Surefire M4 Devastator & Pila Compatibility?

So is there any problem with the Pila rechargable cells working or even fitting into the M4 Devastator? I checked the Pila Compatibility chart at flashlightreviews.com and I see that several Surefire lights work with Pila cells, and two don't cause the Pila's won't even fit inside (A2 & L2). But there is no info on compatibility with the M4 Devastator.

So M4 owners, a little help please? Thanks!

The Pila cells that are designed to fit surefires will fit in. I believe they are the 600S? I used AW's 17670 LIon cells and an MN16 LA to power my M4 for a while. These cells are the same as the Pila 600S. These should power the M4 for about 40 minutes.

Thanks Protaeus, well now I can get started on my custom assembled Surefire light project.

Pro - Will the AW17670's power the M4 / M16 with a single click? Also, do you notice any loss in output over primaries? I am thinking of implementing this set-up myself and would appreciate any further input you might have from your experience. THANKS!

Sunstar - I have AW's new protected 17500 and 17670 cells that I run in a M3T (17670's with an extender, obvioulsy )

A couple of the 17500's need a double click but most of the cells light with a single one, but with the LOTC in place its not a problem with the double click at all and i'm using this set up as a duty light.

Dont think you'll get anything like 40 mins on an MN16 though as suggested above, thats more like the run time for a MN15.

Before I bought the turbo head it was a stock M3 and I was trying it with PILA 150S's but this gave a lot of problems, needing an extra spring round the LA and it was still not reliable then even with a clickie tail cap which did improve matters slightly. I had given up using it for a duty light until the 17500's cells came along, these are slighlty shorter and the proper battery type positive contact makes all the difference and a very reliable duty light.

I can see no difference in output against primaries except that you use it a lot more cos its free

Thanks Bagman. I am going to give this a try (cause I want to use it more).:rock:
Just getting into the rechargeable thing and I have been learning quite a bit here. However, I am a bit confused regarding the M4 though. Some use 2 PILA 600s cells with the M16 and others prefer 3 PILA 600S cells (with 2 A19's) using the MN60. Is this preference based on a performance difference between the two lamp assemplies, run time or other?:candle: I don't understand why one would increase the length of the M4 unless there is a distinct advantage in doing so.

you're increasing the length to use the MN60 bulb...

I used 2 A19's and 3 x 600's for one bad *** torch!!!

So... I take it that there is a distinct performance difference between the MN60 and MN16 even though both are rated at 225 lumens?

My experience is currently limited to the MN60 with MN16's on the way.

Thanks for the reply.

hmmm... I know I can't verify that as I didn't use the MN16.. anyone??

You do make a very very valid point.. I'll call it the "if it's true Manzerick will be selling 2 A19's" postulate

:laughing: I'm thinking at the least you should gain some run time using the 3 batteries but since they are rechargeable, run time may or may not be worth the increased length, Hopefully someone who has used both in this configuration can set me straight. If not, when my MN16's arrive, I have an M4 and enough parts to put together another 4 cell tube - I will do a side by side comparison of the LA's and post results.

that would be very helpful as now I've been pondering this all morning LOL


I can appreciae the added length as my M4 is part "weapon" seeing as the woods I go in are in a city. It's a reservation but you never know what type of idiot is lurkin around the corner or under a bush


this will be very interesting to see.

So... I take it that there is a distinct performance difference between the MN60 and MN16 even though both are rated at 225 lumens?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say it's a "distinct" difference, but it's a slightly noticeable difference.

I have an M4 running an MN60 and an L5 Turbohead running two RCR123s and an MN16, which would be a rough equivalent comparison of running two 17670s and an MN16.

The MN16 seems to have a slightly tighter hotspot... from what I've read on the forum it's because the filament is smaller. Other than that, the output and color are great... one of my fave lights.

Thank You Scott.

Do you believe it would be different burn time?

Thanks much Scott!!

I don't think we can compare run times from (2) 700 - 800 mAH RCR123's to 2 or 3 1500 - 1600 mAH 17670's. Although, the compactness of Scott's set-up with given output is inspiring

true... I'm just asking for potential future set-up

For reference, I normally get 34 min run time from 2 RCR123's feeding the DRB-9HP (the one with output between the P90 and P91). We'll call it 150 lumens so I'd expect the MN16 to pull harder not taking into account lamp design and efficiencies. Even still, if one could get 20 min on that set-up, you've matched the HOLA performance of the M3T in a smaller package.

Dang... these variations could keep one awake at night.:huh:

M3T + A19 extender + 2xPila600S + MN16 HOLA = fun.

cheers

that is a good set-up..thank you!

Do you know of one that could work with the MN61?


If I add more A19's it can double as a walking stick LOL

I don't think we can compare run times from (2) 700 - 800 mAH RCR123's to 2 or 3 1500 - 1600 mAH 17670's. Although, the compactness of Scott's set-up with given output is inspiring

Click to expand...

This is true; in terms of runtime, the RCR123s are no contest. But they are small, and go into a correspondingly small light. Honestly, the L5 Turbohead with the MN16 is "THE" light of choice for me when I go places where I do not need a whole lot of runtime, like walking out to dinner, weekend trip to Las Vegas, etc. RCR123s are cheap enough that I have two in the light and six spares in a Surefire spares carrier.

When I need those extended runtimes I'll grab either the M4 (MN60) and/or the U2. Or sometimes the Thor Cyclops, if space and weight are a non-issue.

Scott or anyone else,

What does a L5 turbohead look like?

Curtis