P body (alluded to).
 
M

Mercaptan

Enlightened
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
406
I agree it is a defective unit, I did not catch the part that he used the shock isolated head on the 6P body (alluded to).

Yup, I used a fully stock 6PL and it still went into 'moon mode.'

Anyway, I'll let Gene have his peace on Sunday, tomorrow I'll call him to see what is up. When I opened the M60 for the first time it flickered a bit - then it was fine. I even called up Gene to see if there was a problem. I guess there truly was.
 

Similar threads

C
Replies
9
Views
4K
O
C
Replies
2
Views
1K
Jannis
J
AWGD8
Replies
5
Views
2K
cqbdude
cqbdude
BenChiew
Replies
32
Views
7K
BenChiew
BenChiew
Top