ARC 4 UCL install. Opinions and impressions

Hi people.I just received a pair of UCL's for my ARC4's.
To start with I will give you my conclusion.
If while I am holding an ARC 4 flashlight with a UCL and something happens that is powerful enough to break that UCL then I am in big trouble. The broken flashlight will be the least of my worries.
The UCL is one chunky piece of glass, I believe that it would take a great amount of force to break it.

It is MUCH clearer and cleaner than the original. The light has more light output as well, with a slightly cleaner beam.
The point is that the UCL lens is an excellent modification for the ARC 4 and should have come as standard equipment on a $180.00 light(or a $99.00 for a second in my case).

I for one and very happy I did this MOD to my ARC's
Yaesumofo

Was it difficult to remove the lens retaining ring?

I'd like to know as well.

I have installed UCLs on my ARC 4s also. It was easy to remove the retaining rings on both of them using a Jaxa type watch case opener. I too thought that a glass lens would be standard equipment. I think the glass lens is easier to keep clean - doesn't seem to attract as much lint at the original lens. I also think it's more scratch resistant so I can eliminate the plastic lens protector stickers ( and the lint under them ).

The retaining ring comes off very easily. don't over tighten when putting back. ideal would be to use a thin (.4mm) gsk between lock ring and glass.

original lexan is 2.4mm, new ucl is 2.0mm. if you don't use .4mm gsk. the retaining ring will end up .4mm down from original position.

Larry's how to make a gsk comes to mind.

Find a snap ring removal or watch back removal tool. The important thing to watch out for is to use correct size tips. It should fit into half round slot on the retainer ring perfectly. Don't try to remove ring until you get a perfect fit, that is if you don't want to risk scratching it.

I also used a JAXA type tool made In the USA called a LG Watch Wrench.
It was easy. I believe that my UCL is much closer to the 2.4mm than 2.0mm. I did replace the stock "O" ring with the one that came with the UCL and the retaining ring is in the same position that it was in before the MOD.
Yaesumofo

Another easy way to unscrew the retaining ring is to cut a piece of thin plastic so that its width fits just into the slots. Given the plastic is softer than HA3, it shouldn't scratch but still can be rigid enough to remove the ring.

-YC

I also added a UCL to my ARC4. I had left the plastic film cover on the original lens to stop the scratching that happens from carrying in my pocket. The plastic film had gotten pretty bad. Because of this, the difference in brightness was truly noticeable. Several weeks now and the UCL looks like new except for the finger smudges.
Retainer was easy enough. I used a pair of very fine needle nose pliers as a spanner tool.
Jim

yclo, would a cut credit card work?

I just used the pyrex lens from an E2e bezel. It's even thicker than the Arc4 original but it fits. My Arc4 retaining ring arrived loose so I didn't need a tool. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif I just used my fingers and pressed really hard. It didn't work on my rev1, it was too tight.

I tightened it with one of those rubber things that people use to loosen lids that are overtightened on glass jars.

I fully agree that this lens should be standard on the Arc4. Baring fear or lack of tools , I can think of no good reason why anyone willing to pay for an arc4 first shouldn't be installing the ucl. If an arc4 is pocket clip carried regularly for 2 months then that lexan lens is very likely to be looking somewhat junky. In much less time than it takes to buff out the accrued scratches, the scratch problem can be eliminated , light transmission improved , waterproofing maintained , the lense also stays cleaner and is easier to clean. If you are using the clear film to protect a lexan lens then it is likely that the film has small air bubbles or subtle bits of ick beneath it that really yuck up the beam or it soon will when the film is replaced with a new one. My arc was like that and the difference between that and ucl is really amazing. Plus, the coatings on the ucl lens create very subtle bluish reflections that look very high tech. This isn't just a modification, its an upgrade. Of course, if your arc4 is a dresser queen then it probabally isn't worth the time/money. It's best for arc's that are edc's or used frequently.

The reason that we use Lexan instead of glass is not because if the money. While Lexan may be less expencive than glass the deciding factor is durablity.

We can go back and forth all day about why one is "better" than the other but that been done before.

Glass is a brittle material. Yes I know you and your cousin/friend/brother have seen pyrex withstand a tac nuke and not shatter but thats not where the most common issue to worry about is. The lense is in direct contact with the body of the light therefore shock is transfered right to the edge of the lense. When the lense is glass (UCL and Pyrex included) you get minor chipping along the outer rim thus rendering that waterproof seal useless. Even if this was a rare occurence the mere fact it happens is enough to convince us to opt for the more plyable and durable Lexan.

First and formost Arc wishes its lights to be useful. A non waterproof light or a vulnerable light is not useful to most. Since most users would find Lexan more useful than other materials it was decided that we use Lexan.

That said - one of the reasons we intentionally don't glue the retaining ring is so that the end user ,should they wish to, might put the lense of their choice in the light.

I've got UCL on my 4+ and love it. I think both lexan and UCL of this thickness and limited diameter will survive a direct hit of considerable force with no problems. 2mm X 25mm is pretty tough in either flavor. Lexan being tougher of course, but how much stength do we really need for this application.

Has anyone broken their UCL equiped Arc4?

Maybe not broken but, if I understand Trevor, someone may have compromised his arc4's waterproofness without knowing it.

If one uses a UCL, it may be a good idea to periodically remove the retaining ring and inspect the lense.

I have 3 UCL's on order. Does anyone know the differential in lense thickness between the stock lense and the UCL?

I don't think Trevor is talking about a "direct hit" on the lens; he's talking about the body taking a hit (i.e. dropping and hitting ground) which can translate into minor chipping at lens edge and therefore, water leakage later on. There are pics on this forum of large dents on the leading edge of the head due to drops which could have resulted in lens- chipping if it were glass.

[ QUOTE ]
yaesumofo said:
I also used a JAXA type tool made In the USA called a LG Watch Wrench.
It was easy. I believe that my UCL is much closer to the 2.4mm than 2.0mm. I did replace the stock "O" ring with the one that came with the UCL and the retaining ring is in the same position that it was in before the MOD.
Yaesumofo

[/ QUOTE ]
Your UCL came with a "O" ring? I bought two UCLs and that's all I got! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

What is an UCL? and where would one get one? How much would it cost? I figured out it is glass rather than lexan, but what does UCL stand for. Some of you will not be able to resist humorus answers but hopefully I will be able to recognize an accurate answer somewhere. thanks

UCL = ultra clear lens.
You can get them at flashlightlens.com for arround $7 in a variety of sizes that fit most popular flashlights.

thanks kongfuchicken, that seems a simple enough explaination