Shock Absorbing Head??

I ordered a M60 drop in from malkoff devices yesterday. I was looking at his instructions for when it comes in and I noticed his instructions say if you have a shock absorbing head your supposed to install a copper ring he sells. Well how do you know if yo have a shock absorbing head???
I have a SureFire G2 LED.
I'm assuming minde probably is because it has one small spring and one big one on the module.
So do I?
Thanks for your help.

You're3 fine.

The M2 head has the shock isolation

Whew thanks. I feel better now.

You would know The M2 is the only P60 pocketable flashlight that has a shock absorbing head. The rest are on dedicated weaponlights where they're needed to prevent the older incandescent p60's from blowing a filament under recoil.

WAY OFFTOPIC:

shock absorbing head.

hmm actually would be a great addition to my flashlights!

my lights tend to hit ground face first so it would be cool to have one with a strike bezel that would be cushioned.

drop the light on the pavement and it would take energy away and just bounce softer. hah.. prevent dings etc.

Shock isolated bezels don't really prevent dings. They just cushion the lamp assembly from forward movement.

I'm all for SI bezels for incans, but they have some drawbacks for LED drop-ins:

- In theory, the cushion reduces thermal transfer from the LED assembly to the bezel/body. On units with thermal protection, output will be reduced to prevent overheating (but runtime should be extended).

-Since the emitter is further back from the bezel lens, more light is blocked by the SI bezel compared to a standard bezel. Spill is noticeably reduced.

But they do look cool.

See this thread for some measurements of beam pattern sizes for various 6P bezels.

WRT thermal transfer for a shock bezel vs standard bezel, I maintain that there is little difference for the two bezels, especially for the Malkoff drop-ins. I'll back up that claim with photos later. But if you look at the design and shape of the Malkoff, the vast majority of the thermal contact of the drop-in with the flashlight is between the brass body and the flashlight "neck", assuming you use a little bit of foil to fill the very slight gap. The only contact between the Malkoff and the bezel, be it a shock bezel or standard bezel, is at the thin brass rim of the drop-in touching a matching metal lip.

True, that for the standard bezel, the metal lip is integral with the bezel shell itself. For the shock bezel, the metal lip slides against the inside of the bezel shell, and so has only rough mechanical contact. So for that minor thermal pathway, a standard bezel is better than a shock bezel. But that thermal pathway is minuscule compared to the pathway between the Malkoff's brass body and the flashlight neck. And since the bezel is screwed into the flashlight body at the neck, heat will flow through those threads into the bezel anyway.

Someone should design a flashlight with a zero-g sensor that shuts off the bulb so the filament can cool off and not break when the flashlight hits the ground.

It's called a momentary-on tailcap switch. Drop the light, the tailcap switch is released and the light turns off.

The incandescent lamp filaments still break, cool or hot. I've dropped SF 6Ps that were not turned on at all onto concrete. Sometimes the filament survives, sometimes they break.

Here is the interior view (the "neck") of an LU60 weaponlight adapter. Note the retaining rim that holds back the top battery from moving forward under recoil.


See how a Malkoff fits into the neck. The shape of the brass heat sink closely conforms to the interior shape of the "neck" (with a slight gap that is easily filled using aluminum foil). Also note the narrow brass rim at the top of the drop-in. This is the only area of contact between the drop-in and the bezel.




Here is the interior of a Z44 bezel. Note the integral standoff "lip" where the top rim of a drop-in rests. If you have a G&P or Solarforce clone bezel, there is no lip. For those bezels, the drop-in presses either directly on the glass window, or on a separate spacer ring that you drop into the bezel.


A view of a Z32 shock bezel. The Z32's lip slides along the inside surface of the bezel shell (it's connected to a rubber shock absorber).


Minimal contact between the Malkoff and the Z44:


Minimal contact between the Malkoff and the Z32:

Justin Case, well done post.

Bill

Justin Case,
Nicely illustrated!
I agree that the difference in thermal transfer would be minimal. It's probably not even measurable unless the light is on for an extended time, like more than 5 minutes. I don't run my M60 for that long, so the light in my last post actually still houses one.
The bigger disadvantage is definitely the loss of spill. An M60 "F" variant would be counterproductive in a SI bezel.

From my measurements posted in a different thread:

Test conditions

- 3P host
- DX6090 drop-in
- old SF 6P round bezel , Lexan window
- new SF 6P anti-roll bezel, Pyrex window
- old SF Z32 bezel, Lexan window
- G&P bezel
- 7 foot distance to the wall

Results

Bezel Beam Radius
Old 6P 4 feet
New 6P 3.5 feet
Old Z32 3 feet
G&P 4 feet

I also tested a SureFire 12ZM with SRTH, equipped with an AW LED tower (Seoul P4 U2-bin LED). I got a beam radius of 8 feet.

Whether or not any difference in beam radius is important depends on your application and method of use. If you look here, for example, by using ceiling bounce illumination, you can light up a room pretty effectively independent of beam width.

Can't remember the numbers but there is a significant amount of light lost using the KT4 and the KT1,2 when I have used same LA's in each light. This measured by bounce with lightmeter. The loss is mostly in the spill I would think, and maybe center spot somewhat, due to distance from reflector to glass in KT4.

Bill

I have a KT4 TH equipped with an SSC P4 tower. I can compare its output to the SRTH maybe within the next few days.

So I tested a KT4 vs SRTH using an MC-E equipped AW LED tower.

At 7 feet from the wall, the KT4 produced a beam radius of 5 feet. The SRTH with MC-E tower produced the same radius as with the SSC P4 tower -- 8 feet.

Interestingly, at close range (say, one foot) to a white wall, the KT4 produces a much less noticeable MC-E "cross" than the SRTH does. At the 7 foot test distance, both beams are essentially flawless, with perhaps just a hint of some shadows in the hot spot for the SRTH.