# EagleTac Triple XML T6 M3C4



## Fresh Light (Mar 18, 2011)

Well it's just like the title says. I guess we'll start to hear more about this soon, hopefully. Something like 1011 ANSI Lumens and 46.8k lux from what i've read. Anyone else know more?


----------



## Outdoorsman5 (Mar 18, 2011)

Here's what I know about it: it stinks that I just bought the M3C4 with a single XM-L.....dang. Didn't know this thing was coming out. I know that better stuff is always on the way (and am grateful for that,) but dang my version just came out 2 or 3 months ago. Oh well.


----------



## Fresh Light (Mar 18, 2011)

Well I'm not sure if the lux figure is correct, since i don't I don't think it should be higher than of the single XM-L because of reflector size and current. I know what you're saying though about something better always coming out.


----------



## Dsoto87 (Mar 18, 2011)

Yea those lux figures don't sound right. I think it's only better than the current xml offering if it's major flood you're after. No way the smaller reflectors will be able to throw further than the single large reflector of the current m3c4


----------



## CarpentryHero (Mar 18, 2011)

Holy COW 


----------



## Rod911 (Mar 18, 2011)

Bugger. Like a few of you guys here, I already have the single XM-L version as well. If I knew one of these bad boys were coming out (it wasn't mentioned in their roadmap), then I would have preferred to buy the tri-XM-L version instead.

However, now that I know first hand the build quality of the M3C4 series, I would be hesitant to buy another. The need to baby the hex screws to avoid stripping and my one was not waterproof out of the box despite the IPX-8 claim, is simply not good enough.


----------



## Fresh Light (Mar 20, 2011)

Added photos.


----------



## simplec6 (Mar 20, 2011)

Rod911 said:


> Bugger. Like a few of you guys here, I already have the single XM-L version as well. If I knew one of these bad boys were coming out (it wasn't mentioned in their roadmap), then I would have preferred to buy the tri-XM-L version instead.
> 
> However, now that I know first hand the build quality of the M3C4 series, I would be hesitant to buy another. The need to baby the hex screws to avoid stripping and my one was not waterproof out of the box despite the IPX-8 claim, is simply not good enough.


 This is my first hearing of this, and I'm pretty close to buying an M3C4, but might go for the Fenix TK35 instead. What would you recommend that puts out as much light as your single XML M3C4 in the same price range?


----------



## srfreddy (Mar 20, 2011)

The tk35 puts out more light, has a larger hotspot, is much more durable (and actually waterproof) and is more compact than the m3c4. The m3c4 is just has a throwier hotspot.


----------



## utlgoa (Mar 20, 2011)

Just recieved an email from Eagletac......

"Thanks for your interest in our products. 

Yes, the first batch EagleTac M3C4 Triple Cree XM-L Flashlight will begin to be sent to our dealer in a week."

Cheers,


Customer Service Specialist
http://www.eagletac.com


----------



## Rod911 (Mar 20, 2011)

simplec6 said:


> This is my first hearing of this, and I'm pretty close to buying an M3C4, but might go for the Fenix TK35 instead. What would you recommend that puts out as much light as your single XML M3C4 in the same price range?


I am looking at possibly getting another Catapult, but this time a neutral version. I don't have a neutral thrower and it would be nice to have in my collection. I have the original V1 and found everything about it excellent. The only downside (depending on your POV) is the weight of it - it's one heavy light.


----------



## GunnarGG (Mar 20, 2011)

Rod911 said:


> I am looking at possibly getting another Catapult, but this time a neutral version.




Is it possible to get a _neutral white_ Catapult?


----------



## srfreddy (Mar 20, 2011)

Thrunite announced the introduction of neutral models for Their lights on the marketplace.


----------



## jsr (Mar 20, 2011)

That's interesting news, but I don't think it will be much brighter than the 1-XML model. ET won't be able to drive 3-XMLs at full power, so if anything, it will be marginally brighter (which won't be easily noticeable by the eye) and have a bit more runtime (since running each LED at lower output will be more efficient). If they were able to drive each XML at 3A, now THAT'S something! I wish ET would actually test their ANSI output claims. Anyone ever notice EVERY light in their catalog has the ANSI claims an exact percentage of their LED lumens? That just can't be because exact efficiency of drivers, optics, and heat management for each model is different.


----------



## Toaster (Mar 20, 2011)

jsr said:


> That's interesting news, but I don't think it will be much brighter than the 1-XML model. ET won't be able to drive 3-XMLs at full power, so if anything, it will be marginally brighter (which won't be easily noticeable by the eye) and have a bit more runtime (since running each LED at lower output will be more efficient). If they were able to drive each XML at 3A, now THAT'S something! I wish ET would actually test their ANSI output claims. *Anyone ever notice EVERY light in their catalog has the ANSI claims an exact percentage of their LED lumens?* That just can't be because exact efficiency of drivers, optics, and heat management for each model is different.




I notice you tend to spout this same line in every single Eagletac topic. You're like a broken record. Quite amusing really. Just for kicks I went back and checked the 2011 catalog and your claim is quite off. ANSI lumens in their catalog range from ~70-85% of LED lumens and is not a set percentage like you so fantastically claim. Now please do us all a favor and stop trolling every single Eagletac thread you come across :fail:


----------



## recDNA (Mar 20, 2011)

srfreddy said:


> Thrunite announced the introduction of neutral models for Thierry lights on the marketplace.



What are "Thierry lights"?


----------



## lebox97 (Mar 20, 2011)

and notice most of the products listed in the catalog does not yet exist so therefore cannot possibly have accurate ANSI specs - just estimates. :ironic:

hence the disclaimer on the front cover:
"*All product specifications and features may be subject to change without notice.*"
and, "Artist Renderings" below the pics. 

The Catalog is really a teaser of info of what is to come from EagleTac - and nothing is final until a product is produced and shipped out.

Cheers
Tod


----------



## flashflood (Mar 20, 2011)

If three is not much brighter than one, that is epic fail.


----------



## Fresh Light (Mar 20, 2011)

Refer to the first post, there is a beam shot. I can't say i've seen any consumer 3x sst50 builds, probably because cost of inability to drive them at high enough rate, but we may see more and more of multi XM-Ls. I hope they get it right, looks good so far.


----------



## srfreddy (Mar 20, 2011)

Toaster said:


> I notice you tend to spout this same line in every single Eagletac topic. You're like a broken record. Quite amusing really. Just for kicks I went back and checked the 2011 catalog and your claim is quite off. ANSI lumens in their catalog range from ~70-85% of LED lumens and is not a set percentage like you so fantastically claim. Now please do us all a favor and stop trolling every single Eagletac thread you come across :fail:


 
Uhm... seeing as their lights have not been finalized, I believe that jsr is right, those are just estimated amounts, based on their previous results of Emmiter:ANSI lumens of the lights in the M3C4/M2C4 class. 



recDNA said:


> What are "Thierry lights"?


 
Their, lol.


----------



## srfreddy (Mar 20, 2011)

flashflood said:


> If three is not much brighter than one, that is epic fail.


 
They can only pull so much power from the batteries! If I was to fill the entire head of the M3C4 with XML's, and run them like a mule, I would still maybe be getting 1600 emmiter lumens. The current M3C4 XML probably gets 1300 or so.


----------



## Toaster (Mar 20, 2011)

srfreddy said:


> Uhm... seeing as their lights have not been finalized, I believe that jsr is right, those are just estimated amounts, based on their previous results of Emmiter:ANSI lumens of the lights in the M3C4/M2C4 class.


 
Try picking up a calculator before posting. The specs for released lights as well as pre release specs for future lights don't follow a straight percentage drop formula as claimed.


----------



## srfreddy (Mar 20, 2011)

Toaster said:


> Try picking up a calculator before posting. The specs for released lights as well as pre release specs for future lights don't follow a straight percentage drop formula as claimed.


 
Drop off what? Do show me where you found predicted emmiter lumens for all their models.


----------



## FroggyTaco (Mar 20, 2011)

Fresh Light said:


> Refer to the first post, there is a beam shot. I can't say i've seen any consumer 3x sst50 builds, probably because cost of inability to drive them at high enough rate, but we may see more and more of multi XM-Ls. I hope they get it right, looks good so far.



Also the SST leds are 3x + more expensive than the XM-L's so it would not have been a commercially viable product.


----------



## Fresh Light (Mar 21, 2011)

FroggyTaco said:


> Also the SST leds are 3x + more expensive than the XM-L's so it would not have been a commercially viable product.



If you can supply the power and sink the heat, these are no more, about like XPGs. I'm glad some manufactures are charging less for the cree products than the sst ones


----------



## flashflood (Mar 21, 2011)

srfreddy said:


> They can only pull so much power from the batteries! If I was to fill the entire head of the M3C4 with XML's, and run them like a mule, I would still maybe be getting 1600 emmiter lumens. The current M3C4 XML probably gets 1300 or so.


 
A single XM-L T6 will deliver 700 lumens at 2A, which is not even driving it hard. Three of them would be 2100 lumens at 6A. The AW IMR 18650 is rated for 10C continuous discharge, which at 1600mAh capacity is 16A. So you should be able to get over 2,000 emitter lumens without even running the battery at half tilt. Heck, if you're feeling spicy, 3 XM-Ls at 3.5A each would be 3,000 lumens at 10.5A, still well within the battery's 16A envelope. Am I missing something? (Besides a heat sink.... )


----------



## 3Diver (Mar 21, 2011)

If they make the body 1 piece like TK35 i will buy this light, but after reading about leaks with the body that some people have encountered it has scared me off it.


----------



## utlgoa (Mar 21, 2011)

All of the latest news from EagleTac: 

EagleTac is proud to offer the new triple CREE XML T6 LED M3C4 flashlight. 

- LED Lumen output:

o 1164 (Triple XM-L) 
o 911 (Single XM-L) 
- ANSI FL-1 Lumen output: 
o 1011 (Triple XM-L) 
o 820 (Single XM-L) 

Features: 

Five levels output, activate by twisting ring 
Three hidden modes (strobe, beacon, SOS), activated by twisting bezel 
Stainless steel bezel 
Syntax ultra-clear glass lens w/ harden and AR coating 
Type III finish / aerospace tough aluminum 
Smooth reflector for maximum output and a pleasing beam 
Gold and silver coated contacts 
Tail-stand tailcap 
Heavy Duty Holster 
ET57 Diffuser glass filter with Syntax tough and AR coating 
Mil-Spec Paracord Lanyard w/ quick attachment clip UP-L1 
CR123A Battery Magazine for CR123A Batteries 

Specifications 

Dimensions:

Length: 
- Triple XML M3C4: 6.3 inch (15.9cm) 
- Single XML M3C4: 6.5 inch (16.5cm) 
Body Diameter: 2.4 inch (6.1cm) 
Head Diameter: 1.5 inch (4.0cm) 
Body Weight (excluding batteries): 12 ounces (340grams)

Battery:

Four CR123A lithium batteries or Two 18650 Li-ion (button-top cells only) 
Operating Voltage Range: 5.4V to 13V 

Runtimes: 

