Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good *with pics and graphs*

[Size15's]

Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good

Just off the phone with SF.
...And that battery over-heating is not typical of the M6 light.

I've not yet managed to make any of my M6's over-heat (go into thermal shutdown) and I've tried. I guess it's just colder over here?

 

[bwaites]

Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good

Al,

Really? I've done it with Surefires, Battery Stations, and no name brand cells.

And outside temp had no effect, once it was when it was below zero!

Bill

 

[Size15's]

Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good

My hand must suck the heat right out of it then!

Seriously, I ran two of my M6's with MN21 lamps constant-on, twice with SF123A's last year to see whether they would over-heat. They didn't.

I tried the same in two M2's with P61 lamps when I read on CPF that that combination also suffered from thermal shutdown. They didn't.

The only lamp I've ever experienced thermal shutdown with is the N62 (in the 12PM and M4)

 

[bwaites]

Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good

I haven't been able to shut down any of the others, P61, P91 etc either.

I don't have an M4 (want to sell me one? or an M3 turbo head?) so I can't check out the N62.

I wonder if some of the carriers (most likely) or the bodies (unlikely) have some change that creates more resistance, leading to a problem in only some of them? I have two carriers, maybe I need to alternate them and see if only one causes the problem.

Bill

 

[RAF_Groundcrew]

Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good

I've got an M4 'for sale' because I have an M6 on the way.

Is there ever going to be a readily available, effective rechargeable option for the M6????? I wish surefire would address this one, with their R&D budget, it would be a well made item, but probably not cheap. The M6-R packs concept would be worth patenting........ before SF gets in on the act.

 

[seery]

Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good

Can anybody tell me the current draw for the M6 lights?

 

[wquiles]

Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good

Can anybody tell me the current draw for the M6 lights?

A search on MN20 and MN21 would bring you plenty of information, but the MN20 draws about 2.45Amps and the HOLA (MN21) draws about 4.9Amps from fresh cells

Will

 

[seery]

Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good

Here are the results of the second nights testing.

The few things changed from night #1:
- A new MN21 bulb was put into my M6.
- And a friend joined the testing with his M6.
- A Z2 with HOLA was tested.
- Tests run with New Titaniums and OEM Surefires.
- Didn't waste time cooling batts and re-running. This time first time dead was
considered dead!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

My M6 with the New Titaniums:
Run #1 - 7 minutes 10 seconds dimmed a bit and at 9 minutes 20 seconds went completely dead.
Run #2 - 9 minutes dimmed a bit and at 11 minutes 30 seconds went completely dead.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Friends M6 with run #1 New Titaniums and run #2 OEM Surefires:
Run #1 - (With New Titaniums) 8 minutes dimmed a bit and at 9 minutes 10 seconds went completely dead.
Run #2 - (WITH OEM SUREFIRE BATTERIES) 24 minutes and 20 seconds with
NO overheating or shutdown before going dead.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Z2 with HOLA, Runs #1 and #2 with New Titaniums and run #3 with OEM SF's.
Run #1 - (New Titaniums) 13 minutes 10 seconds light went dead.
Run #2 - (New Titaniums) 2 minutes 3 seconds light went dead.
Run #3 - (OEM Surefires) 24 minutes 10 seconds with NO overheating or shutdown before going dead.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surefires cost a bit more but it's apparent that's money well spent. The old
saying....get what you pay for! After reading so many posative reviews of the
New Titaniums I'm baffled?

 

[Lunal_Tic]

Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good

Thanks for the research. :thumbsup:

-LT

 

[SilverFox]

Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good

Just for fun, while I had some extra time between cycle testing, I ran some tests on various CR123 cells under a 5 Amp constant load.

If the cells are supposed to be rated around 1400 mAh, none of them did very well...

From these tests, I would speculate that the current draw of the M6 is a bit under 5 Amps continuous.

Here is the graph.

Tom

 

[diggdug13]

Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good *2nd night test findings ad

correct me if Im reading this wrong but it looks like batteystation batterys are the way to go!

Doug

 

[mdocod]

Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good

very interesting results there- wonder if there has been a sudden decline in the quality of many brands of 123s... or if that graph is only really showing where thermal protection shut down the cells.

 

[kennyj]

Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good

The batterystation cell pulled THAT FAR ahead of the pack? That's very interesting. They're slightly cheaper than SF cells last I looked, and IIRC they're frequently considered to be comparable to SF in build quality. Did you just use one of each cell or are these repeated tests? How did you perform the test?

Also, the M6 uses two parallel stacks, so the draw will be 2.5A from each cell on the HOLA, not 5.0A (which would be way too much to expect from a CR123A except in very short, very sparse bursts.)

