# Old MN20 vs. new MN20 ...



## MikeF (Jul 3, 2006)

*Surefire MN20 arrived!!!*

I just got home from work, and there was a package on my front porch waiting for me from Surefire!! It contained a MN20, which means that they have them available again. One small issue, when I got my M6, there was a coupon for either a MN21 right away, or wait for the MN20 to begin shipping again. I opted for the MN21 and received the MN20.
:huh2: 

I have a HD-M6-4800 on order, and Petrev's XTN is already at Andrew Wynn's, and so the normal 20 minute runtime of the M6 with the MN21 with primary CR123 will be a moot point. It seems like I might also get my USL and Triton soon so I will even have a charger for the two 4800 mAh packs!!
 :naughty:


----------



## dizzy (Jul 3, 2006)

*Re: Surefire MN20 arrived!!!*

Thats some great news Mike. I will have to redeem my coupon now. It was turning yellow from age.

Does it look like they re-designed it or can't you tell? I never saw the original so I wouldn't know either way. Thanks for the tip!


----------



## bwaites (Jul 3, 2006)

*Re: Surefire MN20 arrived!!!*

That MAY have been a mistake.

There have always been some amount of MN20's reserved for warranty replacement and for the military.

MN20's are still showing as unavailable on the site, or they were last night anyway.

Bill


----------



## GeoffChan (Jul 3, 2006)

*Re: Surefire MN20 arrived!!!*

I recieved my MN20 sometime last week as well


----------



## dizzy (Jul 3, 2006)

*Re: Surefire MN20 arrived!!!*

I will have to call to confirm if they have them or not. I'll have to wait until after the holiday.


----------



## cue003 (Jul 4, 2006)

*Re: Surefire MN20 arrived!!!*

Interesting. I wonder if they started making these again.

Curtis


----------



## G35 (Jul 5, 2006)

*Re: Surefire MN20 arrived!!!*

The rumor "on the street" is that SF was redesigning the LOLA. So, for those that did recieve their LOLA, do you see any difference in the bulb (redesigned) ?


----------



## cue003 (Jul 5, 2006)

*Re: Surefire MN20 arrived!!!*

Maybe if someone can snap a couple detailed pics of the bulb that could be helpful.

Curtis


----------



## seery (Jul 5, 2006)

*Re: Surefire MN20 arrived!!!*

Two of my M6 lights came with the coupon so I have was very excited to
hear the news MikeF. Thanks for passing it along.

Called SF customer service this morning and was told they have indeed been
shipping the MN20's. They also have more in stock than current back-orders,
so we will all be getting them soon. Mine two are still a few weeks out due to
where I fell on the b/o list.

Asked about them being redesigned and was told SF was trying to redesign
them for longer runtime and more durability. They were not able to extend the
runtime but were able to make them more durable.

Happy Torching!


----------



## cue003 (Jul 5, 2006)

*Re: Surefire MN20 arrived!!!*

Hot damn. I got 2 M6's myself. Good news indeed. I will have to give SF a call and figure out how to get in line. 

Curtis


----------



## js (Jul 5, 2006)

*Re: Surefire MN20 arrived!!!*

This is VERY good news. Excellent. I have one MN20 on the way myself.

When I get it, I will post a nice big detailed pic of the old MN20 and the new MN20, side-by-side.

I am willing to bet that the new MN20 will have a larger envelope than the old one. Maybe even as large as the MN21. We shall see.


----------



## dizzy (Jul 5, 2006)

*Re: Surefire MN20 arrived!!!*

I just called Surefire and talked to Sandy in customer service about redeeming my certificate for an MN20 lamp assembly and she said they will "get that right out" to me. Thanks MikeF for starting this thread and getting the ball rolling. I have never seen one (MN20) in action before so I can't wait to get it.


----------



## scott.cr (Jul 5, 2006)

*Re: Surefire MN20 arrived!!!*

Is there a large difference between the MN20 and the MN16? Both are 9-volt lamps in the 225 lumen range right?

I gather the MN20 has a larger lamp than the MN16; is there a functional difference between the two?


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Jul 6, 2006)

*Re: Surefire MN20 arrived!!!*

From what I have head, the MN20 has a sturdier filament, and probably needs it as it is being hit pretty hard at startup, with 9 volts from the 2600mAh setup. Not a lot of voltage sagging there.

Bill


----------



## OutdoorIdiot (Jul 10, 2006)

*Re: Surefire MN20 arrived!!!*

To whom it may concern:

Quick link to the page on SF web site for a picture of the old one (at time of writing):

http://www.surefire.com/maxexp/main/co_disp/displ/prrfnbr/420/sesent/00

Here are some photos of the new MN20s that are being released (got mine a few days ago):

Rear:








Side:





Filament:






Mine produces a very oval hotspot (moreso than the MN21) but if that means it is better focussed, then that's fine with me. My reason for getting this light was to illuminate things at a distance. I had it in the countryside this weekend and it certainly did a very good job at that!


----------



## schrenz (Jul 10, 2006)

*Re: Surefire MN20 arrived!!!*

Don't understand why it's black like the MN60? 
Did SF gave up their colour-code of the bulbs?


----------



## js (Jul 11, 2006)

*Re: Surefire MN20 arrived!!!*



schrenz said:


> Don't understand why it's black like the MN60?
> Did SF gave up their colour-code of the bulbs?



They used to color code, but for a while now, they have been printing the designation on the collar, as can be seen in one of the photos above ("MN20" in this case, but only the 20 is clearly visible.)

In any case, this lamp doesn't look that much larger than the old MN20. That's a good thing! I can't wait to check mine out when it gets here.


----------



## Hoghead (Jul 11, 2006)

*Re: Surefire MN20 arrived!!!*

I got a new MN20 in the mail and for the few who might be interested a SW01 that was back ordered came in the mail a few days ago.


----------



## Ray_of_Light (Jul 12, 2006)

*Re: Surefire MN20 arrived!!!*

Does somebody knows if the MN20 works reliably in the M4 with two 17670?

Anthony


----------



## js (Jul 14, 2006)

*Re: Surefire MN20 arrived!!!*

Ray of Light,

The MN20 should work fine on two Li-ion cells, provided they can deliver the current.

OK.

Got my new MN20 today, and I see immediately what they did to create the new design. It looks very much as if they simply added two extra turns to the coil, going from 12 turns to 14.

If the CCT (and thus average filament temp) remains the same, and you increase the length, then you increase the voltage. But if the voltage remains more or less the same (which is the case here), then increasing the length, and keeping everything else the same, decreases the CCT.

If we estimate that the new filament is 14/12 as long as the old one, and that the old filament had a CCT of 3400 K when driven on 2p3s 123's, then if the new filament is driven 7/6th times the voltage of the old one, it will have the same CCT. Which means that the new CCT will be the old CCT times (6/7)^.42, which will equal 3187 K instead of 3400 K.

This equates to an efficiency loss of about 6 lumens/watt. The MN20 is about an 18.6 watt lamp, which will mean (assuming the power of the new MN20 is the same as the power of the old one--which is by no means certain) a loss of 112 bulb-lumens = 72 or so torch-lumens. However, given that the old MN20 was about a 400 lumen lamp on fresh batteries, this still means that the MN20 is above its rated lumens output value.

But these are just preliminary guesses on the subject. I will need to measure current and voltage of old and new MN20's to say something definite.

Well, I can definitely say that the new MN20 filament is longer by just about a 1/6th. And it looks to be the same thickness, and the coil winding diameter looks to be almost exactly the same.

All of this makes sense, in that if you keep everything else the same and make a filament longer, you lower the CCT.

However, I really was hoping that they would have kept the filament exactly the same and just put it in a larger envelope. After all, the problem with the MN20 wasn't that it was driven too hard and had a short life span, or that it was instaflashing at turn on.

No. The problem was that *they were exploding*. This has to do with the power density within the envelope, and envelope temperature, and the type of glass, and whether there were any flaws during manufacture, and so on. Lowering the CCT will certainly help mitigate these factors, but making the envelope larger would seem to me to be a more direct way to solve these problems.

And then the efficiency loss wouldn't have been nearly as great. Ah well. Figures I guess. The MN20 was such an overdriven lamp that it's miraculous it was ever designed and sold that way. I'm sure glad I have an old one installed in MY M6. It's going to stay there for the forseable future, I can tell you. I just love that lamp.

I'll report more when I try out the new MN20 to see how white it is and how it compares to the old one.


----------



## Size15's (Jul 14, 2006)

*Re: Surefire MN20 arrived!!!*

js, thanks for your thoughts. Could SureFire have altered the gas mix as well? My understanding is that all the factors are a complex balancing act and that to change one factor other factors have to be increased/decreased to compensate(?)

I am not sure how valid comparisons are based on one sample. I wonder whether any changes SureFire have made will make a visible difference? For such a comparison I figure at least five of each lamp are required.


----------



## Knight Lights (Jul 14, 2006)

*Re: Surefire MN20 arrived!!!*

Jim,

Thanks!!

I am running an MN20 with 2 18650's in a 2x18650 tube from TranquilityBase with a KT1 head and it is very nice.

Bill


----------



## wquiles (Jul 14, 2006)

*Re: Surefire MN20 arrived!!!*

js,

Thanks much for your great insight into the new MN20 :rock: 

Technical question: Assuming a regulated voltage supply with a soft start, what would you say is the ideal driving voltage for both the old MN20 and the new MN20? Right around 7.5-7.6 volts?

Will


----------



## js (Jul 15, 2006)

*Re: Surefire MN20 arrived!!!*

Al,

Absolutely. Couldn't agree more. Yes on all counts.

Yes, lamp design is a complex balancing act, and yes, they may (and probably did) alter the fill gas. Next time I talk to Willie I'll see if I can beat it out of him.

And yes, definitely we'll need 5 samples and/or multiple reports of people doing old to new comparisons to be even remotely scientific and professional about this.

Still . . .

We definitely know that the new filament is longer than the old by two turns--only one sample is needed to ascertain that. And given this, and making some assumptions, and applying a few rules of thumbs and handy formulae, I stuck my neck out and ran a few numbers for fun. My neck may very well be the target of attack from a sharp instrument with a lot of mass behind the cutting edge (Luna? Luna, where are you?)

But it was worth it.

And even IF my back of the envelope calculations and assumptions are correct, it would still be a very small price to pay (18 percent loss of output is only noticeable in direct side-by-side comparisons) for a lamp which will not explode as frequently as the old MN20's seemed to be doing.

So, yes, for the record, I was talking out of my ***. Heck, I haven't even powered up the new MN20 yet! Why did I even post . . . ? Oh yeah, for fun 

It is pretty much a certainty that SureFire knows *exactly* what they are doing and that they made the best possible choices in the re-design of the MN20.

Time will tell what the new vs. old comparison will turn out to be. As I said, I plan on making some measurements and doing some field testing, and will post back when I know more or less for sure what I am talking about.

Just couldn't resist playing with a few equations and making a few assumptions. :devil:

Sorry.


----------



## js (Jul 15, 2006)

*Re: Surefire MN20 arrived!!!*



wquiles said:


> js,
> 
> Thanks much for your great insight into the new MN20 :rock:
> 
> ...



Will,

I love the MN20 on 123's so much, and use the MN16 for the LOLA when running the M6-R pack, that I have never done careful current and voltage measurements of the MN20. You'd be surprised how difficult that can be in some cases. Not to mention that danger of damaging the LA you are testing--and my old MN20 is worth more than its weight in gold to me right now. Not keen on doing bench testing on it. Not without a lot of thought and setup work.

BUT, I'm pretty sure that andrewwynn has done this as part of his HD-M6 project. Drop him a PM and see what he decided on for the drive voltage of the MN20.

And, yes, if I had to guess right now, I would go with 7.5 or 7.6 volts DC equivalent regulated w/soft start, or direct drive from 2 Li-ion or 6 NiMH cells.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Jul 15, 2006)

*Re: Surefire MN20 arrived!!!*

js, you have a lightmeter, so why not do some bounce tests in a small room such as bathroom, or closet, and compare the reading between the new and old MN20. This would be at least better than a subjective test, and would show which LA is putting out more lumens. At least give it a try.

Bill


----------



## Size15's (Jul 15, 2006)

*Re: Surefire MN20 arrived!!!*

JS, if you're right and there is a noticable difference then our old MN20's are to be hoarded!


----------



## js (Jul 15, 2006)

*Re: Surefire MN20 arrived!!!*

Bullzeyebill,

I don't got no lightmeter. Don't like em. Don't trust em. I use me own eyeball for a ceiling bounce test. ARrrggh. blimee.

Plus, the first thing to do is to field test both. Then the next thing to do is to make measurements of voltage and current draws for both.

Al,

Yes indeed. That's a possibility. But, like I said, I was just taking some assumptions and an observation and making a guess. Could be that the output difference is negligible and not noticeable. The powers may not be equal. The fill gasses could be different. Etc. Etc. Plus, even if I am guessing right, the difference would be slight.


----------



## wquiles (Jul 15, 2006)

*Re: Surefire MN20 arrived!!!*



js said:


> Will,
> 
> I love the MN20 on 123's so much, and use the MN16 for the LOLA when running the M6-R pack, that I have never done careful current and voltage measurements of the MN20. You'd be surprised how difficult that can be in some cases. Not to mention that danger of damaging the LA you are testing--and my old MN20 is worth more than its weight in gold to me right now. Not keen on doing bench testing on it. Not without a lot of thought and setup work.
> 
> ...


Jim,

As always, thanks much. I am always learning lots of good stuff from you :rock: 

The reason I asked is that I found (and verified with Willie Hunt by email) a way to change the set point on the LVR regulators that I got from you, and I want to experiment setting one of them up for 7.5-7.6 volts to drive not only the MN20, but the MN15 and N2 bulbs that I now use in my "normal" 6.8V M6-R. Raising the equivalent DC voltage also raises the set point for the warning flashes (battery depleted), but it is probably worth playing with on the bench 

I will report in a new thread once I have something concrete to report 

Will


----------



## js (Jul 16, 2006)

*Re: Surefire MN20 arrived!!!*

Will,

You change out a surface mount resistor, right?

Do you have a rework soldering station? Or do you have a way to do this somehow?

If so, maybe at some point I could send you one of my LVR's for you to adjust? Right now, I don't need that done, but I was thinking of the possibility of changing one of my LVR3K's to run at 8.0 volts instead of 7.2, so that it would run the stock Gen4 TL LA at super-drive levels and blinding whiteness. Bill says he like the Gen4 best on 7 NiMH cells. hehe. Crazy, isn't he? But 8.0 volts would be within reason, I think.


----------



## hburner (Jul 16, 2006)

*Re: Surefire MN20 arrived!!!*

I am just wandering, all of the NEW MN20s that we all got recently, did all of yours come in the plastic tube with the foam or did they come shipped the old way with just the cardboard sleeve around it in the plastic bag? 

The reason I ask this is I found some but need to know if they are the new or old style? Thanks for any responce.


----------



## Hoghead (Jul 16, 2006)

*Re: Surefire MN20 arrived!!!*

hburner,

My new MN20 came in a plastic tube with foam and it had a cardboard tube inside the foam.


----------



## wquiles (Jul 16, 2006)

*Re: Surefire MN20 arrived!!!*



js said:


> Will,
> 
> You change out a surface mount resistor, right?
> 
> ...


Yes, just a simple resistor change. Here in this post I discussed how it was done 

Thanks much for your help  :bow:

It after reading all that you want to proceed changing yours, post on the other thread so that we do not high-jack this one no more :naughty: 

Will


----------



## hburner (Jul 16, 2006)

*Re: Surefire MN20 arrived!!!*

Yea that is just the way that mine came. I would like to try another of the old versions as long as it does not blow up on me!


----------



## wquiles (Jul 26, 2006)

I got today a new MN20, so I wanted to compare it to the old MN20 that I have.

Here is the old MN20. then the new MN20, and the N2. As you can clearly see, spotting the new vs. old MN20 is rather easy (Canon Rebel XT, Kit lens with EF25-II - "macro" setup):

















The old MN20 shown here out of my M6 is being driven with primaries, and the new MN20 is being driven out of my regulated M6-R(7.5V) pack, so brightness might not be an apples to apples, even though the camera settings/exposure is the same. Camera was on a tripod for everything, but there might also be some minor holding/angle differences between the two times I took these pictures (only the new MN20 pictures are from tonight). I aligned the "wider" part of the beam along the horizontal axis for all shots to keeps things about the same 

First old MN20/primaries, then the new MN20/regulated pack:






























To me the new MN20 gives a slightly wider beam, although a little harder to see in the two shots at the trees. Both are pretty nice, but I kind of like the old MN20 a little bit better 

Will


----------



## wquiles (Jul 26, 2006)

*Re: Surefire MN20 arrived!!!*

EDIT: admins combined the two threads - which makes perfect sense 

Will


----------



## js (Jul 27, 2006)

Will,

Nice work. I count 13 coils on your old MN20, but I count 12 on mine. Is this just an artifact of a partial turn or the POV of the camera or a trick of the light? Could you actually count the turns on your old MN20 and report?