Lower Low/Low/Med/High/Turbo: 65/15/6/2.5/1 hours 
Strobe (9.5 Hz)/Slow-Blink (2 Hz)/SOS: 2/1.9/4 hours 

Triple XM-L T6 Lumen Output: Lower Low/Low/Med/High/Turbo 
LED Lumen: 34/90/249/552/1164 
ANSI FL-1: 28/78/218/480/1011 
Single XM-L T6 Lumen Output: Lower Low/Low/Med/High/Turbo XM L-T6 
LED Lumen: 27/80/242/504/911 
ANSI FL-1: 25/74/220/453/820 
(All AUX modes are operating at turbo boost brightness) 

Lux @ 1meter 

Triple XML T6 LED: 46800 lux 
Single XML T6 LED: 38100lux 

Operations:

Dial the rotary switch clockwise to select output power from low to high (five levels brightness). 
Dial the switch counter-clockwise to dim the output (continue dialing the ring counter-clockwise to turn off the flashlight). 

To reach hidden aux. mode (strobe, slow blink and SOS), starting from turbo output mode, dial the ring counter-clockwise to off, and then back to turbo output mode to enable strobe. mode (strobe, slow blink and SOS), starting from turbo output mode, dial the ring counter-clockwise to off, and then back to turbo mode to output enable strobe. Repeat the dialing to cycle through the rest of the hidden aux. modes. 

Other LED options: 
Triple Neutral White XP-G R4 LED 
Triple Osram Platinum Dragon 850nm Infrared (IR) LED 
Triple CREE XR-E R2 LED 
CREE MC-E Cool White M-bin 
CREE MC-E Neutral White LED 
Luminus SST-50 WJ LED






http://fstoplights.com/pages/Our-Blog.html


----------



## recDNA (Mar 21, 2011)

flashflood said:


> A single XM-L T6 will deliver 700 lumens at 2A, which is not even driving it hard. Three of them would be 2100 lumens at 6A. The AW IMR 18650 is rated for 10C continuous discharge, which at 1600mAh capacity is 16A. So you should be able to get over 2,000 emitter lumens without even running the battery at half tilt. Heck, if you're feeling spicy, 3 XM-Ls at 3.5A each would be 3,000 lumens at 10.5A, still well within the battery's 16A envelope. Am I missing something? (Besides a heat sink.... )


 
Yes, you are missing the fact that ET wants to use primaries or protected 18650 most commonly used by general public. Our modders may make imr only builds. Big manufacturers won't (mores the pity).

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk


----------



## FroggyTaco (Mar 21, 2011)

flashflood said:


> A single XM-L T6 will deliver 700 lumens at 2A, which is not even driving it hard. Three of them would be 2100 lumens at 6A. The AW IMR 18650 is rated for 10C continuous discharge, which at 1600mAh capacity is 16A. So you should be able to get over 2,000 emitter lumens without even running the battery at half tilt. Heck, if you're feeling spicy, 3 XM-Ls at 3.5A each would be 3,000 lumens at 10.5A, still well within the battery's 16A envelope. Am I missing something? (Besides a heat sink.... )



Market viability! 

But you have a valid point with regards to light ouput potential.

Travis


----------



## Outdoorsman5 (Mar 21, 2011)

Fresh Light said:


> Added photos.



Thanks for the photos. I'm not regretting my purchase of the single LED M3C4 ET. Looks like (and it makes since that) the Triple XML is going to be more floody. I bought mine ET to be a dedicated thrower, and can easily turn it into a flood light with the supplied diffuser. Still the Triple XML looks great.


----------



## SCEMan (Mar 21, 2011)

Another satisfied M3C4 XM-L owner not interested in the triple. Throw loss with minimal lumen gain isn't a step forward IMHO. The single already has plenty of flood, I can't imagine needing more. I skipped the Fenix TK35 for this reason along with it's awkward UI button arrangement.


----------



## srfreddy (Mar 21, 2011)

SCEMan said:


> Another satisfied M3C4 XM-L owner not interested in the triple. Throw loss with minimal lumen gain isn't a step forward IMHO. The single already has plenty of flood, I can't imagine needing more. I skipped the Fenix TK35 for this reason along with it's awkward UI button arrangement.


At least the Tk35 is waterproof..... and doesn't have parasitic drain.


----------



## recDNA (Mar 21, 2011)

SCEMan said:


> Another satisfied M3C4 XM-L owner not interested in the triple. Throw loss with minimal lumen gain isn't a step forward IMHO. The single already has plenty of flood, I can't imagine needing more. I skipped the Fenix TK35 for this reason along with it's awkward UI button arrangement.


 
Does it come with a free diffuser?

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk


----------



## SCEMan (Mar 21, 2011)

srfreddy said:


> At least the Tk35 is waterproof..... and doesn't have parasitic drain.


I don't swim with lights and use the rattle-proof tailcap switch...


----------



## flashflood (Mar 21, 2011)

utlgoa said:


> - LED Lumen output:
> 
> o 1164 (Triple XM-L)
> o 911 (Single XM-L)


 
For what it's worth, I just worked out the origin of these numbers. The XM-L T6 bin is rated for 280 lumens at 700mA drive current. Cree provides a graph that shows the relation between current and output relative to this number, i.e. on the Y axis, 100% means 280 lumens. At 137% drive (1A), output is 386 lumens. At 325% (3A), output is 911 lumens. 3 x 386 lumens = 1164 lumens.

In other words, EagleTac is using the exact same driver and same drive current (3A) regardless of whether the head contains one LED or three wired up in parallel, and the _only_ reason the 3 LED version is slightly brighter is that the XM-L is slightly more efficient at lower drive current.