 

[bfg9000]

Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good *2nd night test findings ad

The tested Titaniums fared best at 2A 11 months ago, while it was the Surefires that exceeded 115F: https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/67078

Perhaps if Tom could test some of the suspect cells?

 

[kennyj]

Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good *2nd night test findings ad

I'm actually starting to think that to have any real idea of which cells are better or worse, we're going to have to start testing samples purchased from different suppliers, at different times, and of different ages in order to identify trends.

Or we could just stop pushing the primaries so damn hard, and use rechargables more...

 

[Planterz]

Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good *2nd night test findings ad

I don't mean to sound like an *** here, but...

Running a Surefire M6 on the cheapest batteries available seems to me like buying a Lamborghini and running it on regular unleaded. I can understand the desire to be frugal, especially at 6 batteries a pop, but if you own the just about the most expensive flashlight available, why run it on questionable cheap batteries?

 

[jeffroalpha700]

Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good *2nd night test findings added*

It's a funny thought you bring up. On duty, in my M3 gunlight (the Insight, not the Surefire), I keep a pair of the Duracell 123's. Same in my Surefire M6. When I am camping or just playing with my surefire, I use Surefire batteries. I figure when my life is on the line, I will trust the Coppertop. The same will be true when I swap the Insight light for an X200 on the near future.

This is the same philosophy as our ammo. When training, we use Federal American Eagle for 9's and .45's, and CCI for .40's (different case color to prevent the accidental loading of a .40 in a .45). On duty we use Speer Golddot. Your going to use better stuff when your life depends on it.

 

[js]

Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good *2nd night test findings added*

SilverFox:

Yes,

THE SF M6 USES 2 PARALLEL STACKS OF 3 CR123A LI-MN-O2 CELLS!!!

And thus the current draw on each stack is 2.5 amps. So as your graph so obviously points out, the draw on the batteries CAN'T be 5 amps--and in point of fact, it isn't.

I have run my M6 on SF 123's and have gotten the full runtime (and then some) although the light was noticeably dimmer in those last minutes.

I have never run Titaniums in it, but after reading this post, I think I will give that a try if I can scrounge a spare 20 minutes (or 7 or 8 as the case may be) and report back. I just got 36 of the New Titaniums.

 

[RAF_Groundcrew]

Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good *2nd night test findings added*

I keep going through phases of "Do I buy another $300 light, or just spend the money on batteries, and use what I have, even more".

I recently weakened, and bought an M6.

I erally would appreciate a rechargeable solution to the M6 though, at work, I have an 8NX, and last night, I drained 4 B90 Ni-Cds, and started on the 5th (that's over 3 hours of almost constant light), so I am certainly glad my work light is rechargeable.

If SF were to introduce a good rechargeable solution, even a wide market prototype (road tested by CPF M6 owners, naturally), then they would be heading in the right direction. I know there are CPF members who are producing M6 packs, but this is not a large scale production line operation, so the lucky few who get to play with these M6 packs will surely appreciate the ability to use the fantastic SF M6 at will, and not worry about the running cost.

 

[Double_A]

Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good

In my opinion the M6 was not the proper light for the job you intended. For your purpose I would have recommended a Streamlight Litebox.

Tactical Flashlights are not used in the manner you have described, the M6 is a tactical flashlight.

This is what I ordered and for what device.

- 100 singles (for the M6)
- 22 inseperable doubles (E2D's)
- 6 inseperable triples (M3/M3T)
- For a total of 162 batteries.

This is from Amondotech's web site.
The batteries are manufactured in the same production lot and matched the internal resistances.
Referring to the doubles and triples. You would think in a larger volume order
(as in the 100 singles) they would know these are going to be used together
and send out "same production lot" batteries as well. Don't think it would
make any difference, if they tell me it would I'll seperate the triples and run
the same tests again to find out.

Bought the M6 as an emergency search light on our heavily wooded 50 acre
parcel that adjoins 14 square mile of state land. Should the horses get loose,
dogs out, boat tips at night on the lake, kids get lost or have an emergency
situation, unwanted trespassers need to located and dealt with, etc., etc.

So RUNTIME is very important. Lets take this scenerio.

It's 11pm on a summer night and the kids are out fishing on the lake with the
lantern when the boats tips and hits one of them on the head. We here
screaming, wife and I grab the M3 and the M6 and head for the lake. I jump in
the second boat with the M3 while she works the M6 from the shore to light
the situation...

Well you get where I'm heading here.

3 minutes 10 seconds of runtime just won't cut it folks! I bought the most
rugged and reliable high output light for a reason.

Very anxious to run the same tests again tonight with the SF batts, and
hoping they perform as advertised.