# ArmyTek Partner A1, A2, C1 Series (XP-G and XM-L, AA and CR123A) Review: RUNTIMES+



## selfbuilt (Aug 12, 2013)

*Warning: a LOT more pic heavy than usual. :sweat:*

_*This is a round-up overview of the new Partner family of lights from ArmyTek.* All told, I have six different lights in this review – the C1 (1xCR123A/RCR), the A1 (1xAA/14500), and the A2 (2xAA) – in both XP-G and XM-L emitter formats._





























Given the complexity of reviewing so many lights at one time, I have broken up this review into common elements up top (i.e., general build, user interface, etc.), and have left the specific comparisons (size overviews, beamshots, runtimes, etc.) in separate sections at the end, for each of the three battery-type models.

For most of this review, I have focused the light pics on the XP-G models, but have highlighted the XM-L versions where appropriate. There's a ton of data here, so sit back and make yourself comfortable … 

*Manufacturer Reported Specifications:* 
(note: I don't have space to get into each model in detail, so see ArmyTek's website for more info. Below is just a quick overview of the major features, taken from their website). 


LED: Cree XP-G LED or XM-L LED
XP-G models TIR 20°:70°, XM-L models TIR 50°:90°
Small size and weight for easy carry
2 Modes and easy operation
Type of mode switching: Tailcap switch, Reverse clicky
Advanced heat transmission for LED with copper MPCB
Special spring material for higher efficiency
Battery over-discharge protection circuit for unprotected batteries
Advanced electronic reverse polarity protection
Light output without flickering
Ability to use batteries with a flat contact
Body material: Aircraft-grade aluminium
Body anti-abrasive finish: Premium type III hard anodizing 400HV
Premium antislipping matt surface treatment
Reliable spring construction for battery protection
Trapezoidal threads for longer lifetime
Body color: Matt Black
Waterproof and dustproof standard: IP68 (highest)
Waterproof & Submersible: 10m
Double O-rings for best waterproof
Impact Resistance: 10m
Belt holster (Molle)
Strong and easily removable lanyard
MSRP: ~$40-45














Packaging is common for all versions - a typical carboard box, reminiscent of the Zebralight lights. Inside, the light comes with a basic but good quality holster with closing flap, wrist lanyard, spare o-rings and boot cover, and manual. 





From left to right: Rayovac CR123A; ArmyTel Partner C1 XP-G, A1 XP-G, A2 XP-G, Duracell NiMH AA.

_Detail comparisons for each model – relative to their respective class – will be provided later in this review._

*Common Build Elements*


















As always, ArmyTek build quality is very high, and the lights have a very robust feel. Physically, the two classes of models are distinguished primarily by their emitters and optics, which I will describe in more detail below. 

The ArmyTek finish is fairly unique in my testing - the bodies of their lights have a very thick matte finish anodizing that feels almost molded (i.e., it is very "grippy"). According to ArmyTek, this anodization coating is much thicker than most lights. Although the lights lack knurling, grip is actually quite decent thanks to this unique finish. And there are some ridge detail elements to help further with grip. 

Note the grippier finish may show dirt, hand oil, etc, more easily than traditional glossy knurling. There are also no real anti-roll features (except for some flattened areas of the tailcap), so the lights can all roll easily. Lettering is very bright and clear, and very legible.

Screw threads are standard triangular cut, but seem of good quality. Screw threads are anodized at the tail region of the battery tube and in the tailcap (for lock-out). Edges of the battery tube have all been chamfered (i.e., rounded off), which shows a nice attention to detail.

The tailcap switch is a reverse clicky in all lights, with good feel. The spring is thicker and longer than typical on these sorts of lights, with a flattened end (so as not to scratch your batteries). 

There is a lanyard attachment point at the base of the tailcap. The lights cannot tailstand.

There is a small raised contact point in the head, so high capacity flat-top batteries can be used.

As mentioned earlier, the lights are distinguished by their emitter and optic choice. Note that the lights do not use a reflector, but have a customized TIR optic that goes with each emitter type.

XP-G emitter:


























XM-L emitter:






















In all cases, the head of the light has a flat aluminum bezel. Use of TIR optics means the spill will be reduced (compared to reflectored lights). Although hard to capture on camera, please see my detailed beamshots later in this review, for each model. 

*User Interface*

The Partner interface is very basic. The lights use a reverse clicky tailcap – press and release (click) to turn on. 

The lights have two modes, Lo and Hi, accessed in sequence (i.e., click off-on to switch modes). When the light hasn't been used in awhile, it always comes on in Lo. 

But there is an unusual twist here – when changing between modes, most lights only retain the last setting for a couple of seconds (i.e., you have to click off-on quickly to advance modes). But In the Partner case, mode-switching memory is retained for 7 mins. This means it will advance to the next mode if you turn the light off and back on within 7 mins.

