Three years of using the ** SureFire L1 ** – A short history

[etherealshade]

I've got bigchelis's Milky L1 extreme. It's got a custom heatsink and is direct driven, but it takes a 17670 quite comfortably. There are pictures in the Milky Mods thread (part 4, page 8).

 

[Glow_Worm]

That's good news, thanks for the pointer to the photo!

 

[Glow_Worm]

Kestrel, your L2 project thread was what got me started with the idea to begin with, and I was lucky enough to pick up a L2 body & tailcap last week. I tested it with a Malkoff M60 and the stock Surefire driver and it works fine, although the low is not really low enough. Now I've removed the driver, as there's no need for it with the Malkoff drop-in. I'm going to see about having the machine shop at my office bore the tube, but I'll wait until my dummy cells arrive in case I need to cut any of them down as well to get the battery lengths right. I'll PM when I know more, but I'm thinking of the L2 host as pretty-much a done deal already.

Now to try to find the right L1 model for a shorter form factor...

You also mentioned the possibility of changing out the tailcap resistor in order to give a lower low. Do you have any pics or links on how to disassemble the tailcap in order to do that?

 

[Kestrel]

I tested [the L2] with a Malkoff M60 and the stock Surefire driver and it works fine, although the low is not really low enough. Now I've removed the driver, as there's no need for it with the Malkoff drop-in. I'm going to see about having the machine shop at my office bore the tube, but I'll wait until my dummy cells arrive in case I need to cut any of them down as well to get the battery lengths right. I'll PM when I know more, but I'm thinking of the L2 host as pretty-much a done deal already.

Ah, I understand now. Since the driver will be in the Malkoff, you've got it easy - just bore the L2 body straight through for 2x 17500 for using the Malkoff M6x series, and you could still run 2xAA with the M31 as well. Sweet. :huh: (And by doing it this way, no cell spacers are required. :thumbsup: )

You also mentioned the possibility of changing out the tailcap resistor in order to give a lower low. Do you have any pics or links on how to disassemble the tailcap in order to do that?

Sorry, I don't have any additional information on this, neither do I know of a good info source for this procedure in the CPF archives. I gather that the construction details of the L1/L2 tailcap makes this a little difficult. A while ago, 'Milky' quoted me a very reasonable price for him to do this on one of these tailcaps, if/when I'd pursue this I'd just send it to him. Sorry I can't help more on that.

 

[Glow_Worm]

Ah, I understand now. Since the driver will be in the Malkoff, you've got it easy - just bore the L2 body straight through for 2x 17500 for using the Malkoff M6x series, and you could still run 2xAA with the M31 as well. Sweet. :huh: (And by doing it this way, no cell spacers are required. :thumbsup: )

Sorry, I don't have any additional information on this, neither do I know of a good info source for this procedure in the CPF archives. I gather that the construction details of the L1/L2 tailcap makes this a little difficult. A while ago, 'Milky' quoted me a very reasonable price for him to do this on one of these tailcaps, if/when I'd pursue this I'd just send it to him. Sorry I can't help more on that.

Right, I like easy! I love the beam from the Malkoff optics, but hated not having a low level. Your idea gives me that along with support for multiple battery configurations in the L2 format. Pretty much a perfect light. Well, except for the >6" length, and it's too bad that the VME head doesn't come in HA-Nat to match the Surefire, and a lower-low would be even nicer, and, and...

I'll see if I can live with the low value that I get from the stock resistor after I get it all cobbled together. If not, maybe I can ask Milky about that as well. Thanks again.

 

[FPSRelic]

Sorry to necro this thread, but since Kestrel pointed me here, I figured it would be OK.

In relation to the 6th generation cree version, I have read a number of people have models which they found to be even brighter than an E1B. Is this the consensus? I have an L1, and it certainly isn't as bright as my E1b. It an original model cree with a built in diffuser. Have people found the later cree models without the diffuser to be substantially brighter?

 

[etherealshade]

While I don't have an E1B to compare with my latest version L1, it appears to be in the 80-110 lumen range that various E1B revisions are rated at. However, if I put a li-ion in the light, or put the head on an E2E body with 17670, it positively screams. It's so bright I worry about the lifespan of the LED however, so I tend to leave it in stock form.

 

[asdalton]

My L1 is as bright as the old E1B, but not the new (110 lumens) one.

 

[Kestrel]

I recall that when I was looking at the small multimode SF's years back, I noticed that the runtime for the E1B (listed as being slightly brighter) was somewhat less than that for the L1, 0.8 hrs vs 1 hr or something on high. So although I believe that this question was relatively straightforward back then, SF complicated things a little at some point during their production runs by doing some inline upgrades. I have heard of "65 lumen" L1's measuring at over 100 lumens but the were no CPF threads on a possible upgrade @ SF for this light. When the E1B was officially upgraded to 110 lumens not long ago, that info got a little more press here at CPF - a number of threads were posted on that topic because SF updated their E1B packaging. So anything's possible with regards to comparing the two. :shrug: