McClicky tailcaps

Can anyone comment on the ruggedness & reliability of these Surefire tailcap ugrades? Would like to get some for my G2s but need to know I can count on 'em when it really matters!

(Yes, I did a search, but just found sales threads, no comments on how well they work)

I'll ask others to speak to the experience, but I can share a few statistics.

With 6 months of data (Nov 09), 400+ units are in the wild, with 3 reported failures. 1 was dead on on arrive, 1 was blown with a 10 amp load, and the last was somehow crushed during installation. We've not heard of any failures during use.

Those are impressive numbers, I must say! You will definitely be getting a few orders from me in the very near future for some pre-assembled G2 TCs!

Thanks for the response!

What was the problem with the original Surefire tailcaps? Were there many failures with those?

gcbryan said:

What was the problem with the original Surefire tailcaps? Were there many failures with those?

Click to expand...

Basically the McClicky Surefire tailcap upgrade kit is for those people who want a high quality forward clicky switch for their Surefire 6P, G2, C2, etc. flashlights that come with the Z41 twisty tailcap...which is of course super reliable (though I can't say if there have ever been any failures with them). It's mostly a preference thing. Some people like clicky switches and some people like twisty switches.

I use the Z41 twisties (for reliability in high risk situations) on my two C2s that I carry on duty, but I just don't like the feel of the G2 twisties. I had a couple of Surefire HA clickies completely fall apart on duty. SF promptly replaced them, but I'll stick to twisties on my C2s for duty carry.

I carry a G2 w/ an M60 in each of my bags and keep one in my truck. I feel like I'm always just fumbling around trying to go between lockout/momentary/constant on w/ the G2 twisty. I want to be able to just turn it on right away if I really need it.

I like my three McClicky's, but they're extremely sensitive. The smallest amount of pressure (I'm talking about a fraction of a mm) turns them on; this could be bad if you're in a tactical situation and your light goes on by accident.

I like the stock Surefire twisty tailcaps because you can somewhat choose how much pressure is needed to turn them on (or at least how much travel of the button is needed before they turn on) which prevents accidental light discharges.

gcbryan said:

What was the problem with the original Surefire tailcaps?

Click to expand...

Most metal SF models come standard with a Z41 twisty+momentary. This setup is very reliable but not very convenient. Factory Z58/Z59 tailcaps are available, but at twice the price of the McClicky or NetKidz options when you already have a twisty. So rather than buy two caps, folks find it preferable to upgrade the tailcap they already have.

There are no Nitrolon clicky tailcaps made, its upgrade or get a metal tailcap.

TriChrome said:

I like my three McClicky's, but they're extremely sensitive.

Click to expand...

There are now 2 pressure options, PM sent about upgrading yours:

Pssst … grams are not a unit of force.

I had one and thought it was great. The only thing to mention is the button sticks out way more than the regular twisty. It did not bother me but it is something that is different to mention.

I just prefer twisty tailcaps....

The McClicky gutts used in these have a very good track record of reliability and durability.

I did not like how sensitive my McClicky switches were either so I came up with a simple fix that works for me. If you take the switch apart you can trim the little "nub" (for lack of a better word) on the underside of the switch boot a bit shorter with a razorblade. Just trim a little bit at a time until satisfied. I trimmed mine nearly all the way off. Works like a champ.

Haven't tried it yet but the switches are supposed to be slightly adjustable for pressure and there's two type of boots - one hard and one soft. I have the hard one on the switch right now and I find it just about perfect in pressure for me so I haven't even tried the soft one yet.

JCD said:

Pssst … grams are not a unit of force.

Click to expand...

LOL, huh? I guess there's also something wrong with measuring trigger pull in 'pounds'?



The chart does a nice job of illustrating the difference in the switches. Thanks for posting the chart!

-

Chevy-SS said:

LOL, huh? I guess there's also something wrong with measuring trigger pull in 'pounds'?

Click to expand...

No that's correct because pounds are the Imperial ("standard") unit of measuring force. Trigger pull is a force.

Grams are the metric unit of measuring mass, not force.

The standard unit of mass is the slug.

Locoboy5150 said:

No that's correct because pounds are the Imperial ("standard") unit of measuring force. Trigger pull is a force.

Grams are the metric unit of measuring mass, not force.

The standard unit of mass is the slug.

Click to expand...

The pound-force has a metric counterpart, less commonly used than the newton: the kilogram-force (kgf) (sometimes kilopond)......

So, I still think he's OK with grams. But no matter, the chart provides a good reference point that we can all understand.

-

Chevy-SS said:

The pound-force has a metric counterpart, less commonly used than the newton: the kilogram-force (kgf) (sometimes kilopond).

Click to expand...

From your source:

"The kilogram-force has never been a part of the International System of Units (SI), which was introduced in 1960. The SI unit of force is the newton."

*fixed

JCD said:

From your source:

"The kilogram-force has never been a part of the International System of Units (SI), which was introduced in 1960. The SI unit of force is the newton."

Click to expand...

From the same source - "The newton is the unit of force derived in the SI system; it is equal to the amount of force required to accelerate a mass of one kilogram at a rate of one meter per second per second."

Then why are they using metric terms here?

Next thing you'll be saying is that "Geeks" is not a proper term for 'force' either, lol!

-

Chevy-SS said:

From the same source - "The newton is the unit of force derived in the SI system; it is equal to the amount of force required to accelerate a mass of one kilogram at a rate of one meter per second per second."

Then why are they using metric terms here?

Click to expand...

???

They're giving the definition of the Newton, and the Newton is the metric (i.e., SI) unit for force. 1 N = 1 kg·m·s⁻². The kilogram-force has never been an SI unit. Even if it was, it is still a unit distinctly different from a kilogram. One measures force; the other measures mass. Force is not equal to Mass. Ever. The units will always be different.

Geez. I was just lightheartedly pointing out that the graph was labeled with incorrect units. If you want to discuss and learn about different units and why it's important to use correct units, start an appropriate thread in The Cafe.