# KT4 or Mag for throw?



## copperfox (Feb 23, 2009)

I have a ROP-LE HO with Fivemega MOP reflector. I don't need more output, but I would like more throw. I have already considered the FM throwmaster head, but I'm not digging the style or lack of color matching (no black).

My question is: Which throws farther, a SF KT4 or Mag MOP reflector? *I know the answer is probably highly dependent on the bulb used*, but that's OK; just qualify your answer with the bulb type. I will build a KT4 based SF lego if it throws better than the MOP in my Mag. I will even take a slight hit in overall brightness, but I still want 500+ OTF lumens.


----------



## Fusion_m8 (Feb 24, 2009)

I cannot speak for others, but in my case the 7.4v LF EO-M3T in my KT4 hoses the 10.8v WA01331 with a fivemega MOP reflector for throw. I'm not surprised with the result because the KT4 reflector is BOTH deeper and bigger in diameter which allows more light to be concentrated to enhance throw.

You want 500+ OTF lumens??? Use a LumensFactory IMR-M6 1000lumen lamp with 3xAW IMR-16340 in a M3 or L6 body with a KT4 head. You'll have enough output there to see the moon at noon, but runtime will suck unless you use something like a Leef 3x18650 body with 3xAW IMR 18650cells.




copperfox said:


> I have a ROP-LE HO with Fivemega MOP reflector. I don't need more output, but I would like more throw. I have already considered the FM throwmaster head, but I'm not digging the style or lack of color matching (no black).
> 
> My question is: Which throws farther, a SF KT4 or Mag MOP reflector? *I know the answer is probably highly dependent on the bulb used*, but that's OK; just qualify your answer with the bulb type. I will build a KT4 based SF lego if it throws better than the MOP in my Mag. I will even take a slight hit in overall brightness, but I still want 500+ OTF lumens.


----------



## Patriot (Feb 24, 2009)

The KT4 throws further than a MOP mag reflector. Since the texture of each is about the same and so is the depth, it comes down to the Surefire's slightly larger diameter. I have experience with 1111's and 1185's in each type. The difference isn't huge but it is a difference. That said, there are variations among MOP mag reflectors and KT4 head. Some are just more shiny and some have more of a silver matt finish. If you took the most reflective MOP mag reflectors and put it up agaist a very textured and matt silvered KT4 head, it's possible the mag would throw better. Anyhow, I just wanted to mention the variation thing.

I've you're specifcally looking for increased throw you should use a smooth mag reflector. Depending on the bulb type used you could still have a very nice beam. The 1111 looks great with a smooth reflector.


----------



## copperfox (Feb 24, 2009)

I already tried a FM SMO with my ROP, and even though it increased throw a small amount, but I was displeased with the artifacts. The increased throw wasn't enough for me to keep it.

Someone told me that the E2D throws slightly better than the E2E because of the lighter orange peel on the reflector and showed me a photo to support this. Is the KT4 similar in that respect? What I'm asking is should I look for a particular KT4 head from a used M4, M3T or M6 for max throw, or is it more like a "luck of the draw" sort of thing?


----------



## Patriot (Feb 24, 2009)

copperfox said:


> I already tried a FM SMO with my ROP, and even though it increased throw a small amount, but I was displeased with the artifacts. The increased throw wasn't enough for me to keep it.
> 
> Someone told me that the E2D throws slightly better than the E2E because of the lighter orange peel on the reflector and showed me a photo to support this. Is the KT4 similar in that respect? What I'm asking is should I look for a particular KT4 head from a used M4, M3T or M6 for max throw, or is it more like a "luck of the draw" sort of thing?




100% luck of the draw. I have one that's particularly shiny from a M6 and one of them that's medium shiny from M3T, while the others are all dull-ish matt. None of them will out throw the smooth reflector. An ROP or 1111 with SMO will handily out throw a 3C mag85 with OP. 

WA1111 SMO 160 yard to tree approximately (underexposed) 






Mag85 OP


----------



## copperfox (Feb 24, 2009)

Patriot36 said:


> ...from a M6 and one of them that's medium shiny from M3T, while the others are all dull-ish matt. None of them will out throw the smooth reflector.



Let me get this straight: The KT4 turboheads, no matter the texture will not out-throw a stock sized smooth Mag reflector?


----------



## Patriot (Feb 24, 2009)

copperfox said:


> Let me get this straight: The KT4 turboheads, no matter the texture will not out-throw a stock sized smooth Mag reflector?




