Already have PR-T, should I bother with the SF L1?

I dunno why the L1 LumaMax is calling my name, louder and louder. I already have a very nice PR-T put together by bajaiman, DB917, TW0L. I have this idea about affixing a McE2S tailcap onto the PR-T, giving me two-stage output without having to go to the L1.

Yet, for some strange reason, the L1 keeps popping up in my mind. I'm eyeing the newest-generation with 4th-gen KL1 style TIR optical collimator, the all-throw-and-no-flood one. I've owned the 4G KL1, so I know exactly what I am asking for. However, as those of you who already know, I'm a lumen freak (see signature. "Wicked Sick Fun Begins At >500 Lumens" /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif). The L1's low mode.. hmm, too low? Will I end up using it on high all the time?

Let me know which option you guys would recommend.

Re: Already have PR-T, should I bother with the SF

Kevin,

I find that I hardly use the McE2S switch with my Aleph2 or L4. For sure, in the dead of night, getting up for baby-duty a super dim light is much easier on the eyes. But at least in the Z57 shell, it hasn't been a flawless performer for me. Also, the loss of the clickie is a significant hit in functionality at least as I use lights.

Also, in my mind, throw and low mode are almost antithetical concepts. Why have a super low mode that you can't see very far with if you want throw to see far? So, for me, a floody low mode and throwy high mode are the two distinct, exclusive operational modes I can see being of use.

Would I keep a new L1 for night table use? Yep. Would I take it if I knew I were going to be outside, heck no. Personally, if I wanted a small unit with punch, I'd opt for an Aleph2 on a 1x123 body driven by a NG700 and a 2-stage.

Wilkey

Re: Already have PR-T, should I bother with the SF

Whats a PR-T. Got any pics?

-David

Re: Already have PR-T, should I bother with the SF

Ginseng: hmm, good points. I think I should lay off, especially since I already have a U2 that covers the low level lighting needs and then some. It's just this fascination with various kinds of lights that keeps biting me /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

I keep an L4 around for house use and I love the clicky enough that I wouldn't want to convert that one to a two-stage. If it was my ONLY light, I might have to consider that, but otherwise, I prefer it as it is.


cheapo: The PR-T is a flashlight head with a 27mm reflector that can be screwed onto any Surefire two-cell Executive series body. Inside my PR-T, there's a Luxeon 3 TW0L with a DB917 converter mounted. Depending on who builds it, there can be various combinations of LED and converter, some PR-Ts were given Luxeon Vs and BB750 converters.

It's widely acknowledged to be a throw monster. I clocked mine at 330 yards using a GPS receiver under a full moon.

And I got a UCL for it /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

It's shown here with one of my other L4 bodies. Yes, my PR-T is a dark gray/black HA3, hence the color mismatch. It's not so bad in person.





Edit: The PR-T may be hard to come by today since they are no longer in production. Your best bet is to get an Aleph 1 head (27mm) with a Light Engine of your choice.

Re: Already have PR-T, should I bother with the SF

How much did she cost? Any experience with longbow?

-David

Re: Already have PR-T, should I bother with the SF

Hmm, something like $110 or thereabouts, but that was not a new light - it's been to Australia, USA, and the Far East - I think I'm it's third owner. Wonderful little light though /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Sorry, no experience with the Longbow lights, but I think the Micra uses the NX05 optic, which should produce a beam pattern that is very similar to my Surefire KL1 (3rd-generation), which also uses the NX05.

Re: Already have PR-T, should I bother with the SF

What kind of reflector does the PR-T use, is it similar to the longbow PR head?

-David

Re: Already have PR-T, should I bother with the SF

The pelican reflector.

Re: Already have PR-T, should I bother with the SF

Interesting concepts and comments in this thread! I would like to suggest that the underlying need of the lights is that of providing sufficient light to the intended target of ilumination and often, an over abundance of light is as undesireable as insufficient light. The shape or concentration of the beam will have obvious impact on a successful or ideal target illumination. I can relate to Ginsing's comments of "low" and throw being the antithesis of eachother and yet I have used a far throwing (tight beam) light on low level for illuminating a realitively distant target efectively while not poluting the foreground or surrounds (neighbors windows for one instance) with unneeded or unwanted light. On the other hand, I have also used a flood beam on high to get out to the target with a shotgun scatter of photons.

As stated, it is really a matter of needs and typical use. For me, two level output has much greater priority than instant "clickie" access to constant on. The L1 gives you two levels with a switch that not only works well but set the stage for many of us. I personally also find I predominantly need flood illumination for in close work and brighter and further reaching beams are in less frequent need.

With the current state of the art and the LED lights, we have numerous options as well as the ability to use tools that have a certain amount of adjustability. As a flood proponent, I am a strong believer in having a beam shaper present on my light. I am willing to take the time to remove it when greater range is required. I also like to be "quiet" in my illumination and start with a low volume and increase it only as needed.

For most of this year, I have been EDC'ing a proto that is reasonably similar in output to the L1; albeit a smaller reflectored package VS optic. My proto has two levels of output, 29 mA and 450 mA which I believe is similar to the new L1. As with my proto (in pic below) the L1 can also be host to the SF beam shaper which is really a boon to increasing the dynamic range of illumination, IMHO.



My point? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thinking.gif Well I guess I am suggesting that the L1, especially with a beam shaper, can do a great job and would likely serve well against the PR-T and even the U2; ultimately depending on the lumnious requirements typically present. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon3.gif

Re: Already have PR-T, should I bother with the SF

L1 is alittle big for a single sell though. E1L is better in my opinion. More throw for its size.

-David

Re: Already have PR-T, should I bother with the SF

My two favorite lights are my L1 modded with an IMS 17mm reflector and the Aleph-1. L1 equipped with a red flip-up filter is my indoor and bedside light, while the Aleph-1 takes care most of the outdoor requirements.

I don't EDC the L1; I have an Exe-TXOJ/NG500 on an E1 body with McE2s for that EDC purpose. However, I do find the Exe/E1-EDC relatively small for the hand and to be used as a general purpose nightstand light.

Re: Already have PR-T, should I bother with the SF

I have the 2nd gen L1, so its more of a flood, but I can say that low may be only .7 lumens, but its perfectly bright for most uses- almost too bright if reading up close. I would imagine that the new version would be too bright for reading since all of the light would be so focused. In regards to the switch, personally I think it's the most elegant approach to 2 stage I have seen. You always have instant, silent access to either level, and constant on is just a brief twist away.

Re: Already have PR-T, should I bother with the SF

The ElL (KL1) with a McE2s is the same thing as an L1, since they both wont be regulated on low.

How would the Aleph 2 compare to PR-T?

Re: Already have PR-T, should I bother with the SF

My thoughts - I like the PR-T with 2 stages ALOT better then my L1. Now the issue is functionality. The PR head is great for outdoors looking at things or checking out the yard, but you need another head to go with it, or a beam diffuser. If you use the light its beam will be much to focused for lots of uses. Don't get me wrong I love the PR-T, it makes up an essential part of my photonic arsenal (thanks Mr. Bulk /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif), but it isn't, by itself, and EDC light for most people.