I am looking at the KT1-HA Turbo conversion for my M2. The problem that I have encountered is the apparent limitation of the N1 lamp's 65 lumen output. I had hoped to run the turbo with more lumens than this. I wanted a tight and powerful beam. Other than run time and width of beam, what is the advantage of running the turbo over a P61 lamp assembly? Is there a more powerful lamp assembly, factory, or aftermarket that would up the lumens over the N1?
SF M2 turbo conversion, Help
- Thread starter jw2n
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
Illum
Flashaholic
KT1 heads have a bigger reflector, so that will give you a huge improvement in throw, but otherwise I can't think of others:thinking:
DimeRazorback
Flashlight Enthusiast
Although it is only 65 Lumens... it has a very good amount of throw.
If you want more lumens/throw I suggest going to an M4 or M6.
If you want more lumens/throw I suggest going to an M4 or M6.
angelofwar
Flashlight Enthusiast
Don't worry...the N1 puts out one tight beam...it's one of the best bulbs SF still makes (since they've discontinued the N2). I'd try it first...I think you might be surprised. I can see further with my tight 2-Cell 65 Lumen N1 beam than I can with my oblong, 3 Cell MN15.
Illum
Flashaholic
M4s are harder to come back than M6s nowadays
I have an old 4 cell SF which looks very much like the M4, but I want to stick with a M2 on this project. Has anyone compared the turbo conversion to just running a P61? Also, I have found a KT1-BK for 1/2 price. Why is the KT1-BK not listed as compatible with the M2? Other than color and type of anodizing, what would be the difference? Thanks for the help.
angelofwar
Flashlight Enthusiast
That's why...just the ano doesn't match. The p61 doesn't really throw any further than the P60...it throws about the same, just more light, if that makes sense. The N1 really is a "laser beam" like beam...so if you want more light, go with the P61 w/ 20 minutes of runtime. If you want a nice incan thrower that only uses 2 cells instead of 4, go with the N1 in the KT-1. and at 1/2 price, that's a really good deal! if you don't like it, you could easily sell it on the Market Place for ~$80-$85.
Oh, and :welcome:
Oh, and :welcome:
nzgunnie
Enlightened
How about am MN16 in IMR16340s? Or an LF EOM3T?
M4s are harder to come by than M6s nowadays
Is there a shortage??
There's about 5 Authorized Surefire dealers near me, so I might be a little not up-to-date.
I am frequently in very remote locations without access to AC/DC power. This is why I am setting this up with 123's, and also why I wished to stay with a two cell instead of moving up to 3-6 cell. Solar charging would not work for me in this situation. I use a Zebra H30-Q5 as a general lighting/headlamp, and need a small spotlight for other tasks. Although I own an A2 and a U2, I like the simplicity, color rendition, and power offered by a 6v incan. Also, I already own the M2, so I'm not looking at the $ outlay for another light (but I have been looking at small HID's). I did not realize until I actually looked at the turbo conversion that the limit was 65 lumens. I had assumed, incorrectly, that there would be an optional higher lumen element. I thank everyone for their ideas.
Kestrel
Flashaholic
OK, I know this is the incan forum, but I have a different suggestion, as your high-draw incan options are very limited with a two-cell SF body. I know you're looking for an incan, but I suggest checking the thread I have posted in my signature, it is of a low-voltage LED tower built for the SureFire KT1/KT2 turboheads. It draws about 1 amp from a single 3.7v LiIon, yielding the rated ~240 lumens. It throws very well, check the beamshots comparing it to the Malkoff M60. This should give you a runtime of ~1.5 hrs from a 17670 in the M2 body or ~2.5 hrs from a 18650 (can't fit the stock M2 body though. The driver is optimized for 3.7v, so unfortunately you can't run 2xCR123 with this setup.
It would be possible to use a 'warm' led for this if you needed something along these lines. Just something a little different if you might find this of interest. There are a number of great incan options for the three-cell SF bodies, but IMO the two-cell bodies just don't have enough under the hood for the high-output incans.