Next, it looks as if the old MN20 is a higher CCT from the pictures. Would you say that is so? Also, I assume you were using fresh 123's for these pics, right?

In any case the comments you make about beam shape fall in line with a wider filament on the new MN20, I should think.

Anyway, good thread, good pics. Thanks very much for the report.


----------



## Size15's (Jul 27, 2006)

*Re: Surefire MN20 arrived!!!*



wquiles said:


> I posted some "macro" pictures of the old MN20 vs. the new MN20 here
> 
> Will



Nice skills!


----------



## seery (Jul 27, 2006)

*Re: Surefire MN20 arrived!!!*

Today I received my two MN20's from Surefire.

They have the cardboard sleeve and are inside the plastic bags.

Interesting the variations in the way they are shipping these b/o bulbs out.



hburner said:


> I am just wandering, all of the NEW MN20s that we all got recently, did all of yours come in the plastic tube with the foam or did they come shipped the old way with just the cardboard sleeve around it in the plastic bag?
> 
> The reason I ask this is I found some but need to know if they are the new or old style? Thanks for any responce.


----------



## hburner (Jul 27, 2006)

Nice work Will and nice house too. I was hoping someone would do this comparison, Thanks.


----------



## wquiles (Jul 27, 2006)

*Re: Surefire MN20 arrived!!!*



Size15's said:


> Nice skills!


Thanks  It was fun to try to get these shots 

Will


----------



## Luna (Jul 27, 2006)

js said:


> Will,
> 
> Nice work. I count 13 coils on your old MN20, but I count 12 on mine. Is this just an artifact of a partial turn or the POV of the camera or a trick of the light? Could you actually count the turns on your old MN20 and report?



(JS I just saw you called me out, too much work so I missed the opportunity  )

Also please do a resistance measurement and if at all possible, could you include a comparison show against the MN16?


----------



## wquiles (Jul 27, 2006)

js said:


> Will,
> 
> Nice work. I count 13 coils on your old MN20, but I count 12 on mine. Is this just an artifact of a partial turn or the POV of the camera or a trick of the light? Could you actually count the turns on your old MN20 and report?


Jim,

I also count 13 coils on my old MN20 and 14 coils on my new MN20, which is easier for me to count since I have the full size 3456 x 2304 x 24 pixel image  . I am hosting a much larger picture (although not quite as big as the original one!) of the old MN20 here and the new MN20 here, so that you can do a better count/comparison. Picture sizes are approx. 1600 x 1200 x 24 pixels. Let me know if that helps some 

In terms of the battery pack used, no, it was not using the same battery pack at the the time - the old MN20 was used with primaries, which were OK but not new. For the new MN20 I was using my M6-R(7.5V) regulated pack. I will soon do a back to back test with the two bulbs and my regulated M6-R(7.5V) pack to eliminate the power source as a variable :naughty: 

Will


----------



## dizzy (Jul 28, 2006)

I just got my MN20 in the mail today. It came in a clear plastic bag with a cardboard tube around the glass part of the lamp and a red, white, and black hang card stapled to the plastic bag.

This is my first MN20 and I have to say it is pretty impressive for a 250 lumen lamp. I will have to try it outside after it gets dark to get the full effect.

It took about three weeks from when I called to get it so thats not too bad, since I thought I would have to wait until all other back orders were filled.

Also, great pictures Will. Someday I hope to be smart enough to post pictures,also.


----------



## wquiles (Jul 28, 2006)

dizzy said:


> Also, great pictures Will. Someday I hope to be smart enough to post pictures,also.


Well thanks 

Nothing about being smart - just having mess up enough times to know how to do it by now 

Will


----------



## wquiles (Jul 30, 2006)

Today I had the opportunity of doing an even closer apples to apples comparison between the old and the new MN20 by:

- same day, lighting in the street. Both set of pictures were only a few minutes apart.
- same fixed camera/trippod, manual focus same for all shots (although the light still held by hand on top of the camera - some minor aim differences)
- Canon Rebel XT, kit lens on wide angle, F5.6, maual exposure at 2, 4, 6, and 8 seconds for each bulb
- same regulated M6-R(7.5V) charged battery pack, same M6, same KT4 head

Here is the old MN20, then the new MN20 - 2 second exposure:












Here is the old MN20, then the new MN20 - 4 second exposure:











Here is the old MN20, then the new MN20 - 6 second exposure:











Here is the old MN20, then the new MN20 - 8 second exposure:









I don't know about the rest of you, but to me, my old MN20 looks whiter, somewhat brighter, and "pretier" than the new MN20 :naughty: 

Will


----------



## dizzy (Jul 30, 2006)

I would have to agree with you Will. Got any old MN20's you want to trade for my new one? LOL.

