# Surefire 961 XM07...MN10 vs. MN11



## N/Apower (Nov 29, 2008)

Okay, I have the SF961 XM07 and I plan on running it on an M16A4 clone mounted on a KAC RAS M5 rail.

I want to be able to utilize my RCO A4 Acog (4X magnification with tritium chevron and BDC) and this light togather out to 1-200 yards. I am guessing on the shy end of that number based on what I saw outside tonight just playing around with it.

My question is this:

The MN10 bulb is rated at 125lumens and 60 minutes run-time.
The MN11 bulb is rated at 225 lumens and 20 minutes run time.

That is 1/3 the run time and almost 200% the brightness. 

SHould be night/day difference, huh?

NOT

I swapped the bulbes out and if someone "in the know" told me the MNXX was in there and the MNXX was REALLY in there, I would believe them and not my eyes. They are not different enough to even overcome the placebo effect in my opinion. What gives? Am I imagining things? Am I blind? AR15.com rates the MN10 bulb in this light as allowing facial recognition at 60m while the MN11 ups it to 80m. I guess I need to play with it more, or are other people having trouble finding where that 100 extra lumens went also? My M3X's hot-spot is just as bright as my MN11's hot-spot, just less spill (by far).

Help

(before someone asks, yes, MN10 and MN11 are on the base of the bulbs. I did not get two MN10's.)


----------



## N/Apower (Nov 30, 2008)

PS. How long will an MN11 bulb last? Does turning it on/off shorten life-span, or is burn-time burn-time?


----------



## nzgunnie (Nov 30, 2008)

If you want to use it out to a longer range, brightness is not the answer, reflector size is. The larger KT-4 turbo head will allow much greater throw with the MN16, or even the MN15 LA, it will focus the light to a much tighter spot at a distance. The MN10/11 are both more flood.


----------



## BSBG (Nov 30, 2008)

I concur, you need a Turbohead to reach beyond 100m, even with the light gathering of an ACOG. I have one on my A4gery.


----------



## mdocod (Nov 30, 2008)

There is a lot of misconception about lumen differences. 

Here's a few rules of thumb to take into consideration


Doubling the number of lumens, will appear as a "step" brighter, not double.
Within the same reflector size, moving up to a higher wattage bulb will, generally speaking, create a wider beam pattern. (less throw)
The beam profile, within a range of possible lumen values, is more important than the lumens themselves.
Many people have made a similar observation as you have, that the "HOLA" lamp does not have as significant effect as they were expecting.
Within the SureFire linup, None of the HOLA lamps are really intended to "throw" any better than the LOLA lamps, they just fill a wider hotspot with a similar amount of lux. 

With that said... I totally agree that moving to a KT4 kit would probably be more appropriate for the range you are intending to use the light for...

I'l share a little experience I had the other night with my M6...

FYI, I run my M6 on a pair of 18650 size li-ion cells, the resulting bulb options are widespread, but at the time, I was running what I use as my "low" bulb when I want long runtime and a general overall good utility value from the light. It's VERY similar to an MN15 in total output. (it's a little bi-pin xenon bulb in an FM bi-pin adapter that runs ~1.2A)... 

I was standing out front of the house, and was startled by a movement and a sound off in the distance, so quick whipped out the M6 and shone it in the direction the disturbance came from. I immediately identified 2 animals as dogs from down the street (they like to take themselves on walks at night, lol).... The range was probably right around 100 yards, and the identification was pretty good at that range. I should also point out, that my eyes were adjusted to the spill light from a mercury vapor light that hangs out over the garage, so the amount of useful illumination from the M6 was such that it not only reached out, but well enough that light-adjusted eyes could make an immediate identification at long range. 

I have found that there is something about the way the SF turbohead moves light down range. It throws, but at the same time, it smoothes the beam nicely. I find that the 2.5" SureFire turbohead reaches out about as well as a smooth reflector in a 2" head (maglite) but provides a more useful even beam at the same time. 

The MN15, the bulb I am using, and your MN10, are all basically in the same ballpark as far as total lumens goes, the difference in effectiveness is all in beam pattern here.

Having said all that... You could put 3 IMR16340 cells in there and run a HO-M6R bulb in a TurboHead (KT4 kit). Runtime would be about 14 minutes, but it would be rechargeable runtime. Output would be something like "400" surefire lumens, and LumensFactory is well known for making bulbs that produce good throw in their intended reflectors.



Eric


----------



## N/Apower (Nov 30, 2008)

At this time I have no plans on spending ANOTHER $1XX for the turbohead.

As you may have surmised, I have sunk a good bit of change into the weapon system as it stands and funds are tapped currently.

Would you say that with an ACOG 4x I should be able to ID/enguage targets out to 100m? My ACOG arrives in a few days and so I don't have it to go peeping about outside with right now.

I seem to get the same throw with MN10 as I do MN11, and MN11 KILLS batteries. Would I be better off throwing the MN10 in there, or would I be giving up a lot of range?


----------



## mdocod (Nov 30, 2008)

N/Apower said:


> Would you say that with an ACOG 4x I should be able to ID/enguage targets out to 100m? My ACOG arrives in a few days and so I don't have it to go peeping about outside with right now.
> 
> I seem to get the same throw with MN10 as I do MN11, and MN11 KILLS batteries. Would I be better off throwing the MN10 in there, or would I be giving up a lot of range?