Pretty much a waste of two XM-Ls, IMO.


----------



## tre (Mar 22, 2011)

utlgoa said:


> Lux @ 1meter
> 
> Triple XML T6 LED: 46800 lux
> Single XML T6 LED: 13800lux


 
I am 100% sure those figures are reversed. The single M3C4 XML is known to have 40k+ lux and I agree with that since I own one. Three XML emitters in tiny shallow reflectors will have great flood with a huge hotspot but not a lot of throw.


----------



## utlgoa (Mar 25, 2011)

Sent an email to PTS Flashlights inquiring about the release date of the EagleTac M3C4 Triple XM-L, and they responded:

"We are hoping the end of next week."



Sincerely,

Mike Seward, Internet Sales

Pacific Tactical Solutions Inc.

http://www.pts-flashlights.com

http://www.eagletac-usa.com


----------



## utlgoa (Mar 26, 2011)

Lightjunction is selling the Triple XM-L M3C4 for $169.00





http://www.lightjunction.com/EagleTac-M3C4-Triple-XML-flashlight.html


----------



## flashflood (Mar 26, 2011)

utlgoa said:


> Lightjunction is selling the Triple XM-L M3C4 for $169.00
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Is anyone here tempted? If so, I'm curious why. The fact that they're using the same 3A driver whether it's one or three emitters, and therefore only getting an extra 100 lumens per XM-L, just seems like such a waste of potential.


----------



## Glenn7 (Mar 28, 2011)

flashflood said:


> Is anyone here tempted? If so, I'm curious why. The fact that they're using the same 3A driver whether it's one or three emitters, and therefore only getting an extra 100 lumens per XM-L, just seems like such a waste of potential.


 
I'm getting one - reason IMO: 

Its going to be about as bright as a 25W HID @ half the size.

From my experience its not always how many lumens a light puts out its about how they are put out (and I have/had some of the brightest combinations on cpf) - the tri XM-L will throw as far if not further than 1 XML - 3x the grunt/push which will make up for the smaller reflectors and have twice the spill brightness - same as the original ones that came out, the 3x emitter thew further and had higher lux (I had one). 

I have found that with multi emitter lights, you get a slight 3D effect or better depth perception with softer shadows - kind of like these new cameras coming out with 2 lens's for 3D = light from 2 different directions - or you could say raps around the subject more than 1 single light source.

The switch is one of the most intuitive comfortable well positioned out there - I have always found overhand/stab is so un-natural, because after you turn it on its near your head/line of sight which courses glare from the beam - try dropping the light down to your waist and see the difference, and then you cant change modes easily with a clicky from there. 

And last if you haven't already bought one, wouldn't you want a tri XL-M for the same price as a single? but after I buy it and a quad XM-L comes out I too will feel the need to defend my lesser light that I just bought :kiss: 

Don't forget these are my opinions, you asked.


----------



## Dsoto87 (Mar 28, 2011)

Excuse my ignorance, as I'm a bit new to all this, but will 100 lumens Total really make up for the difference in the size/depth of reflectors? 

And on thing to note is its not the same price.


----------



## tre (Mar 28, 2011)

Dsoto87 said:


> Excuse my ignorance, as I'm a bit new to all this, but will 100 lumens Total really make up for the difference in the size/depth of reflectors?
> 
> And on thing to note is its not the same price.


 
No. The Triple XPG put out about 27,000 lux. Since the triple XML head is the same size as the triple XPG (or nearly), the 3 reflectors are the same size (or nearly), The total lumen output of the triple xml is only slightly more, and the XML emitter is larger with a lower surface brightness means the triple xml will have less throw than the triple xpg. I've seen it quoted at about 14,000 lux in a few places now. It will be an excellent flood light. 

It will not throw anywhere near as far as the single XML. They are totally different lights.

Single XML = throw. triple XML = flood


----------



## Glenn7 (Mar 28, 2011)

As with everything, pay more get more (300 lumen's more) if you could buy a M3C4 with an overdriven single XP-G that put out 448 lumen's for $30 less again would you buy that. (yes if thats all you can afford)
If ET is using the same driver as the older models then I will be happy because driving the led 3 xml's @ 3amps it cant be only 1164L.
Buying from lightjuntion with a cpf discount and you will save $20ish bux

I'm not telling anybody to buy anything - but if you ask you will get my opinion.


----------



## nightcacher (Mar 28, 2011)

I find the UI of the TK35 easy. Single hand operation and with long runtimes


srfreddy said:


> At least the Tk35 is waterproof..... and doesn't have parasitic drain.


----------



## SCEMan (Mar 28, 2011)

nightcacher said:


> I find the UI of the TK35 easy. Single hand operation and with long runtimes


 
And this has what to do with the EagleTac Triple XML T6 M3C4?


----------



## Dsoto87 (Mar 28, 2011)

Thanks tre thats what I figured 


Glenn7 said:


> As with everything, pay more get more (300 lumen's more) if you could buy a M3C4 with an overdriven single XP-G that put out 448 lumen's for $30 less again would you buy that. (yes if thats all you can afford)
> If ET is using the same driver as the older models then I will be happy because driving the led 3 xml's @ 3amps it cant be only 1164L.
> Buying from lightjuntion with a cpf discount and you will save $20ish bux
> 
> I'm not telling anybody to buy anything - but if you ask you will get my opinion.


I don't know how much fact there is in this thread but if you read back a page someone mentioned its 3 amps total, not to each. So each emitter is only pushing out a little under 400 lumens. That's a huge difference than what your making it out to be. 

And your comment about the price makes no sense. First you say they cost the same so you might as well get more bang for your buck. Than you're told it costs more and basically your argument is to only get the single xml if you're too poor to afford the triple... riiiight... 