Maybe the new one has a longer runtime. Are you up for a comparison test on that, since you have both lamps and a rechargable setup?


----------



## wquiles (Aug 1, 2006)

At least for me, I have "enough" evidence that in terms of beam quality and "whiteness", the old MN20's are keepers!. I only have two of these "oldies", one with me and a second MN20 that Andrew has with my other M6 for final testing of his regulated packs - Andrew has promissed to be extremely carefull with the old MN20 

I will try to do a back to back full runtest with the two bulbs on my regulated pack to compare if there is any noticeable difference. I will report back in a few days 

Will


----------



## dizzy (Aug 1, 2006)

Thanks Will. You are lucky to have the old MN's. I missed out on some in the B/S/T about a month ago. I'll have to keep looking though.

I hope Andrew doesn't BLOW your other one


----------



## wquiles (Aug 3, 2006)

OK, just finished doing full runtime runs with the new MN20 vs. the old MN20, both from my fully charged regulated M6-R(7.5V) pack:

Old MN20: 31 minutes
New MN20: 29 minutes (2nd run was 30 minutes - see below)

Note that the difference between these two is way too small to imply one will run longer than the other. From my point of view, they are both "identical", so runtime-wise, it is a draw 

Will
(I still like the old MN20's better!)


----------



## wquiles (Aug 4, 2006)

Just for "fun" I did a second full run on the new MN20 again today - this time I got 30 minutes even (instead of the 29 minutes from last time). Fairly good repetitive results from these great M6-R packs !!!

Will


----------



## dizzy (Aug 4, 2006)

Thanks for the test Will. It looks like the two lamps have pretty much identical current draws so with Andrew's 4800 pack and Petrev's XTN we should get a very long run time with the MN20, new and old.

What is the mAh rating of the M6-R that you have from JS? I would have thought it would run longer than 30 minutes.

Thanks again for your efforts and before long I hope to be using my HD-M6 for all my outdoor needs.


----------



## wquiles (Aug 4, 2006)

Yes, the capacity is not "ultra" high. The 9x NiMH cells are rated at 1100 mAH. When I am done with my full runs on the MN20, my Triton puts back about 1000mAH into the cells, so it sounds about right 

Andrew's pack will have significantly more capacity due to the LiIon cells and the fact that you have 6x 17500 cells, BUT, in the meantime, my M6-R(7.5V) rules :rock: 

Will


----------



## js (Nov 12, 2007)

Thought I'd add a link to my  CURSES! My MN20 exploded in my M6 turbo head last night thread.

I should also redo my back of the envelope calculations with 13 coils vs. 14 coils instead of 12 vs. 14:

Let's see:

If we estimate that the new filament is 14/13 as long as the old one, and that the old filament had a CCT of 3400 K when driven on 2p3s 123's, then if the new filament is driven 14/13th times the voltage of the old one, it will have the same CCT. Which means that the new CCT will be the old CCT times (13/14)^.42, which will equal 3296 K instead of 3400 K.

This equates to an efficiency loss of about 3 lumens/watt. The MN20 is about an 18.6 watt lamp, which will mean (assuming the power of the new MN20 is the same as the power of the old one--which is by no means certain) a loss of 56 bulb-lumens = 36 or so torch-lumens as a lower limit. The power of the new MN20 is almost certainly ever so slightly less, so we could round this up to 40 or so torch lumens lost. This equates to a ten percent loss of output, together with a 100 K lower CCT. This would only be barely noticeable.

This is borne out by the pictures wquiles posted above, I think.

So, anyway, given that my old style MN20 exploded despite seeming by all accounts to be good to go, I think I will err on the side of caution and start using my new style MN20 even though I still do have one more old style MN20 left. (see thread link above).


----------



## 325addict (Jul 6, 2010)

So, you guys want that old, exploding MN20?

Then GET IT:


It's the old purple one! Brand new...


Timmo.


----------