K
Edit: For long incan runtimes on CR123 primaries, I can't think of a better configuration than the MN15 in the SF M6. ~200 lumens for around 2.5 hours with 6xCR123's, obtaining excellent throw in the turbohead - js reports a smaller spot size but still maintaining comparable lux as the higher-output lamp assemblies. Each CR123 (of the six) can deliver ~30% more watt-hours than each CR123 in a 2xCR123 configuration in a smaller light of comparable output due to each cell in the light having considerably less draw. In other words, each cell is more efficient because you are slowly draining six cells compared to quickly draining two cells. Check out the X-LOLA thread by js:
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=142517
It would be possible to use a 'warm' led for this if you needed something along these lines. Just something a little different if you might find this of interest. There are a number of great incan options for the three-cell SF bodies, but IMO the two-cell bodies just don't have enough under the hood for the high-output incans.
K
Edit: For long incan runtimes on CR123 primaries, I can't think of a better configuration than the MN15 in the SF M6. ~200 lumens for around 2.5 hours with 6xCR123's, obtaining excellent throw in the turbohead - js reports a smaller spot size but still maintaining comparable lux as the higher-output lamp assemblies. Each CR123 (of the six) can deliver ~30% more watt-hours than each CR123 in a 2xCR123 configuration in a smaller light of comparable output due to each cell in the light having considerably less draw. In other words, each cell is more efficient because you are slowly draining six cells compared to quickly draining two cells. Check out the X-LOLA thread by js:
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=142517
Last edited:
Illum
Flashaholic
Is there a shortage??
There's about 5 Authorized Surefire dealers near me, so I might be a little not up-to-date.
LOL, no shortage from surefire...I was referring to from CPFM as second hand prices
M6 has an MSRP of $500, but typically you can find good condition M6s for $250-$275 in CPFM...when do get posted
I don't think P61s can fit in KT1s
Last edited:
Outdoors Fanatic
Flashlight Enthusiast
Don't bother with the N1... If you get two 16340 IMR batteries from AW, you can use almost any 9V lamp assembly made to fit SureFire Turboheads KT1/KT2 or KT4. I recommend getting the HO-M3T lamp assembly from Lumens Factory for triple the lumens of your stock M2 and a superb throw that you need to see to believe it. If you need more runtime, just use the MN15. For more lumens, you can always put an IMR-MT3 in there. You will be blown away, make no mistake. And if you haven't bought the KT1 yet, I suggest that you get the KT2 instead, because it comes with the MN15.
Last edited:
Outdoors Fanatic
Flashlight Enthusiast
The MN16 will probably instaflash on IMR cells, the HO-M3T is the way to go.
Due to an innocent oversight, on my part, I initiated a duplicate thread on the N1. Outdoors Fanatic took offense and stated that no more help would be provided to me from him since he had already responded on this thread. While I thank OF for the information that you provided, if you read msg #11 in this thread, you would have read my very specific requirements, of which your recommendations did not address. If you feel insulted due to the fact that I did not respond to your post, than I apologize. However, in the future please do not respond to any of my posts.
nzgunnie
Enlightened
Wow, what a great attitude.
You need to bear in mind that there isn't an option that exactly fits your needs, so people provided options for you to consider. Up to you what compromises you are prepared to make - dable with rechargeables, look for an LED solution or stick with the N1. Or how about even getting a C3 body?
The choice is yours, and now you have the info to make that choice because people took the time to help you out.
A reply like that one is pretty well guaranteed to minimise helpful responses to questions in the future.
First of all, why are you involving yourself in this? It has nothing to do with you. Secondly, your response indicates that you completely misunderstood the problem. Thirdly, while I appreciate the alternative options offered, as I clearly thanked everyone in my responses, they did not suite my needs. Fourthly, it just so happens that I have a great attitude, it makes it possible for me to cope with people such as yourself. In the future, if the post is not directed towards you, then butt out. You have a nice day!
nzgunnie
Enlightened
lol, but you posted your 'issue'. Want to keep it between the two of you? That's what the PM feature is for, for private messages. Make it public, live with the public posting their opinions of your messages, this thread isn't your private email service.
Have a nice day.
Have a nice day.
