SureFire M3LT Review (Pics, Indoor & Outdoor Comparo Beamshots, Runtimes)

[Fleetlord]

Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)

In the case of the M3LT, if you look at the spec page, under features you will see the word "regulated". Your post is interesting, but like most surmises is probably not accurate. Truth be told, we do not know what SF is up to, and we are only shooting in the dark. We are making stories up based on little or no information. I am more interested in real facts like what is the current draw from the batteries, and nice runtime graphs like those presented in this thread by the OP. As time goes on we will learn more real information about the M3LT, which the OP has started to present. Enough with the wild guesses, and surmises, and the commiserating that goes along with it.

Bill

Virtually indestructible 4-die LED emitter regulated to maximize output and runtime


I stand corrected. It does state it.

I'm taking from the runtimes review that it will hold 400Lumens for approx 30 minutes, then drop out and dim down...So it's regulated for awhile, but not 1.7hrs..

 

[Size15's]

Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)

Virtually indestructible 4-die LED emitter regulated to maximize output and runtime


I stand corrected. It does state it.

I'm taking from the runtimes review that it will hold 400Lumens for approx 30 minutes, then drop out and dim down...So it's regulated for awhile, but not 1.7hrs..

And in doing so deciding to ignore relevant feature of the M3LT, and use your selected view to make assumption about other SureFire models :shrug: :trolleys:

 

[easilyled]

Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)

Fleetlord,
Has anyone ever spoken to SureFire staff either openly or privately to try to get their perspective on why they don't make products that can make use of the various rechargeable batteries out there?
I've not met one yet who says or believes it is so they can make loads of money from their branded CR123As.

If a large company have a policy that is deliberately made for their business advantage and it conflicts with the public conception of good ethics,
it would be naive to believe that the company would admit it.

I'm not however saying that this is the case here, only that it may be a possibility and we'll probably never really know.

 

[Size15's]

Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)

If a large company have a policy that is deliberately made for their business advantage and it conflicts with the public conception of good ethics,
it would be naive to believe that the company would admit it.

I'm not however saying that this is the case here, only that it may be a possibility and we'll probably never really know.

We do know because I've asked and regardless of who I've spoken to - be they engineers or marketing or tech support - they are people I've got to know and become friends with. I trust them. They have no reason to lie to me. Compared to much of what I know about SureFire their inside story on SF123As is small talk!

SureFire decided to offer SF123As to give their customers the benefit of safe, high-performing, great value batteries.
There are far easier ways to make far more money.

SureFire recognise that whilst there are rechargeable 'alternatives' to the CR123A, use of these is often complicated by significant safety issues as well as useage and recharging issues. There is clear and present danger of users getting into dangerous situations with rechargeables.
SureFire believe they are being responsible by putting safety first and doing what they can to maximise safety of their products.
AFAIK, this is the same position taken by other American flashlight companies such as Pelican, Streamlight and Insight. Dedicated branded rechargeable solutions or nothing at all.

Al

 

[Fleetlord]

Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)

We do know because I've asked and regardless of who I've spoken to - be they engineers or marketing or tech support - they are people I've got to know and become friends with. I trust them. They have no reason to lie to me. Compared to much of what I know about SureFire their inside story on SF123As is small talk!

SureFire decided to offer SF123As to give their customers the benefit of safe, high-performing, great value batteries.
There are far easier ways to make far more money.

SureFire recognise that whilst there are rechargeable 'alternatives' to the CR123A, use of these is often complicated by significant safety issues as well as useage and recharging issues. There is clear and present danger of users getting into dangerous situations with rechargeables.
SureFire believe they are being responsible by putting safety first and doing what they can to maximise safety of their products.
AFAIK, this is the same position taken by other American flashlight companies such as Pelican, Streamlight and Insight. Dedicated branded rechargeable solutions or nothing at all.

Al

It doesn't matter to me as I prefer primaries myself, but sourcing batteries and putting the Surfire name on them is an easy profit driver. There is no crime in that. You're getting defensive for no reason mate.

 

[Size15's]

Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)

The intentions and motivations were being misrepresented. The SureFire staff I've met and got to know over the last decade are worth defending. :thumbsup:

 

[easilyled]

Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)

It is clear that this light is intended primarily for critical military purposes. (pun intended).

