Manufacturing defect on new MDC Bodies?

[Tachead]

Re: Manufacturering defect on new MDC Bodies?

Malkoff has sold seconds occasionally for a discount maybe that was one of them but I'm sure they're tested before they leave the factory. In any event, I think standing it with that chamfered part soaking it in a plate of liquid plummer was a suggestion someone used in the past. As long as you don't mistake the wife's fine china for a cheap plate. A search for removing anodizing comes up with some helpful threads

I don't think this is a second. Yeah, I know how to fix the issue but, I think I will let Gene decide how we deal with it. Without Gene's permission first, if anything happens, I will be out a bunch of money when I could have just got a properly made replacement. I also, out of principle, shouldn't have to modify a product at this price point to work with its own accessories. If that's the case I would rather go with a body from another company. The other issue is, I want to bring this to his attention so it can be corrected in future runs to save him further issues. I am not worried though, I am sure Gene will make this right as soon as I contact him.

Sent from my SM-N975W using Tapatalk

 

[Tachead]

Re: Manufacturering defect on new MDC Bodies?

So here are a few quick and dirty measurements. Keep in mind I could only be so accurate as I had to somewhat eyeball it due to the potting and lack of lip on the chamfer. They should be within a few thou though...

The first pic is the outside diameter of the mating surface of a Malkoff dropin.

The second pic is the inside diameter of the mating surface of the same dropin.

The third pic is the inside diameter of the flat unanodized portion of the top of the body or the outside diameter of the anodized portion(top of chamfer).

The last pic is a repeat from earlier to illustrate the interface between the body and dropin. Notice you can just see some of the anodizing around the perimeter of the outside diameter of the dropin(this is the problem).

As you can see, the dropin makes nearly no contact with the unanodized portion(4 thou at most), hense the issue. To correct this issue, one of three things needs to be changed with the manufacturing process...

1. The chamfer needs to not be anodized. This would allow plenty of tolerance to allow the dropin to make full contact with the mating surface on the body.

2. The chamfer needs to be cut smaller or just debur the inside 90 degree. This would make the unanodized flat at the top of the body larger(wider from ID to OD) which would allow more contact area with the dropin and more wiggle room to prevent intermittent contact.

3. The outside diameter of the mating surface of the dropin needs to be increased. This would allow the body to stay unchanged as the dropin would now cover the entire flat at the top of the body.

The third option is probably not an option as I am guessing the base of a P60 is standardized but, I don't know enough about this topic to confirm. Imo number 1 or 2 is the best fix. Number one is my pick as the earlier bodies, before they added the anno inside the battery compartment, work fine with the chamfer how it is and a chamfer allows for easier cell insertion.





Sent from my SM-N975W using Tapatalk

 

[peter yetman]

Re: Manufacturering defect on new MDC Bodies?

I can now see exactly where you're coming from.
I've never had a VME head so can I ask, is there not an electrical path via the threads? I guess not, otherwise you wouldn't have this problem. How is the dropin prevented from metal to metal contact in the head?
Sorry, merely curious.
P

 

[Tachead]

Re: Manufacturering defect on new MDC Bodies?

I can now see exactly where you're coming from.
I've never had a VME head so can I ask, is there not an electrical path via the threads? I guess not, otherwise you wouldn't have this problem. How is the dropin prevented from metal to metal contact in the head?
Sorry, merely curious.
P

Yeah, I figured that last post of mine would help people understand. Measurements and illustrations always help(I added a bit more to it now too).

The entire VME head, including bezel, is anodized. The only way for the negative signal to transfer from the body is by the interface between the base of the dropin and the unanodized top of the body. Hense, it's a rather large issue if that is anodized as well lol.

No problem at all sir, I find technical discussions fun(although I prefer that they aren't pertaining to issues with my stuff lol).

Sent from my SM-N975W using Tapatalk

 

[peter yetman]

Re: Manufacturering defect on new MDC Bodies?

Thank you so much, that's very helpful.
P

 

[Tachead]

Re: Manufacturering defect on new MDC Bodies?