There are no "blinky" modes on the Partners.

_*UPDATE AUGUST 14, 2013*:ArmyTek informs me that they plan to switch to a new circuit without this long mode-switching delay. They will also add a third mode (i.e., Max - Med - Lo), and will include a clip on the next batch of lights._ 

*Video*: 

For information on the light, including the build and user interface, please see my video overview:



Video was recorded in 720p, but YouTube typically defaults to 360p. Once the video is running, you can click on the configuration settings icon and select the higher 480p to 720p options. You can also run full-screen. 

As with all my videos, I recommend you have annotations turned on. I commonly update the commentary with additional information or clarifications before publicly releasing the video.

*PWM*

There is no sign of PWM at either output level, on any light – the Partners are all current-controlled. 

*Testing Method:* 

All my output numbers are relative for my home-made light box setup, a la Quickbeam's flashlightreviews.com method. You can directly compare all my relative output values from different reviews - i.e. an output value of "10" in one graph is the same as "10" in another. All runtimes are done under a cooling fan, except for any extended run Lo/Min modes (i.e. >12 hours) which are done without cooling.

I have devised a method for converting my lightbox relative output values (ROV) to estimated Lumens. See my How to convert Selfbuilt's Lightbox values to Lumens thread for more info. 

*Throw/Output Summary Chart:*

My summary tables are reported in a manner consistent with the ANSI FL-1 standard for flashlight testing. Please see http://www.flashlightreviews.ca/FL1.htm for a discussion, and a description of all the terms used in these tables. Effective July 2012, I have updated all my Peak Intensity/Beam Distance measures with a NIST-certified Extech EA31 lightmeter (orange highlights).

Ok, now that the common elements are out of the way, let's move on to the detailed testing of each battery-type model. :sweat:

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

*Partner C1*













From left to right: Rayovac CR123A; ArmyTek Partner C1 XP-G; Foursevens QTLC; Nitecore MT1C; Sunwayman C10Rl JetBeam PC10; Olight S10; Sunwayman V11R.

All dimensions directly measured, and given with no batteries installed:

*1xCR123A/RCR:*
*ArmyTek C1 XP-G*: Weight: 42.6g, Length: 79.8mm , With (bezel): 23.1mm
*ArmyTek C1 XM-L*: Weight: 43.0g, Length: 80.2mm , With (bezel): 23.1mm
*Lumintop ED11*: Weight: 44.1g, Length: 83.7, Width (bezel): 21.8mm
*Foursevens QTLC*: Weight 36.4g, Length 84.1mm, Width (bezel) 22.1mm
*Olight S10*: Weight 41.1g, Length: 70.6mm, Width (bezel): 23.0mm
*Sunwayman C10R*: Weight: 57.3g, Length: 76.2mm (no lanyard plug), 82.3mm (with plug), Width (bezel): 25.6mm, Width (head at widest part): 28.6mm
*Eagletac D25C Clicky*: Weight: 30g, Length: 76.0mm, Width (bezel): 20.0mm
*Jetbeam PC10*: Weight: 50.5g, Length: 93.6mm, Width (bezel): 22.6mm

*Beamshots:*

For white-wall beamshots below, all lights are on Max output on an AW protected 18650 battery. Lights are about ~0.75 meter from a white wall (with the camera ~1.25 meters back from the wall). Automatic white balance on the camera, to minimize tint differences. 

_Note: the XP-G Partner versions are not labeled with the emitter in the beamshots below. But to help you differentiate, all the XM-L versions are specifically identified._

1xCR123A





























































1xRCR





























































*Summary Tables*










*Runtimes*



















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

*Partner A1*













From left to right: Duracell NiMH AA; ArmyTek Partner A1 XP-G; Nitecore MT1A, EA1; Zebralight SC52; Thrunite Neutron 1A; Sunwayman V11R+AA extender.

All dimensions directly measured, and given with no batteries installed:

*1xAA:*
*ArmyTek A1 XP-G*: Weight: 57.3g, Length: 96.8mm , With (bezel): 23.1mm
*ArmyTek A1 XM-L*: Weight: 56.5g, Length: 97.2mm , With (bezel): 23.1mm
*Olight S15 1xAA*: Weight: 46.4g, Length: 87.0mm, Width (bezel): 23.1mm
*Nitecore MT1A*: Weight: 54.6g, Length: 104.6mm, Width (bezel): 22.7mm
*Nitecore SENS AA*: Weight: 26.1g, Length: 82.7mm, Width (bezel): 19.8mm
*Lumintop ED15*: Weight: 59.7g, Length: 100.2, Width (bezel): 21.9mm
*Zebralight SC52*: Weight 39.5g, Length 79.0mm, Width (bezel): 22.6mm, Width (max) 25.4mm
*Rofis ER12*: Wright: 35.5g, Length: 96.2mm, Width (bezel): 18.6mm
*Xeno E03:*: Weight: 48.1g, Length 96.7mm, Width (bezel): 21.5mm 

*Beamshots:*

For white-wall beamshots below, all lights are on Max output on an AW protected 18650 battery. Lights are about ~0.75 meter from a white wall (with the camera ~1.25 meters back from the wall). Automatic white balance on the camera, to minimize tint differences. 

