Quark aa vs Quark aa2 X

tcr03

Newly Enlightened
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
68
Location
ST. Charles MO
so i already have a quark aa S2 regular interface. i had a quark aa tactical interface and lost it. i really miss the tactical interface so i was thinking of getting the aa2 x in a tactical interface. im really not fond of the aa2 battery tube since i really only use single 14500 batteries. but the quark x head is only offered in the aa2 or 123 squared bodys. so on to my real question. how will the quark x head compare to my s2 head running on a single 14500 battery. im wondering about lumen output and runtimes if anyone has any stats on that, that would be great.

thanks in advance
matt
 

roadkill1109

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 11, 2011
Messages
2,309
here's the low down, compared to your S2 which is greenish i presume like my S2 tactical.. hehehe... anyway, the XML on a 14500 is much brighter than the S2, floodier but may be a bit whiter in tint. The only drawback to running a Quark X head with a 14500 is that the runtime is not as good as running it off an XPG led.

You could opt for the tactical XPG2 head which will give you a bit better output than the S2 without compromising runtime, and also the throw would definitely be better than the XML version. Just be prepared to have yet another unused AA2 tube... (I have several around the house gathering dust hehe)

Remember, the XML will give you floodier beam, the most output from your 14500, but at the cost of runtime. Do not get the higher voltage version (123^2) head because this would drain the 14500 faster at no additional benefit other than the fact it can take two cr123's.

You could also opt for a regular low voltage head with a 123^2 body and put in a 17670 cell for improved runtime over the 14500, but at the cost of adding a few milimeters to your light.

the possibilities are up to you! :)
 

reppans

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 25, 2007
Messages
4,873
I have both and have tested them with a light meter and a clock on moonlight. I would consider them to be equally efficient on the lower modes, and based on 47s spec sheets, which I find incredibly accurate, the XML should be more efficient on the higher modes. Roadkill is right that the XML runtime will be about 1/2 the runtime of the S2, on moonlight, but I measure it to be ~ twice as bright so about equally efficient on a lumen-hr basis.

Kreisler has tested the 14500 with an XML, results HERE.

FWIW, I prefer the floodier XML beam, esp. for a small single cell EDC as this, as 95% of my flashlight needs are in relatively close range. The greater contrast of the XPGs - brighter hotspots/dimmer spills gets annoying to me up close.
 
Top