All I'm saying is I don't think it's worth the price hike nor do I think it's worth it if you already have a single, since I have seen people express their disappointment in having just bought the single and then seeing this come out thinking it's a huge upgrade. In my opinion, with the current specs, its not an upgrade and more of just a different choice in beam profiles. ET should price then similarly and let people choose of they want throw or balls to the wall flood. 

Like I said, I'm happy with my single and will be passing on this.


----------



## recDNA (Mar 28, 2011)

Glenn7 said:


> I'm getting one - reason IMO:
> 
> Its going to be about as bright as a 25W HID @ half the size.
> 
> ...


 
What he said...

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 28, 2011)

tre said:


> It will not throw anywhere near as far as the single XML. *They are totally different lights.*
> Single XML = throw. triple XML = flood



Thanks tre, I couldn't have said it better myself.


----------



## Glenn7 (Mar 29, 2011)

Dsoto87 said:


> And your comment about the price makes no sense. First you say they cost the same so you might as well get more bang for your buck. Than you're told it costs more and basically your argument is to only get the single xml if you're too poor to afford the triple... riiiight...


 
Mate didn't mean to offend & yes I was out a bit on the original price, sorry. 
I will keep my opinions to my self even when asked, if thats what everybody wants :thinking:


----------



## flashflood (Mar 29, 2011)

Glenn7 said:


> Mate didn't mean to offend & yes I was out a bit on the original price, sorry.
> I will keep my opinions to my self even when asked, if thats what everybody wants :thinking:


 
Heck no! The responses have been interesting, which is why I asked. More flood in the 3-LED version is certainly a good point -- personally I'll hold out for more amps, but if I had just decided to buy an EagleTac M3C4 anyway, I could see going this way.


----------



## Glenn7 (Mar 29, 2011)

withdrawn


----------



## pageyjim (Apr 1, 2011)

Glenn7 said:


> looking at this video, the M3C4 XM-L is the brightest of that set - as in lux @ the center of the spot.




Was that the single XML or the triple XML shown on the video?


----------



## Glenn7 (Apr 1, 2011)

withdrawn


----------



## Bronco (Apr 1, 2011)

recDNA said:


> What he said...


 
Is almost guaranteed to be wrong.

At least as far as his claim that the triple XML will throw as far as the single is concerned. It would seem that the laws of physics dictate that you could have 50 XMLs being driven at 1 amp each in a small, shallow reflector and the lot of them still won't throw as far as one XML being driven at 3 amps from a significantly larger, deeper reflector.


----------



## Glenn7 (Apr 1, 2011)

withdrawn


----------



## Glenn7 (Apr 1, 2011)

Hmmm double post


----------



## RedForest UK (Apr 1, 2011)

Glenn7 said:


> I still say it will throw as far - it might not as bright in the center spot, but the light will travel as far as the single.



But without meaning to offend you, that makes no sense at all. How far it will throw is directly the same thing as 'how bright it is in the centre spot', throw is determined by brightness in the brightest single area of the beam. 

The triple XM-L uses three XM-L with the same current as one XM-L split between all three of them. As the workload is split equally between three they are all underdriven and so slightly more efficient, giving you slightly more overall output than pushing all those amps through one hard-working led. Unfortunately, as the light is put out by three seperate points it is much harder to collimate and so will be much more spread out, the three XM-L will *not* throw as far as the single XM-L version.

Still, as others have said, that doesnt make it any less useful or good overall, it's a different beam for a different purpose. Neither are really 'better' than the other, though the triple XM-L version will naturally cost more due to the increased cost in parts/manufacture. Whether it's worth that is a design issue, but the final choice ultimately rests with the purchaser. It is important to think about the purchase with a little intelligence first though, not just taking a more is better approach, that's my opinion anyway.

Btw, the original 3 led versions threw further than the 1 led versions before as they were using triple XR-Es as opposed to a single P7/MC-E, thats an apples to oranges comparision as the XR-Es have a different beam angle anyway and are much easier to collimate, (a single MC-E is made up of 4 EZ1000, read XR-E, dies anyway, as in fact are P7s, just in a different package). Each of these XR-E's have much higher surface brightness and relative collimation than the P7/MC-Es but a lower max drive current; they were run flat-out. The latest XM-L can take 3 amps through 1 die, a completely different situation. 

In this first case I'm afraid that the single die light will throw further, I'd bet almost anything on it.


----------



## srfreddy (Apr 1, 2011)

RedForest UK said:


> But without meaning to offend you, that makes no sense at all. How far it will throw is directly the same thing as 'how bright it is in the centre spot', throw is determined by brightness in the brightest single area of the beam.
> 
> The triple XM-L uses three XM-L with the same current as one XM-L split between all three of them. As the workload is split equally between three they are all underdriven and so slightly more efficient, giving you slightly more overall output than pushing all those amps through one hard-working led. Unfortunately, as the light is put out by three seperate points it is much harder to collimate and so will be much more spread out, the three XM-L will *not* throw as far as the single XM-L version.
> 
> ...


 
Yep. You're just dividing the current, so the surface brightness will be three times smaller, and the reflectors much more so. Those two factors combine to greatly reduce the throw.


----------



## lebox97 (Apr 1, 2011)

Guy's n Gal's
EagleTac is rechecking their output figures...
as of this afternoon it is:
*M3C4 Triple XM-L 15600 LUX
M3C4 Single XM-L 47400** LUX*

They are going to send out an update/spec correction to dealers within the next day or so.

Oh, did we mention the new T20C2 XM-L is 720 Lumen/580 ANSI? 