_Note: the XP-G Partner versions are not labeled with the emitter in the beamshots below. But to help you differentiate, all the XM-L versions are specifically identified._

1xAA Sanyo Eneloop NiMH





























































1x14500 (AW Protected 14500) Li-ion 





























































*Summary Tables*










*Runtimes*

























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

*Partner A2*













From left to right: Duracell NiMH AA; ArmyTek Partner A2 XP-G; Nitecore EA2; JetBeam PC20; Eagletac D24A2; Fenix LD20-R4.

All dimensions directly measured, and given with no batteries installed:

*2xAA:*
*ArmyTek A2 XP-G*: Weight: 83.4g, Length: 96.8mm , With (bezel): 23.2mm
*ArmyTek A2 XM-L*: Weight: 84.2g, Length: 97.2mm , With (bezel): 23.1mm
*Olight S15 2xAA*: Weight: 59.2g, Length: 137.9mm, Width (bezel): 23.1mm
*Nitecore MT1*: Weight: 66.9g, Length: 154.3mm, Width (bezel):22.7mm
*Nitecore EA2*: Weight: 68.9g, Length: 134.4, Width (bezel): 26.1mm
*Eagletac D25A2*: Weight: 54.8g, Length 148.5mm, Width (bezel): 21.0mm
*4Sevens QAA-2 X* (Tactical tailcap): Weight: 60.1g, Length: 149.1mm, Width (bezel) 22.0mm
*Jetbeam BA20*: Weight: 70.2g, Length: 156.4mm, Width (bezel) 23.2mm

*Beamshots:*

For white-wall beamshots below, all lights are on Max output on an AW protected 18650 battery. Lights are about ~0.75 meter from a white wall (with the camera ~1.25 meters back from the wall). Automatic white balance on the camera, to minimize tint differences. 

_Note: the XP-G Partner versions are not labeled with the emitter in the beamshots below. But to help you differentiate, all the XM-L versions are specifically identified._

2xAA Sanyo Eneloop NiMH





























































*Summary Tables*






*Runtimes*















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

*Potential Issues*

The extended retention of the output level state is unusual (i.e., it remembers what the last level used was for up to 7 mins, and will always advance to the next level during this time). This prolonged time is unusual, and I would prefer it if they behaved like most lights (where it is only a few seconds). _(see Update at the end of this review)_

There are very limited anti-roll features on the light, and no pocket clip is included. _(see Update at the end of this review)_

Lights lack a true Lo mode (i.e., on standard batteries they are more of a Med/Hi, and on Li-ion batteries more of a Hi/Turbo). _(see Update at the end of this review)_

Lights use TIR optics, customized to each emitter (i.e., center-beam throw for the XP-G, more diffuse for the XM-L). All optics tend to induce beam artifacts – most notably hotspot artifacts and spillbeam rings on throwers (like the XP-Gs), and "square" beams on floodier lights (like the XM-Ls).

*Preliminary Observations*

The Partner series is an interesting foray by ArmyTek into the world of simple-to-use, two-stage, basic consumer flashlights. 

Let's start with the build – these are among the most solid lights I've seen in the 1xCR123A/AA or 2xAA classes. oo: Build quality is excellent, with good attention to detail (e.g., double o-rings with Nyogel lube, chamfered edges body, flattened tail springs etc.). Physically, they remind me of some of the higher-end made-in-the-USA brands. Simply put, these are tough little lights that I expect would survive a lot of abuse. 

Circuit performance is also top-of-the-line, for their respective emitters and battery classes. No surprises here – both output modes of all models showed excellent regulation and output/runtime efficiency, across all batteries and over both emitters. It took a while for me to complete all the testing for this review (there is a lot of data up there!), and I am impressed to see such consistently good performance. 

User interface is perhaps the one sore spot for me – I am really not clear why the mode-switching state memory is 7 mins long. :thinking: Typically, you either want a light to remember its mode indefinitely (and come back to it), or only allow a couple of seconds for mode switching purposes. Given that these are only two-stage lights, it's not a big deal – but it is frustrating to not always be certain which mode will show up upon activation. And personally, I would prefer a head tight/loose mode selection mechanism (with forward clicky for activation), but I know some people prefer to work with only the tailcap switch. :shrug:

The other point that could use a little refinement for me is the level spacing. Right now, the lights all typically offer what I would consider "Med/Hi" levels on standard cells (i.e., no real Lo mode). And on Li-ion, they are basically "Hi/Turbo" (i.e., even brighter, with little visual differentiation between the levels). Again, you are never going to please everyone with just two stages,  but I would like to see the "Lo" mode drop further in output (especially on the XP-G versions).