This light is therefore not suitable for me. I will continue to choose lights that accept 18500s/18650s, at least, for fuelling high-power leds,
since I much prefer to have table-flat regulation at a decent runtime for my non-critical white-wall hunting and other rather meaningless pursuits like lighting up the woods at night. 😱

I now fully respect and understand the reasons why soldiers may prefer this light though and it makes sense for them to have something that they consider to be as reliable as possible for use in active conflicts.

In future, I will assume that Surefire high-powered led-lights continue to be designed only with service-personnel in mind, unless informed otherwise.

 

[turboBB]

Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)

Fleetlord,
The low output mode of the M3LT shows your assumption about SureFire no longer using regulation to be incorrect. It's a shame CPF hasn't been doing runtime plots for SureFire's latest models as this provides an information vacuum in which minds can easily wander.

FWIW, here's a runtime of 200L E2DL (B serial) on High that I conducted in anticipation of a future review showing good regulation:

X = Time in Min. / Y = Actual Lux reading @ 1M

I stopped the test as the output started to decline as I didn't want to over discharge the batteries.

Cheers,
Tim

 

[monkeyboy]

Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)

Make a 2x18650 body for it and runtime/regulation should be pretty good 😀

The Leef 2 x 18650 may work with this head and tailcap. Hopefully someone will give it a try. If it works, we need to get Leef to make some more of these. It seems as though my original plan of using an M6 body and 2 x 18650 will only give low mode unless the tailcap is modified.

 

[JNewell]

Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)

But surely this is no surprise? If it does not suit your needs, or mine, very well, why would that matter? GM made the Humvee and sold it to the civilian market. When I was most recently looking for a 4WD vehicle, I decided to buy a Jeep Cherokee instead. I didn't take any offense that GM hadn't made the Humvee along lines that would have made it more acceptable to me. Am I missing something? I mean this in a friendly way, not trying to jab or flame.

It is clear that this light is intended primarily for critical military purposes. (pun intended).

This light is therefore not suitable for me. I will continue to choose lights that accept 18500s/18650s, at least, for fuelling high-power leds,
since I much prefer to have table-flat regulation at a decent runtime for my non-critical white-wall hunting and other rather meaningless pursuits like lighting up the woods at night. 😱

I now fully respect and understand the reasons why soldiers may prefer this light though and it makes sense for them to have something that they consider to be as reliable as possible for use in active conflicts.

In future, I will assume that Surefire high-powered led-lights continue to be designed only with service-personnel in mind, unless informed otherwise.

 

[easilyled]

Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)

But surely this is no surprise? If it does not suit your needs, or mine, very well, why would that matter? GM made the Humvee and sold it to the civilian market. When I was most recently looking for a 4WD vehicle, I decided to buy a Jeep Cherokee instead. I didn't take any offense that GM hadn't made the Humvee along lines that would have made it more acceptable to me. Am I missing something? I mean this in a friendly way, not trying to jab or flame.

The surprise for me was the lack of true regulation in this light (which was revealed in the runtime graphs in this thread)

If I hadn't seen them, I might well have purchased this light, based on the fact that it is described as a regulated light.

Therefore I am thankful that this review spared me making a mistake and also showed me that a light of this power consumption can never have true regulation on primary cells.

I also learned why some of my military CPF colleagues prefer to use primaries in this type of light in battle situations.

This may be very obvious to most of you, but to this veteran civilian CPFer it was a valuable learning curve. 😱

 

[turboBB]

Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)

@easilyled, that's why lovecpf

I too have benefitted from the reviews of fellow CPF'ers which have helped me make informed purchasing decisions. These reviews really help one understand the features that are important to them and I guess that's even more relevant in the cases where a light costs $$$$.

WRT Surefire's claims of regulation, I suppose there is enough ambiguity around the specs and features listed for the M3LT for both camps (both for and against) to make a valid argument.



Starting with the specifications:

• Max Output is simply listed as 400 lumens but not joined or footnoted with the runtime
• Tactical Runtime is listed at 1.7hrs with the following footnote: "*Total runtime (at highest setting for multiple-output flashlights) until output drops below 50 lumens "

I'm not sure that I can deduce beyond the shadow of the doubt that the Max Output is regulated for 1.7hrs by reading these two bullets. The way I interpreted was that by 1.7 hrs, the output would have fallen to 50 lumens implying that there is a downward trend in output from the start. Of course, that's just my interpretation of it.



Then under the Features, the first bullet lists:

• Virtually indestructible 4-die LED emitter regulated to maximize output and runtime

This would imply the light is regulated but again, does not state the actual runtime.