:thumbsup:
Cheers
Tod


----------



## Sh3ngLong (Apr 2, 2011)

Sweet. I was thinking of getting the Fenix TK21, but I may have to get the new T20C2 XM-L instead. When will it be available?


----------



## recDNA (Apr 2, 2011)

I knew it would be less but 15000 lux is unacceptable to me.


----------



## pageyjim (Apr 2, 2011)

I can't wait to see the comparitive beamshots. Maybe after the 3 XML comes out they will come out with the same model but driven harder. That's "good" marketing! I am new at this but I am curious, how much harder could you drive it and still get adequate runtimes?


----------



## pageyjim (Apr 2, 2011)

lebox97 said:


> Guy's n Gal's
> EagleTac is rechecking their output figures...
> as of this afternoon it is:
> *M3C4 Triple XM-L 15600 LUX
> ...



I know this a basic question but with the new T20C2 being driven to 580 ANSI lumens will the other dropins be driven harder also or is that all part of the dropin?


----------



## recDNA (Apr 2, 2011)

The problem is they have to drive the triple off of only 4 CR123. If they went to Li Ion only they could drive it harder but not on 4 primaries.


----------



## srfreddy (Apr 2, 2011)

recDNA said:


> The problem is they have to drive the triple off of only 4 CR123. If they went to Li Ion only they could drive it harder but not on 4 primaries.


 
Congrats on the 3000th post!


----------



## Glenn7 (Apr 3, 2011)

withdrawn - I waste your time.


----------



## tre (Apr 3, 2011)

I have both the M2C4 P7 and the M2XC4 triple xre and I can tell you that the M2XC4 far out-throws the P7. It is not even a quesiton. The Lux measurements are exactly what my eyes see. My Maelstrom G5 XPG R5 throws as far as my M2C4 P7.


I also have the M3C4 XML and it far out throws both of the M2 version I have. The triple XML will not come any where near the single XML in throw. However, the triple XML will be a great super bright floody wall of light.


----------



## pageyjim (Apr 3, 2011)

tre said:


> I have both the M2C4 P7 and the M2XC4 triple xre and I can tell you that the M2XC4 far out-throws the P7. It is not even a quesiton. The Lux measurements are exactly what my eyes see. My Maelstrom G5 XPG R5 throws as far as my M2C4 P7.
> 
> 
> I also have the M3C4 XML and it far out throws both of the M2 version I have. The triple XML will not come any where near the single XML in throw. However, the triple XML will be a great super bright floody wall of light.


 
Would I be correct in assuming that the triple XML will be similar to the single XML with the diffuser attached?


----------



## belomeclone (Apr 3, 2011)

EagleTac, I'm getting tired of this stuff. Why do you keep announcing new versions of torches you JUST made? Beyond that, I am happy with my single X-ML M3C4 because I wanted it for throw, not flood. I am a huge fan of flood, but I do not think a flashlight in this price range that it will provide a true wall of light like the 200+ dollar torches you find in that thread here.

But if it is available as a drop in... I may be tempted to check it out. I do believe that one review site had one and had the figures.


----------



## utlgoa (Apr 4, 2011)

lebox97 said:


> Guy's n Gal's
> EagleTac is rechecking their output figures...
> as of this afternoon it is:
> *M3C4 Triple XM-L 15600 LUX
> ...


 
Someone at Eagletac keeps on transposing the LUX reading for the Triple XM-L !

I'm sure they meant it to be "56100 LUX"


----------



## srfreddy (Apr 4, 2011)

56100 lux for what? I don't think either.


----------



## Outdoorsman5 (Apr 4, 2011)

pageyjim said:


> Would I be correct in assuming that the triple XML will be similar to the single XML with the diffuser attached?



There's no way the triple XM-L would be equivilant to the single XM-L M3C4 with the diffuser attached. When my diffuser is attached to my single XM-L M3C4 it is almost pure flood with only a hint of a hotspot.


----------



## pageyjim (Apr 4, 2011)

Outdoorsman5 said:


> There's no way the triple XM-L would be equivilant to the single XM-L M3C4 with the diffuser attached. When my diffuser is attached to my single XM-L M3C4 it is almost pure flood with only a hint of a hotspot.


 
OK, I was just thinking that the 3 XML would be a floodier "wall of light." I didn't mean to say it would be exactly the same or "equivilant". I was just weighing the profiles of each light and it seems that the 3 XML would be more floodlike and the single XML throws more and with the diffuser it would give you a "similar" beam. That was my thinking but I was asking a question more than anything else.


----------



## lebox97 (Apr 4, 2011)

the triple XM-L is pretty much the replacement to the triple XP-G R5 (just like with the T20 R5 to the XM-L) and with roughly 20% more lumens

it is a little disappointing to see the 16K LUX with the triple XM-L (vs 22K R5) - but, the XM-L does have a much larger surface area than the R5 does so it is not too much of a surprise. 
(you need a much deeper reflector in order to capture and focus the lumens to get throw from the XM-L).

the small triple reflectors create - brighter not larger spill, and larger dimmer center spot (less LUX) 
vs the larger single reflector - creates a larger dimmer spill, and smaller brighter center spot (higher LUX)... 

see my sig line for comparison output of the triple vs single emitter M2/M3 series lights


Cheers
Tod



pageyjim said:


> OK, I was just thinking that the 3 XML would be a floodier "wall of light." I didn't mean to say it would be exactly the same or "equivilant". I was just weighing the profiles of each light and it seems that the 3 XML would be more floodlike and the single XML throws more and with the diffuser it would give you a "similar" beam. That was my thinking but I was asking a question more than anything else.