Thank you so much, that's very helpful.
P

Anytime[emoji106]

Sent from my SM-N975W using Tapatalk

 

[greatscoot]

Re: Manufacturering defect on new MDC Bodies?

I can now see exactly where you're coming from.
I've never had a VME head so can I ask, is there not an electrical path via the threads? I guess not, otherwise you wouldn't have this problem. How is the dropin prevented from metal to metal contact in the head?
Sorry, merely curious.
P

I had a similar issue on an Oveready E35 body with my VME head. If it wasn't tightened all the way down, it wouldn't work.

 

[a1sealbeach]

Re: Manufacturering defect on new MDC Bodies?

I have old model MDC 123 body, and new model MDC 123 shrouded, unshrouded bodies. Heads are old model MDC 123 CW, new model MDC 123 NW, new model MDC Bodyguard, new(?) model MDC E1 hyper throw, new M61 dropin in VME head, and the last picture shows MDC 123 CW with thin wire add on edge of potted dropin and inside of body. Pictures are showing as I described.
When I test 3 bodies and 5 heads in combination, only problem was new body with old MDC 123 CW. I add thin (should be thinner than I put it in) wire, works like magic. I think Malkoff changes the inner contact point design both head and bodies. you can see the difference where at potted dropin meet inner body of head from old and new heads in pictures. I am not a flashlight designer but I believe that leads some incompatibility problems not only in Malkoff lines but also with other brand lights.

 

[INFRNL]

Re: Manufacturering defect on new MDC Bodies?

There have been changes to both mdc heads and bodies.
The newer heads have silver coating because Gene was getting a lot of calls which turned out to be user error. To simplify things he added the coating on the threads to ensure contact.

I haven't seen the anno inside until I saw this thread. Using on an MDC head would be issue free as negative contact is on the threads. I can easily see the issue here.

Gene doesn't care if items are second hand, he stands by his product and wants the customer to be happy no matter what.

I personally would just resolve this issue myself rather than paying to ship it to Gene. If it was actually a defect, that would be different. This is an easy fix and not worth the trouble.

It is good to let Gene know though, so he can talk to the anodizer about it. Just my thoughts

 

[Tachead]

Re: Manufacturering defect on new MDC Bodies?

I have old model MDC 123 body, and new model MDC 123 shrouded, unshrouded bodies. Heads are old model MDC 123 CW, new model MDC 123 NW, new model MDC Bodyguard, new(?) model MDC E1 hyper throw, new M61 dropin in VME head, and the last picture shows MDC 123 CW with thin wire add on edge of potted dropin and inside of body. Pictures are showing as I described.
When I test 3 bodies and 5 heads in combination, only problem was new body with old MDC 123 CW. I add thin (should be thinner than I put it in) wire, works like magic. I think Malkoff changes the inner contact point design both head and bodies. you can see the difference where at potted dropin meet inner body of head from old and new heads in pictures. I am not a flashlight designer but I believe that leads some incompatibility problems not only in Malkoff lines but also with other brand lights.

Thank you for this post man, it helps us understand the changes to the MDC heads over the years[emoji106].

I hope you don't mind, I am going to post the pictures in the thread so people can see them without going to imgur...

Sent from my SM-N975W using Tapatalk

 

[Tachead]

Re: Manufacturering defect on new MDC Bodies?

There have been changes to both mdc heads and bodies.
The newer heads have silver coating because Gene was getting a lot of calls which turned out to be user error. To simplify things he added the coating on the threads to ensure contact.

I haven't seen the anno inside until I saw this thread. Using on an MDC head would be issue free as negative contact is on the threads. I can easily see the issue here.

Gene doesn't care if items are second hand, he stands by his product and wants the customer to be happy no matter what.

I personally would just resolve this issue myself rather than paying to ship it to Gene. If it was actually a defect, that would be different. This is an easy fix and not worth the trouble.

It is good to let Gene know though, so he can talk to the anodizer about it. Just my thoughts

Thanks for the info.

Yep, definitely a large issue(especially if it is the same with all new bodies).

Yes, that's what I figured and has also been my experience so far with him. Awesome customer service(possible best in industry).