Had they actually footnoted the: Max Ouput: 400 Lumens* and then added the following footnote: "*Regulated for 1.7hrs" then this would have left absolutely no doubt.

FWIW, I've emailed Surefire inquiring about this and will post an update when I hear back from them.

In the end, while regulation is great, it hasn't been at the top of my list in terms of the features I look for. However, this debate has got me questioning what is the real world impact considering our eyes don't view light in linear fashion. I wonder at what point through the runtime would our eyes actually be able to perceive a difference?

In the future, I'll try to conduct another runtime test but supplemented with beamshots at intervals throughout to help show what the real world differences in the output are as the light falls out of regulation. No promises though as this would require some effort and I'd have to borrow some equipment to get this done (unless someone knows of an easy way to conduct this test). 😗

Cheers,
Tim

 

[easilyled]

Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)

@turboBB, many thanks for your very comprehensive review that is both very informative and impartial.

Yes, the phrase "Virtually indestructible 4-die LED emitter regulated to maximize output and runtime" would certainly mislead me but I can only speak for myself.

 

[JNewell]

Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)

I completely agree with your first three paragraphs. I had the same expectations and the same reactions, with one exception.

Am I missing something? The MD3 Wildcat puts out almost 2x the lumens on 3x123 primaries with regulated output for 1.25 hours, AFAIK. I'm not trying to bash, bait or flame. Just trying to understand what I might/must be missing here.

The surprise for me was the lack of true regulation in this light (which was revealed in the runtime graphs in this thread)

If I hadn't seen them, I might well have purchased this light, based on the fact that it is described as a regulated light.

Therefore I am thankful that this review spared me making a mistake and also showed me that a light of this power consumption can never have true regulation on primary cells.

I also learned why some of my military CPF colleagues prefer to use primaries in this type of light in battle situations.

This may be very obvious to most of you, but to this veteran civilian CPFer it was a valuable learning curve. 😱

 

[Bullzeyebill]

Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)

Not sure if I would buy this light even with excellent regulation on high, but I do want to wait for another review, another sample of the M3LT, before I do a thumbs down, so for now I'm not getting worked up, and I think that none of us should draw absolute conclusions based on this review, and on the surmises presented here. Course, I must temper my comments cause I'm a flashaholic and lovecpf for its folks that don't get carried away with their hobby, but want to explore, explore, research, research, learning valuable info for decision making regarding lights of all kinds.

Bill

 

[iapyx]

Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)

Thanks again turboBB for this excellent review. Very interesting thread which has been very informative. I'm very curious to SF's answer to your mail to them. Will this (what your graphic shows) be a new trend? I'll be reading this thread for the next days [weeks perhaps]

 

[easilyled]

Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)

I completely agree with your first three paragraphs. I had the same expectations and the same reactions, with one exception.

Am I missing something? The MD3 Wildcat puts out almost 2x the lumens on 3x123 primaries with regulated output for 1.25 hours, AFAIK. I'm not trying to bash, bait or flame. Just trying to understand what I might/must be missing here.

I cannot comment on the MD3 Wildcat because I don't have one.

We would need to measure the total lumen output of each light before being able to draw any conclusions. I would guess that the M3LT actually produces more overall output. (Output claims on paper are virtually worthless)

 

[JNewell]

Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)

I cannot comment on the MD3 Wildcat because I don't have one.

We would need to measure the total lumen output of each light before being able to draw any conclusions. I would guess that the M3LT actually produces more overall output. (Output claims on paper are virtually worthless)

Gene Malkoff's claims are at least as reliable as SureFire's, and the 750 lumen output has been independently reported and verified here...

 

[monkeyboy]

Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)

Bigchelis measured around 750 OTF lumens for the Wildcat, for the first few minutes that is. But we should wait for him to measure the M3TL (some generous person could send him one) before we know for sure. 400 surefire lumens could mean anything. I would expect the Wildcat to be a little brighter and more efficient due to the XP-G's but the M3TL will easily out throw it. Different lights for different purposes so it's not really worth comparing them side by side IMO.

 

[JNewell]

Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)

Yup, see this post.

I would definitely expect you're right about throw. That's the nature (usually) of the optic. Trade-offs...my M6/HO-M6R out-throws the Wildcat, but has nothing even remotely approaching the truly blinding wall of light that the Wildcat provides.

I got a test sample today and the beam is still flawless


I want to test it with 2 AW 2600mAh cells and 2 AW 18500 cells.......