----------



## liquidwater (Apr 4, 2011)

i found a review of the triple xml 

http://translate.google.ca/translat...iw=1516&bih=661&rlz=1R2ACGW_enCA358&prmd=ivns


----------



## recDNA (Apr 4, 2011)

srfreddy said:


> Congrats on the 3000th post!



Thanks! It's not often one is congratulated for having a big mouth!


----------



## flashflood (Apr 4, 2011)

recDNA said:


> Thanks! It's not often one is congratulated for having a big mouth!



Totally OT, but assuming that recDNA has something to do with your line of work, I think you will like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5yPkxCLads


----------



## recDNA (Apr 4, 2011)

LOL - Love the guy waving around the thermal cycler like it's a boom box! .... but no love for microarrays? A lab on a chip is right up our alley here in the LED forum!


----------



## flashflood (Apr 5, 2011)

recDNA said:


> LOL - Love the guy waving around the thermal cycler like it's a boom box! .... but no love for microarrays? A lab on a chip is right up our alley here in the LED forum!


 
Oh, plenty of love in my family -- my wife was the lead attorney on the Affymax IPO. Got to meet Alex Zaffaroni and everything. (For those who don't know the name, if you've heard of Alza, that's him.)


----------



## Painful Chafe (Apr 5, 2011)

withdrawn


----------



## fl0t (Apr 8, 2011)

So the light is out there. Any reviews? Comparison beamshots?


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2011)

fl0t said:


> So the light is out there. Any reviews? Comparison beamshots?


 
Its crazy bright!
It is all flood and what a great flood it is!!!


----------



## Kif (Apr 9, 2011)

wow, it's a cool light, but only 1000ish lumens?
I'd rather get the single XML model


----------



## Sh3ngLong (Apr 11, 2011)

Has anyone posted any outside beamshots that compares the single and triple XM-L version of the M3C4? I'm still debating on which one to get, including the TK35.

Hopefully someday someone will open up a local sports store that carries all the latest and greatest flashlights that we can test out ourselves in their huge dark room before buying.


----------



## lumenhunter (Apr 11, 2011)

I have the single and the triple XM-L versions of the light. I think I will use the triple version more often. The single version is a very good thrower. But if I want to use the light for a walk or for geocaching, the very bright spot is too bright. If I illuminate the way in front of my feet, there is a small, extremely bright spot. As it is so bright, you can barely see the spill and you only see a small part of the path. I prefer a light with a bit more flood in this situation.

If I had the choice between one of the two Eagletacs or the Fenix TK35 I would choose the Fenix. It is a good thrower, but has also enough spill. And it is smaller. A TK35 with the selector ring like the Eagletac would be the perfect light for me.


----------



## recDNA (Apr 11, 2011)

It is the green tint that eliminates the Fenix for me


----------



## Rod911 (Apr 13, 2011)

If this light was produced with a neutral output, I will be all for it. I do like the "wall of light" concept of a triple XML, compared to a triple XPG. Yes, a diffused M3C4 (single XML) does produce a good flood output, but it is at a cost of a drop in lumens. 

I would like to go into the next step and get a 1000+ lumen neutral tinted light, but it seems that there are not that many mass manufacturers (a few custom builders out there) that offer that option.


----------



## jtivat (Apr 23, 2011)

Anyone know if this will work with AW flat top batteries?


----------



## pageyjim (Apr 23, 2011)

jtivat said:


> Anyone know if this will work with AW flat top batteries?


 
I don't think so,(Without mods that is.) there is a raised plastic ring around the contact in the battery carrier.


----------



## jtivat (Apr 23, 2011)

pageyjim said:


> I don't think so,(Without mods that is.) there is a raised plastic ring around the contact in the battery carrier.


 
Any reason I could not drop a little solder in the battery carrier?

Thanks


----------



## pageyjim (Apr 23, 2011)

jtivat said:


> Any reason I could not drop a little solder in the battery carrier?
> 
> Thanks


 
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...50)-Review-COMPARISONS-BEAMSHOTS-RUNTIMES-etc.

There is a good photo of the battery carrier on the link above. I wouldn't think there would be a problem other than possibly warranty of course. Providing it doesn't come loose etc. I know that goes without saying.


----------



## lovemylexicon (Apr 23, 2011)

I am responing to recDNA (post #87):

So the M3C4 triple doesn't have the green tint? That's what I want to hear becasue I am interested in that light and I don't like green tint.


----------



## pageyjim (Apr 23, 2011)

lovemylexicon said:


> I am responing to recDNA (post #87):
> 
> So the M3C4 triple doesn't have the green tint? That's what I want to hear becasue I am interested in that light and I don't like green tint.


 
No green tint on mine. No review I've seen has mentioned a green tint.


----------



## lovemylexicon (Apr 23, 2011)

Pageyjim:

Thanks for the quick reply.

That is good to hear.

By the way, do Eagletac flashlights uniformly NOT have green tint and therefore it is safe for me to buy lights from them if I want to avoid green tint?


----------



## pageyjim (Apr 23, 2011)

lovemylexicon said:


> Pageyjim:
> 
> Thanks for the quick reply.
> 
> ...


 
I'm new to this but my ET's seem fine in all ways. I hear some talk about green tints with some Fenix models. It wouldn't hurt to ask for them to check the tint if you are concerned about it.


----------



## lovemylexicon (Apr 23, 2011)

Pageyjim:

I have the Fenix TK35 and it indeed has green tint. 

I did exactly what you suggested before I made the purchase---asking the sales person to check the tint. And here are the different results I got:

1. Some stores will gladly do that;

2. Some stores will not do that and say that opening stocks to check for tint will make their merchandises "used" and they cannot sell them as "new";

3. In my case, the sales person checked all their TK35 and said that no unit has greenish tint, but, still, the unit I got has green tint.