Yes that's correct. Although the reflector size and shape does play a role it's primarily the reflector surface that contributes the most with regards to throw, when all other factors are equal or at least similar. The slightly larger size of the KT4 still wont allow it to throw farther than a SMO reflector.

For example, my SMO WA1111 will out throw my M6 WA1185 3 x 17670 even though the 1185 is using the shiniest textured SF turbohead and while producing greater overall output by a good margin. The difference in lux readings between two like reflectors but one MOP and one SMO is about 35-45%. You'd need triple or quadruple the lumen output in order to overcome the handicap of the MOP. 

The compromise might be to find a LOP which would smooth the beam enough to your satisfaction while improving upon the throw that's currently available from your MOP. I'm just not sure who has LOP reflectors these days. Perhaps Fivemega does but you'd have to ask around.


----------



## copperfox (Feb 24, 2009)

Drat. Looks like I'm either going to have to buy the FM throwmaster or find a totally different platform. Thanks for your help Patriot.


----------



## donn_ (Feb 24, 2009)

Opinions vary widely.

In my opinion, the best throw from almost any incan I've tried is either in the old-style Surefire 3" turbo head or a newer Mag 3" head, from either FM or Delghi. They beat everything else handily.


----------



## Patriot (Feb 24, 2009)

I took a few pics for you to illustrate the in SF Turbohead reflector variation. I also included some beamshots of a smooth standard size reflector compared to a "high sheen" Turbo head 1185.

This first one I call frosty OP





This second one is a medium sheen





This one is the highest sheen that I've seen on a Turbohead






There are images comparing a SMO FM11 (WA1111) to the 3rd M6 head attached to the M6 WA1185.

M6 1185, 1/500th @ F4.0





FM11, 1/500th @ F4.0





M6 1185, 1/2000th @ F8.0





FM11, 1/2000th @ F8.0






As you can see, the smooth reflector allows for a more intense hot spot even though it's producing 300-500 lumens less overall output.


----------



## Patriot (Feb 24, 2009)

donn_ said:


> Opinions vary widely.
> 
> In my opinion, the best throw from almost any incan I've tried is either in the old-style Surefire 3" turbo head or a newer Mag 3" head, from either FM or Delghi. They beat everything else handily.





> *copperfox*
> Drat. Looks like I'm either going to have to buy the FM throwmaster or find a totally different platform.


True that when you start getting into the 3" heads they will begin to overcome the MOP handicap. The heads from FM will still likely throw better than the old 3" SF heads because FM's MOP reflectors are usually less textured. I don't own a 3" SF head otherwise I'd take some more comparison pics for you. 

If the color is your only objection to the FM head have someone anodize it for you. 


EDIT: oops, meant to quote copperfox so I added his quote and left donn's since it's on the same subject.


----------



## copperfox (Feb 24, 2009)

Unfortunately the 3" heads are expensive and made for D-bodied mags. My ROP is a c body. :sigh:

Looks like I have to spend quite a bit to get what I want.


----------



## Patriot (Feb 24, 2009)

copperfox said:


> Unfortunately the 3" heads are expensive and made for D-bodied mags. My ROP is a c body. :sigh:
> 
> Looks like I have to spend quite a bit to get what I want.




There is the VLOP reflector option if they are available somewhere.


----------



## donn_ (Feb 24, 2009)

I only have one KT4 which is even almost as lightly textured as the 3" SF turbo heads, and it's a very old one.

I'd describe the texturing on the SF 3" as VVLOP, if that.






Sorry for the bad pic, but you can still see the difference.

Fox...look for one of FM's deep dish 2" bezel/reflectors. They'll fit C or D heads, and do a very nice job.


----------



## Patriot (Feb 24, 2009)

That's a really great picture because it's such a great comparison. Most of us think of the KT4 as really something but next to the 3" head it looks "mickymouse." I also really like how thin the bezel is. SF spared nothing to get the largest reflector that they could possibly fit in there. 


The FM VLOP reflectors are nearly smooth and very reflective and shiny. There isn't a hint of frost, matting or silver/gray. 

There's a picture of one here top center:
http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=150395&page=1

To my eye, it looks less textured and more reflective than the SF 3" but I guess on a practical level only beamshots and light meters could verify the true differences.