Beam patterns are also distinctive for the lines, with the TIR optics instead of reflectors. The XP-G optic is about what I would have expected (i.e., focused for throw, with minimal spill) - throw fans will be happy with this design. The XM-L optic is quite different, with a wider and squarer output beam. Both are well suited to their intended purposes, but differ from you might be used to (if you have dealt predominantly with reflectored lights). Please also keep in mind that the use of optics here may slightly affect the testing results, in terms of the relative output measures (i.e., the lightbox and ceiling bounce numbers may not be exactly comparable to reflectored lights). This is due to differing beam profiles of reflector and optics, which may not be interpreted entirely consistently in my simple setup.

I know this has been a massive review, but hopefully all the detailed testing results above will help you decide if these are lights for you. Whatever your personal preference in this space, I for one am glad to see ArmyTek venture out in the general purpose realm. And I think there is a lot to commend these lights for that purpose, but the two-stage user interface could use some tweaking. :wave:

_*UPDATE AUGUST 14, 2013*: I've heard back from ArmyTek about my recommendations above. They tell me that they opted for a very simple circuit design in their first batch ("without a CPU") which is what led to the large mode-switching delay. They plan to switch to a new circuit without this delay, and will add a third mode (i.e., Max - Med - Lo). They will also include a clip on the next batch of lights._ :wave:

----

Partner lights were supplied by ArmyTek for review.


----------



## mhanlen (Aug 12, 2013)

Sorry for asking a dumb question, but are you saying that for up to 7 minutes after you shut the light off it behaves like next mode memory- or after 7 minutes?


----------



## Swede74 (Aug 12, 2013)

Thanks for taking the time (more time than usual, I assume) to do this review. Unfortunately I think the low level would be quite a bit too bright for nightly walks, especially on snowy winter nights, but I really like the thick anodizing. It almost looks like a rubber coating, and reminds me of the Varta / Rayovac indestructible series, which I find very comfortable to handle. I hope other manufacturers follow suit and let utility take priority over aesthetics.


----------



## tobrien (Aug 12, 2013)

thank you selfbuilt!


----------



## jamesmyname (Aug 12, 2013)

Thanks, Selfbuilt. I like the simplicity of two modes, but I think I would prefer a head tight/loose mode switching. The 7-minute next mode memory just seems bizarre.


----------



## selfbuilt (Aug 12, 2013)

mhanlen said:


> Sorry for asking a dumb question, but are you saying that for up to 7 minutes after you shut the light off it behaves like next mode memory- or after 7 minutes?


The first - it acts like you planning to change modes for up to 7 mins after turning off (i.e., if you turn it back on within 7 mins, it advances to the next mode). If you wait longer than 7 mins, it defaults back to Lo mode. Definitely peculiar. :shrug:



Swede74 said:


> Unfortunately I think the low level would be quite a bit too bright for nightly walks, especially on snowy winter nights, but I really like the thick anodizing. It almost looks like a rubber coating, and reminds me of the Varta / Rayovac indestructible series, which I find very comfortable to handle. I hope other manufacturers follow suit and let utility take priority over aesthetics.


Agreed on both fronts. Note that the lights are still solid metal - it just the thick anodizing that makes it feel "rubberized".



jamesmyname said:


> Thanks, Selfbuilt. I like the simplicity of two modes, but I think I would prefer a head tight/loose mode switching..


Yes, that would be my preference as well.


----------



## mhanlen (Aug 13, 2013)

selfbuilt said:


> The first - it acts like you planning to change modes for up to 7 mins after turning off (i.e., if you turn it back on within 7 mins, it advances to the next mode). If you wait longer than 7 mins, it defaults back to Lo mode. Definitely peculiar.



Bizarre. Thanks for answering the question. I guess it's sorta forgivable since there's only two modes.


----------



## shelm (Aug 13, 2013)

thanks for the review.

have you added the dimensions (length, weight, ..) of the AT lights?


----------



## Wiggle (Aug 13, 2013)

Thank you for all your hard work selfbuilt. Physically, I like the look of these lights alot. And their performances (in their limited modes anyway) seem to stack up very well against the established lights in that class. 

It is too bad that I don't feel like that UI and ouput levels have any real place in an EDC otherwise I'd love to try one. For me, I could never trade in the UI of my SC52 or Quark AA-Tactical for this interface. Anxious to see what they offer in the future though. The big thing for me with a UI is predictability and that 7 minute interval is a completely bizarre amount of time to choose as the threshold between a mode switch or not, makes no sense and I can't imagine any possible rationale for designing it like that. I'd have rather seen 2-mode with twist select (like the Fenix E11 or Jetbeam BA10, both lights I've bought for relatives before) and a forward clicky. 