I don't even know what an ACOG is.... (I don't own weapons... but If I'm ever going to I guess I better get to it while it's still legal.... heh)...

As for the MN10 vs MN11



me said:


> Within the SureFire linup, None of the HOLA lamps are really intended to "throw" any better than the LOLA lamps, they just fill a wider hotspot with a similar amount of lux.



I would just use the MN10 if you are sick of burning through batteries. I'd even suggest considering using a pair of 17500s in it to further reduce cost of operation... but I honestly am not 100% sure about the reliability of protected LiCo cells in a repeating recoil situation.


----------



## N/Apower (Dec 5, 2008)

Well, I actually sold my setup and bought something different. 256 lumen LED for my 6P with a Z49 clicky cap and a LaRue 606 offset QR mount.


----------



## mdocod (Dec 5, 2008)

N/Apower said:


> Well, I actually sold my setup and bought something different. 256 lumen LED for my 6P with a Z49 clicky cap and a LaRue 606 offset QR mount.



Let us know how you think that compares... Wish you had asked we may have been able to make some recommendations on potential LEDs that might be able to compete with the MN10...

Keep in mind that lumen ratings vary heavily from various places. Most "200+" lumen LED rated lights aren't much brighter than the P90/MN10/MN15 configurations, but they will generally have pretty impressive throw even in the smaller 26mm reflector. For outdoors, the incan has a better color spectrum for illuminating the variations of brownish/greenish/redish foliage that is normally found, so lumen for lumen, the incan usually out performs an LED..

Had the question been asked, I would have suggested trying a MalkOff M60W for your requirement. The lower color temp of the "warm" emitter combined with the TIR optic focusing would probably handily win out over that MN10. 

Eric


----------



## SunStar (Dec 5, 2008)

I run a similar set up on my Colt 6920 only I've mounted an M3 on a DD rail. I think the ARFCOM estimates of 60 and 80 meters are appropriate (at the limits). Use a turbohead and throw is significantly increased beyond that. Throw of the MN10 and MN11 are similar. Reflector size is the key.

Personally I find the MN11 too bright for CQB / indoor applications. I do bump the brightness of the MN10 with use of Li ion batteries to slightly over drive the lamp and still maintain comparable run time to primaries. Of course, one has to consider if this is a viable option depending on your weapon application due to the upkeep of the batteries. If you have a vertical foregrip or hollow stock, you can store an extra set of primaries there should li-ions fail.

I'm very fond of the MN10 for CQB and go with the MN16 / TH for longer ranges.

Good luck with your new set-up.


----------



## signal 13 (Dec 10, 2008)

mdocod said:


> You could put 3 IMR16340 cells in there and run a HO-M6R bulb in a TurboHead (KT4 kit). Runtime would be about 14 minutes, but it would be rechargeable runtime. Output would be something like "400" surefire lumens, and LumensFactory is well known for making bulbs that produce good throw in their intended reflectors.


 
Will this setup fry the Surefire XM tailcap w/ tapeswitch? That bad boy is pretty expensive, and I'd hate to kill it!


----------



## mdocod (Dec 10, 2008)

I don't know much about their "tapeswitches...." 

I'll answer with a question... Is the tapeswitch specified for use on flashlights that can optionally use bulbs like the P91, MN11, MN16, and MN61? If yes, then it should not be a problem on that configuration as the current will be lower. 

Eric


----------



## signal 13 (Dec 10, 2008)

It's not really the tapeswitch that worries me, it's the clickie portion of the XM tailcap. I've read how Mark @ LF fried a few of the SF clickies with the IMR setups. I guess I'll wait to see if [email protected] is willing to sacrifice some XM tailcaps for us! 

I was just curious. Not really sure if I want a short-runtime setup on my weaponlight. But it sure would be cool to run the LF HO-M6R in my SF M97!


----------



## Monkiee (Dec 11, 2008)

I think what Mark means by IMR setups are the new IMR series bulbs. The HO-M6R is able to be run on 3 IMR cells. I personally had tried it on my m3t with an XM10 tailcap.


----------



## signal 13 (Dec 12, 2008)

Monkiee said:


> I think what Mark means by IMR setups are the new IMR series bulbs. The HO-M6R is able to be run on 3 IMR cells. I personally had tried it on my m3t with an XM10 tailcap.


 
Good to know! How'd the HO-M6R perform with the IMRs?


----------



## mdocod (Dec 12, 2008)

The HO-M6R draws 2.1A, a IMR16340 is rated 550mAH, and will deliver ~490mAH true capacity into this load. 

A rough guess...

~475 torch lumen diminishing to ~250 torch lumen in 14 minutes.


----------



## N/Apower (Dec 14, 2008)

mdocod said:


> Let us know how you think that compares... Wish you had asked we may have been able to make some recommendations on potential LEDs that might be able to compete with the MN10...
> 
> Keep in mind that lumen ratings vary heavily from various places. Most "200+" lumen LED rated lights aren't much brighter than the P90/MN10/MN15 configurations, but they will generally have pretty impressive throw even in the smaller 26mm reflector. For outdoors, the incan has a better color spectrum for illuminating the variations of brownish/greenish/redish foliage that is normally found, so lumen for lumen, the incan usually out performs an LED..
> 
> ...


 
Funny...I have one on the way to go with this setup:


----------