----------



## donn_ (Feb 24, 2009)

The 3" SF turbo heads are really thin in the body metal. I worry about them turning into a Dali molten metal with long runs on hot lamps.

They still hold the record for reflector performance, though. A pencil beam with an 85. Awesome reflector design.


----------



## Patriot (Feb 24, 2009)

donn_ said:


> A pencil beam with an 85. Awesome reflector design.




That's saying a lot right there! Now you're making me want one but I know, "good luck" since they're rare. :shrug:


----------



## mdocod (Feb 24, 2009)

do a search for mag-plunger 

Might give you an idea or 2 for more throw.

Eric


----------



## copperfox (Feb 27, 2009)

I don't want to rig a huge, probably plastic, reflector to the front of my mag. It wouldn't be suitable in any kind of wet weather, it would get dirty, be flimsy, and look horrible. Not to mention the silly idea of buying an entire x-million candlepower light just to take it apart and salvage 1 piece. If I'm gonna buy one of those, I'll just use that instead of the mag. 

I will do one of three things:
1. breakdown and buy the FM throwmaster head and put it on my ROP-LE HO
2. Build an incan mag based on a D body instead of C and try to buy a 3" head from CPFMP
3. Build a KT4 based light anyway and hope for the best


----------



## GreyShark (Feb 27, 2009)

Couldn't you smooth the KT-4's reflector yourself? I've polished the internals of my paintball gun using sand paper to do take down the rough spots and progressively finer pads of steel wool to bring out the polish. The KT-4's reflector is aluminum, isn't it?


----------



## DM51 (Feb 27, 2009)

GreyShark said:


> Couldn't you smooth the KT-4's reflector yourself?


No, you should _never_ attempt that. You should never even _touch_ a reflector - the coating is extremely fragile, and you would never be able to restore or re-polish it yourself.


----------



## GreyShark (Feb 27, 2009)

Ah... so that's a coating and not just polished aluminum.


----------



## copperfox (Feb 27, 2009)

From looking at pictures and other threads, it seems that the WA1111 has better throw in the same reflector as some other bulbs. Does it have a small filament that makes it easy to focus?


----------



## Patriot (Feb 28, 2009)

copperfox said:


> From looking at pictures and other threads, it seems that the WA1111 has better throw in the same reflector as some other bulbs. Does it have a small filament that makes it easy to focus?




Yes, it's a good bulb for throw and the filament is about 1/3 less wide than the 1185's filament. It has a very slight football shape with a smooth reflector but it's nearly a spot with a MOP reflector.


----------



## DM51 (Feb 28, 2009)

A general rule for bulb filaments:

Higher voltage = longer filament
Higher current = thicker wire
So if you look at the bulbs in the pic below, you'll see that the WA 1111 has a shorter filament than the WA 1185, but about the same wire gauge. They both draw about the same current, but the WA 1185 is a higher-voltage bulb.

Now compare the Osram 64250. It has a very similar filament to the WA1111, so you would expect it to perform in a similar way - and you'd be right. Their specs and performance are almost identical.

And now the Philips 5761: It has a short filament, but thicker-gauge wire, so using the above rule of thumb, you'd expect a heavier current. Correct! It draws ~5A, compared to the 3.6A of the WA 1111.


----------



## copperfox (Feb 28, 2009)

Thanks for the info DM


Unfortunately, I don't have any of those bulbs so I can't compare them to my Pelican 3854s. But I can't imagine any of those having a smaller filament than the ROP HO bulb. Another thing I noticed is that the ROP bulb's filament is much closer to the glass than any of those bi-pin bulbs.

What affect, if any, does the glass envelope shape and size have on the beam? Like you said,the WA1111 and Osram 64250 have similar filaments, but the Osram is a wider and taller and has a nipple at the top.

Does the WA1111 survive 8.4v? I use AW C li-ions. 

I would have tried the 5761 by now if it weren't for the need for some kind of soft start or NTC. :thinking: It seems like a pain to fit one inside the mag-c body.


----------



## DM51 (Feb 28, 2009)

The WA 1111 is very popular, but it's $9/pc IIRC. It will work very well on 2x C Li-Ions. The 64250 is only ~$3, but it's a larger size so it won't fit through the holes in some reflectors. 

The 5761 is much more touchy, and as you say, you'll need an NTC or soft-start. It's a tricky bulb, and IMO you would do better with the WA 1185 and 3 cells rather than the 5761 and 2 cells. They have roughly the same output.


----------