Love my Predator 2.5 and it definitely shows they are capable of great things in the build quality and driver design categories.


----------



## selfbuilt (Aug 13, 2013)

shelm said:


> have you added the dimensions (length, weight, ..) of the AT lights?


Ooops, sorry about that. Just updated the main thread with all the measurements.


----------



## shelm (Aug 13, 2013)

thank you sir!


----------



## AngryDaddyBird (Aug 13, 2013)

Thanks for doing this review! 
Any plan on doing a review on the Lumintop SD10?


----------



## selfbuilt (Aug 13, 2013)

AngryDaddyBird said:


> Any plan on doing a review on the Lumintop SD10?


Yes.  But I've got a couple of other reviews to post first.


----------



## AngryDaddyBird (Aug 13, 2013)

Awesome! I have it and can't wait to see it! Awesome reviews as always!


----------



## selfbuilt (Aug 14, 2013)

I've heard back from ArmyTek about the unusually long delay in the mode-selection programming (i.e., 7 mins).

They tell me that they opted for a very simple circuit design in their first batch ("without a CPU") which is what led to the large delay. They plan to switch to a new circuit ("CPU") without this delay, and will add a third mode (i.e., Max - Med - Lo). They will also include a clip on final version. :wave:


----------



## shelm (Aug 14, 2013)

selfbuilt said:


> in their first batch ... They will also include a clip on final version.



Love to see the manufacturers rethinking their original designs and improving them from batch to batch. Revised versions are always the superior versions imho! :thumbsup:


----------



## markr6 (Aug 14, 2013)

Glad they're adding a clip. I'm really aggravated by all these nice small lights without clips - the ones that need them the MOST. Yet so many of the massive toilet-plunger looking lights have clips, when I couldn't even fathom a use for them. A holster is more appropriate past a certain size.


----------



## selfbuilt (Aug 14, 2013)

shelm said:


> Love to see the manufacturers rethinking their original designs and improving them from batch to batch. Revised versions are always the superior versions imho! :thumbsup:


Yes, I couldn't agree more.



markr6 said:


> Glad they're adding a clip. I'm really aggravated by all these nice small lights without clips - the ones that need them the MOST. Yet so many of the massive toilet-plunger looking lights have clips, when I couldn't even fathom a use for them. A holster is more appropriate past a certain size.


:laughing: I know exactly what you mean.


----------



## Sukram (Aug 15, 2013)

One word - perfect! Thank you, selfbuilt.


----------



## sspc (Aug 15, 2013)

Thanks for another great review!! What are your thoughts on the performance of XP-G emitter, 1xAA using Eneloops? I'm surprised to see higher output (and consequently, lower runtimes) when compared to XM-L.


----------



## selfbuilt (Aug 15, 2013)

sspc said:


> Thanks for another great review!! What are your thoughts on the performance of XP-G emitter, 1xAA using Eneloops? I'm surprised to see higher output (and consequently, lower runtimes) when compared to XM-L.


Yes, the XP-G version seems to be driven harder on max than the XM-L (hence the much lower runtime). Don't know why. Note that it is hard to get accurate output comparison numbers, given the very different beam profiles (i.e., the lightbox and ceiling bounce measures may not be entirely consistent).


----------



## Atakdog (Aug 15, 2013)

It seems like they accidentally put the wrong driver in their XM-L lights. From pictures it looks like with a different driver (or with a RCR123A) the beam pattern on the XM-L is supposed to be the same type and Lux as the XP-G with a larger hot spot.
Odd since Armytek has a history of getting good drivers in their lights and running them quite high.


----------



## tubed (Aug 16, 2013)

Great Review!
Like many, the lack of low makes this light impractical for me. Any word from them on what the "new" low level will be when they go to 3 modes. 
I hope they get this right and go LOW.


----------



## selfbuilt (Aug 16, 2013)

tubed said:


> Like many, the lack of low makes this light impractical for me. Any word from them on what the "new" low level will be when they go to 3 modes. I hope they get this right and go LOW.


Agreed. But I don't have any further specifics at this time.


----------



## Bronco (Sep 8, 2013)

Still waiting for word on when the A1 will get the 4th moonlight (hopefully) mode and sturdy (hopefully) pocket clip.


----------



## iocheretyanny (Sep 15, 2013)

1AA eneloop is 300 lumens 
1Cr123 is 295 lumens
2AA eneloop is 320 Lumens

This does not make sense to me as 1 eneloop is brigher than a CR123 version of the light? Is this right?


----------



## thedoc007 (Sep 15, 2013)

iocheretyanny said:


> 1AA eneloop is 300 lumens
> 1Cr123 is 295 lumens
> 
> This does not make sense to me as 1 eneloop is brigher than a CR123 version of the light? Is this right?