Oh it is definitely a defect(or at very least a tolerance issue). The anno never should have been applied to the chamfer imo. In addition, I am a bit upset as part compatibility should be thoroughly tested before anything ships to customers imo. Especially considering many of Gene's users are people who's lives depend on their lights reliability. If someone took that light out and needed to identify if a possible threat had a weapon, they would be in a world of trouble when it didn't come on and/or flickered. It's not a huge deal though, in this case, as I caught it in testing. As for fixing it myself, I thought about it but, decided Gene should make the call and also don't really want to modify such an expensive body when I already have several other options that work. I ordered some OR washers to try as I really love this body.

Yes, definitely. This needs to be changed asap. I'm going to send Gene an email as soon as my Malkoff order shows up(should be tomorrow or Tuesday).


Sent from my SM-N975W using Tapatalk

 

[INFRNL]

Re: Manufacturering defect on new MDC Bodies?

Any new updates?

@a1sealbeach, on the older style head without the silver coating, are you sure the head is fully tightened? That's exactly why Gene went to the coating, to ensure contact, but i never had any issues with the older style making contact.

 

[Tachead]

Re: Manufacturering defect on new MDC Bodies?

Any new updates?

Still waiting on shipment, hopefully tomorrow.


Sent from my SM-N975W using Tapatalk

 

[a1sealbeach]

Re: Manufacturering defect on new MDC Bodies?

Bodyguard has newer inner contact design which show no gaps as well as newer MDC heads. Works fine. But what I don't understand is E1T and VME has gap and works with new MDC body, but not old gen MDC head which have same gap. Tightup the head.... I even tried without o ring. Old potted head has shorter distance to body chamfer to potted dropin, which lead me to think there were not enough contact from potted drop in to inner head. As newer head design shows cover or connect inner head and top of potted drop-in might be the answer of all this troubles. As I demonstrate small contact made by copper ring or even soldering on to make bridging between two points on old head seems simple solution to me.

Sent from my LM-V350 using Tapatalk

 

[INFRNL]

Re: Manufacturering defect on new MDC Bodies?

Does that mean the threaded section of the new heads are shorter, not allowing for contact? Bizarre
I got a newer style mdc donut body from a fellow member, I'll have a look and see if it works on my older style mdc heads

I know this body isn't anodized on the inside though

 

[a1sealbeach]

Re: Manufacturering defect on new MDC Bodies?

No. What I meant is old head has 25mm depth to top of drop-in compare newer ones are 30mm. I just measured. But that is not the point. Old design has some gaps make no contact on some model between inner head and top of drop-in. That is why some of my head works some don't. Between the old and new comparability issues in Malkoff is very evitable, and you know when it come to other E comparability brand issues will be.

I tested Malkoff head with Surefire E lights. It is worked. But Malkoff bodies to Surefire E head doesn't. None . Nada.

Sent from my LM-V350 using Tapatalk

 

[INFRNL]

Re: Manufacturering defect on new MDC Bodies?

that's a bummer.

I tried that new style donut body on my older heads and it worked without issue. I will have to say; that new style has some grip. Might not be the most pleasing to the eye but it's definitely functional.

 

[a1sealbeach]

Re: Manufacturering defect on new MDC Bodies?

yap. That was what I started saying that old heads what I got some works some don't with newer body, but none problems with old body. There is definitely intriguing issues on new designed body and head combined. Further issues with other brands will shows problems is not limited to Malkoff only.

 

[INFRNL]

Re: Manufacturering defect on new MDC Bodies?

I wonder what Gene coated the threads with on the newer heads. I wonder if we could find something similar to use on the older heads to ensure proper contact. It has to dry thin and be conductive

 

[Tachead]

Re: Manufacturering defect on new MDC Bodies?

I tested Malkoff head with Surefire E lights. It is worked. But Malkoff bodies to Surefire E head doesn't. None . Nada.
Sent from my LM-V350 using Tapatalk

All of my SF heads work just fine on my Malkoff bodies(aside from low on gas pedal lights due to the lack of tailcap resistor). I even get high with my Tactician head on a MDC body.

Sent from my SM-N975W using Tapatalk