Not only is the AA brighter than the CR123 version, if that is correct it will be the new king of AA lights. I have never before seen a light that can beat the Zebralight SC52 at 280 lumens on a single AA. If that number is correct, the SC52 no longer holds the title for brightest AA light!

Just did some more reading of Selfbuilt's charts. Looks like the Armytek loses most modes - low mode is almost 200 lumens with a 14500! Not cool. The SC52 maintains all modes regardless of NiMH or 14500, and only high mode changes, until the stepdown, after which modes are identical. Still, 300 lumens from a single AA is impressive.


----------



## selfbuilt (Sep 17, 2013)

thedoc007 said:


> Not only is the AA brighter than the CR123 version, if that is correct it will be the new king of AA lights. I have never before seen a light that can beat the Zebralight SC52 at 280 lumens on a single AA. If that number is correct, the SC52 no longer holds the title for brightest AA light!.


It doesn't beat the SC52 - in my testing, my two samples are equivalent in output. It might be helpful if people check out the runtime graph:







As you can see, the A1 XP-G suffers from considerably lower runtime than the SC52 XM-L, for the same initial output (as you would expect, for the emitter difference). The A1 XP-G is in essence over-driven, compared to all the other XP-G lights in my collection.

In terms of comparing it to 1xCR123A C1 XP-G, initial output is again comparable. And again, the end result is much lower runtime on the A1. If you look at the C1 output/runtime graphs, you'll see that it takes about ~80 mins to reach the ANSI FL-1 standard of time to 10% output on CR123A (compared to ~35mins on the A1 XP-G on eneloop).

These results are all completely consistent - the A1 XP-G is unusually heavily driven on max, resulting in unusually low runtimes.


----------



## thedoc007 (Sep 17, 2013)

selfbuilt said:


> It doesn't beat the SC52 - in my testing, my two samples are equivalent in output. It might be helpful if people check out the runtime graph:



While I appreciate all the extra info, I was basing my statement off your chart. ANSI FL1 Max Output, on Eneloop. 300 for the A1, 290 for the SC52. Last time I checked, 300 was more than 290. Yes, I understand runtime is shorter. And yes, I understand that no one can tell the difference between 290 lumens and 300 lumens anyway, especially since they have different beam profiles. With all that said, though, The A1 does appear to have a higher maximum brightness on an Eneloop, under ideal conditions, than the SC52. This is all I wanted to note. I wanted to make that point only because I have seen the SC52 mentioned several times (here on CPF and elsewhere) as the brightest single stock AA light in existence. If nothing else, now there will have to be an asterisk by that claim. (Unless I am just missing something, in which case feel free to correct me.)

Selfbuilt, I hope you take this is it was intended, only to explain my rationale. I am always amazed at the quality of your reviews, and the time you spend giving us a standardized and reliable source for comparisons.

I just realized that my "king of AA lights" phrase was asking for touble. I should have clearly defined what I meant, may have avoided this debate entirely. I was assuming everyone would know what I was referring to, but after re-reading my post, that was not a reasonable assumption. With the additional clarification, hopefully we are now on the same page.


----------



## selfbuilt (Sep 17, 2013)

thedoc007 said:


> Selfbuilt, I hope you take this is it was intended, only to explain my rationale. I am always amazed at the quality of your reviews, and the time you spend giving us a standardized and reliable source for comparisons.


No worries. I can understand why 290 would seem different from 300 (when in fact they aren't really, for the reasons you outlined - plus natural sampling and testing variation). I always struggle with what's a reasonable level of specificity in the measures, which is why I always encourage folks to take them with a grain a salt.


----------



## TweakMDS (Sep 23, 2013)

For some reason I missed this review... Thanks for putting yet another great review online. I'm always a huge fan of the format of single AA lights, and I just LOVE the look and feel of ArmyTek lights. Really reminds me of the surface of a stealth bomber.
That said, to be anything remotely stealth, this light would really need a proper low mode. 

That said, their XP-G seems to be driven unusually hard, 300lm from an XP-G on a single AA battery seems like pushing it on both the LED and the battery. 

I hope their final 3-stage version (with clip!) will have modes like 1lm - 40lm - 250lm. If they pull that off with a sturdy screw-on clip, I'll definitely buy one of the throwier versions, or maybe both, because I'm loving that XM-L reflector they use...


----------



## Vlk (Feb 1, 2014)

selfbuilt said:


> Yes, the XP-G version seems to be driven harder on max than the XM-L (hence the much lower runtime). Don't know why. Note that it is hard to get accurate output comparison numbers, given the very different beam profiles (i.e., the lightbox and ceiling bounce measures may not be entirely consistent).



I've had Partner A1 XP-G for four months so I can say a few words.
First of all, I agree with everything Selfbuild said, In fact I bought this light, two actually, after reading this review. I was looking for a simple no-nonsense powerful single AA light and would certainly have gotten SureFire or HDS Systems if they made one. That lead me to Armytek.
I. Negatives.
1. One of the lights came with the lens not laid flat on the O-ring, as a result of it there was a small gap and I got some water in the head. The light was still working fine though. I easily fixed that, and it became fully waterproof. I made an effort to get water in it but failed. But I didn't do 10 meters test for a few days.
2. Beam artifacts are there, black dots in the hot spot and black rings in the spill. Not an issue for me outside.
3. The beam is just fine for the outdoors but a little too wide for urban walkabouts. Viking's 10/40 is much better. But it is still okay.
4. As Selfbuild said, the light is obviously overdriven, especially on high and especially with lithium primaries. With L91 it gets so hot after about 10/15 minutes that it is almost impossible to hold it without gloves. So long term reliability is uknown.
II. Positives.
1. The light is overdriven and can extract every bit of high power out of battery, if that's what you want it to do. In winter you can also use it to warm your hands! I tried it and it worked great.
2. Very comfortable to carry with great feel. Use with gloves is not a problem.
3. Powerful with alkaline and lithium primary batteries and very powerful with LI-Ion. Does not get too hot with Li-Ion. That's the kind of battery I use it with. Both black AW 14500 and red AW IMR work well. IMR gives better runtimes on both settings, about 40 min. of bright light on high plus another 10 minutes of increasingly dim light and about 2 hours of bright light plus another 20 minutes on low.
Runtimes with L91 is about double that. Alkaline battery is by far the best if you need longest runtime on low. With interruptions I got over 20 hours of light.
4. Excellent throw on alkaline and lithium primaries and great with Li-Ion. I would say it is at least 150 meters on high and 115/120 on low. The beam profile reminds me a helicopter light. With Li-Ion battery you can safely drive with it in your hand at 100 kph in good weather.
5. Reliability has been good so far. I use it every day outside for about five minutes. After probably 3000 or so clicks already the switch feels like new.
6. Mode switching is very fast and effortless.

Overall, I like this light a lot. I use it as my main EDC light and carry it either in jeans pocket or in overcoat or parka pocket. I also usually have SureFire original back-up in my bag as a..back-up, and Fenix LD01 on my key ring.


----------



## Vlk (Feb 2, 2014)

Vlk said:


> I've had Partner A1 XP-G for four months so I can say a few words.
> First of all, I agree with everything Selfbuild said, In fact I bought this light, two actually, after reading this review. I was looking for a simple no-nonsense powerful single AA light and would certainly have gotten SureFire or HDS Systems if they made one. That lead me to Armytek.
> I. Negatives.
> 1. One of the lights came with the lens not laid flat on the O-ring, as a result of it there was a small gap and I got some water in the head. The light was still working fine though. I easily fixed that, and it became fully waterproof. I made an effort to get water in it but failed. But I didn't do 10 meters test for a few days.
> ...



Forgot to mention carrying the light with well-tailored suit without anyone noticing that you have something interesting in your pocket. Forget about it or any other AA or 123A light. I tried this one, HDS and SureFire back-up lights. Clip or no clip - no difference. Only AAA light would really do. If you wear very relaxed slacks like Armani, it might work carrying it in the pants pocket, and it might not. I still didn't like it. When are they going to make a high end flat flashlight, I wonder?


----------



## Random Dan (Feb 7, 2014)

Any news on the 3-mode version with pocket clip? I haven't seen any for sale yet.


----------



## Nice65 (Mar 15, 2014)

Random Dan said:


> Any news on the 3-mode version with pocket clip? I haven't seen any for sale yet.



I asked Armytek a while ago, they said they'd release in Spring. Nothing more definite than that though. I don't do Facebook or Twitter, but there may be news posted there.


----------



## Phaserburn (Mar 19, 2014)

Random Dan said:


> Any news on the 3-mode version with pocket clip? I haven't seen any for sale yet.


 I just emailed them for an update on this.


----------



## Alfred143 (Apr 28, 2014)

Tapping on the glass of my A1 (xp-g) seem to be not as secure as my JB RRT-01. It doesn't sound loose (but tinny), not a confident solid tapping sound, if you know what I mean.
Is there suppose to be an o-ring between the head and glass and another o-ring between the optics? If looks like there doesn't seem to be one on the head. I can't open it with fear of breaking the thread lock seal.


----------



## Nice65 (May 5, 2014)

Phaserburn said:


> I just emailed them for an update on this.



Anything back? I cancelled my initial order for the A1 when I read Selfbuilts' update, but I'd certainly get one if the mode memory has been sorted and a clip added.


----------



## MojaveMoon07 (May 13, 2014)

In regards to Partner v2, this was posted today by Armytek at budgetlightforum under '_Commercial Sellers' Spot_'' in the thread '_ARMYTEK OFFERS and PROMOTIONS_':

"_Unfortunately, there are not any news about updates Partner lights. There are available only Armytek Partner v1 lights._"


There is, however, an update _(link)_ from Armytek about their headlamps


----------



## 416isToronto (Nov 2, 2014)

Thanks for your awesome reviews Selfbuilt! Since discovering your reviews, I have never bought a light without checking out your reviews..

Wondering if any one has tried out the A1 Limited Edition XML2-U2- claims 390 Lm with a AA 45 mins and 700 Lm with a 14500.
Still only 2 modes...
Thinking of ordering one....just wanted to see if any one had tried it out though...


----------



## lightmyfire13 (Nov 2, 2014)

416isToronto said:


> Thanks for your awesome reviews Selfbuilt! Since discovering your reviews, I have never bought a light without checking out your reviews..
> 
> Wondering if any one has tried out the A1 Limited Edition XML-U2- claims 390 Lm with a AA 45 mins and 700 Lm with a 14500.
> Still only 2 modes...
> Thinking of ordering one....just wanted to see if any one had tried it out though...



Got one a couple of weeks ago ...very bright on eneloops beats my sc52 try n put pics up later


----------



## lightmyfire13 (Nov 2, 2014)

lightmyfire13 said:


> Got one a couple of weeks ago ...very bright on eneloops beats my sc52 try n put pics up later


A1 AA xml.....


----------



## 416isToronto (Nov 2, 2014)

lightmyfire13 said:


> A1 AA xml.....



Thanks! 
Missing link??


----------



## alltoclear (Dec 5, 2014)

Does the Partner C1 comes with a buck/boost driver like those found on the wizard pro??


----------



## Ageemos (Dec 22, 2014)

416isToronto said:


> Thanks for your awesome reviews Selfbuilt! Since discovering your reviews, I have never bought a light without checking out your reviews..
> 
> Wondering if any one has tried out the A1 Limited Edition XML2-U2- claims 390 Lm with a AA 45 mins and 700 Lm with a 14500.
> Still only 2 modes...
> Thinking of ordering one....just wanted to see if any one had tried it out though...



It would be great if somebody would test these claims. If they are true or not.


----------



## Brunberg (Jan 11, 2015)

Just got one of these, A1 XM-L2. Weird that my lamp is with normal optic, I understood that all XM-L2 models are with that honeycomp-type optic? I even opened the head and measured the led with "mauser"(what is it called?) and it was 5x5mm, XM-L2.


----------



## radu1976 (Jan 11, 2015)

Selfbuilt, you got a 1:18 hrs runtime on HIGH for A2 XP-G using ENELOOPs.
My *XP-G2 A2 run for 1:45 hrs with 2,000mAh* ENELOOPS until the step-down and for *2:15 hrs with 2,450mAh *ones.
Is it possible I have an overachiever ??


----------



## selfbuilt (Jan 12, 2015)

radu1976 said:


> Selfbuilt, you got a 1:18 hrs runtime on HIGH for A2 XP-G using ENELOOPs.
> My *XP-G2 A2 run for 1:45 hrs with 2,000mAh* ENELOOPS until the step-down and for *2:15 hrs with 2,450mAh *ones.
> Is it possible I have an overachiever ??


If they have kept the drive level the same, I would expect a slight increase in runtime on current XP-G2 (due to the presumably higher output bin selection over time). Note that my runtime measure is only time to 50% - it would be longer if you are counting to time to ANSI FL-1 10%.

But as a general rule, an output overchiever would typically mean an output underachiever if everything else stays the same. The original circuit was already very efficient, so I doubt they could squeeze much more out there. Of course, there is a bound to be some variability due to the specific emitter/circuit/battery, etc.


----------



## dJippe (Jan 14, 2015)

Does anyone know is this "xm-l2 limited" version with updated driver/user interface without that 7minutes delay?


----------



## stanleywen (Feb 21, 2015)

dJippe said:


> Does anyone know is this "xm-l2 limited" version with updated driver/user interface without that 7minutes delay?



I sold my Partner A2 XM-L and bought a A2 XM-L2 (Limited Edition). The 7 minutes delay is still there, and there is no 3rd mode.

But the limited edition uses a clear TIR optic. The beamshot looks similar to the XP-G edition.


----------



## D6859 (May 21, 2015)

stanleywen said:


> I sold my Partner A2 XM-L and bought a A2 XM-L2 (Limited Edition). The 7 minutes delay is still there, and there is no 3rd mode.
> 
> But the limited edition uses a clear TIR optic. The beamshot looks similar to the XP-G edition.



I was wondering if it's possible I got an XM-L2 version with clear lens but it seems so! So can I trust it has the runtime of XM-L2 and the throw of XP-G edition?


----------