----------



## pageyjim (Apr 23, 2011)

lovemylexicon said:


> Pageyjim:
> 
> I have the Fenix TK35 and it indeed has green tint.
> 
> ...


 

I was going to get a TK 35 but I don't like the tint lottery. And if stores have been checking for tint somebody has to get them I guess, so the odds get higher the more you wait. Some say the green tint gets better at higher modes anyway.


----------



## jtivat (Apr 23, 2011)

pageyjim said:


> http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...50)-Review-COMPARISONS-BEAMSHOTS-RUNTIMES-etc.
> 
> There is a good photo of the battery carrier on the link above. I wouldn't think there would be a problem other than possibly warranty of course. Providing it doesn't come loose etc. I know that goes without saying.


 
Thanks that helps.


----------



## recDNA (Apr 23, 2011)

lovemylexicon said:


> I am responing to recDNA (post #87):
> 
> So the M3C4 triple doesn't have the green tint? That's what I want to hear becasue I am interested in that light and I don't like green tint.



I don't know if the Eagletac does but I know many TK35 do.


----------



## Glenn7 (Apr 24, 2011)

If you click on my sig line you will see some beam shots I took including the tri XML M3C4, it's throws very well for a triple IMHO, considering it's up against three lights that put out 2600-3500 lumens.


----------



## pageyjim (Apr 24, 2011)

Glenn7 said:


> If you click on my sig line you will see some beam shots I took including the tri XML M3C4, it's throws very well for a triple IMHO, considering it's up against three lights that put out 2600-3500 lumens.


 
Nice shots Glenn thanks for sharing.

I have a question regarding your triple xml. How many turns do you have to turn it to lock it out? I have to turn mine a full 1 1/3 turns to lock out. I was wondering if this was my unit or normal for the series.


----------



## Glenn7 (Apr 24, 2011)

Thanks mate - I did post a little "have a look at my pix" thread but it died very quick - I didn't really say anything because imo at the end of the day its the beam that we want/use. (might give the thread a little bump coz it took me ages to take them and I thought it might help others in their purchase's) 

And yes mine takes exactly 1 1/3 to lock out to, but it doesn't bother me as I will way recharge the batteries 5x + before the three months when they are parasitically drained or if I store it then its worth the little effort.


----------



## pageyjim (Apr 24, 2011)

Again ty for the shots. Information is good and much appreciated. I feel a lot better about the 1 1/3 turns for lockout too as I am very happy with this M3C4. Although a limited time turbo mode would be great.


----------



## Glenn7 (Apr 24, 2011)

Yeah let's vote.... a 3 min turbo @ 3amp per led he he!


----------



## pageyjim (Apr 24, 2011)

I know lol. It just feels like the potential is there and you should be able to turn that dial just a little more.


----------



## lovemylexicon (Apr 24, 2011)

Did anyone have any problem using 4 CR123A batteries with this light?


----------



## pageyjim (Apr 24, 2011)

I don't use them but I do not think they would be an issue with the M3C4 triple XML.


----------



## Glenn7 (Apr 24, 2011)

I tried 2x 18650 IMR and measured 1 more lux output, so they are regulated well - they are rated to 13V so CR123 are OK but rechargeable 123's would probably go


----------



## lovemylexicon (Apr 24, 2011)

Pageyjim:

I see that you have the Klarus XT10. I have the NT20 and I love it.

How is the beam quality of the XT10---any green tint or donut hole?


----------



## pageyjim (Apr 24, 2011)

lovemylexicon said:


> Pageyjim:
> 
> I see that you have the Klarus XT10. I have the NT20 and I love it.
> 
> How is the beam quality of the XT10---any green tint or donut hole?


 
I like the XT 10, nice beam, build quality etc. No donut hole or green tint on mine. The only complaint I would have is the light does not fit well in the holster with the cigar ring attached. This does not seem to bother most people it seems. I purchased an Olight M21 holster for $7.00 w/free shipping from Olight for this light. I picked up the XT 10 for $63.00. I would point you there but the price was changed back to "normal" the day after I purchased it.


----------



## lovemylexicon (Apr 25, 2011)

Pageyjim:

You have both the single and triple versions of the M3C4. They both have the smooth reflector and some smooth reflectors create donut holes. Do yours have donut holes? And any greenish tint on either one?


----------



## pageyjim (Apr 25, 2011)

lovemylexicon said:


> Pageyjim:
> 
> You have both the single and triple versions of the M3C4. They both have the smooth reflector and some smooth reflectors create donut holes. Do yours have donut holes? And any greenish tint on either one?


 
I have the triple and I should have the single by tomorrow actually. No green tints or donut hole. Very happy with this ET. Only concern-criticism is that I have to turn it 1 1/3-1 1/2 turns to lockout and it would have been great to drive it a little harder.


----------



## pageyjim (Apr 25, 2011)

The amount of light it delivers can be deceiving. For example side by side to the eye at a distance the BC 40 can seem to equal it in output. But with a ceiling bounce it is apparant that the M3C4 delivers much more light. Probably not a light for everyone given beam profile, cost etc.


----------



## pageyjim (Apr 25, 2011)

lovemylexicon said:


> Pageyjim:
> 
> You have both the single and triple versions of the M3C4. They both have the smooth reflector and some smooth reflectors create donut holes. Do yours have donut holes? And any greenish tint on either one?


 
Just received the M3C4 single xml. There is a hint of a donut hole, no green. The beam is ok wallhunting I guess a little ringy which wasn't expected. We'll see when it gets dark. This one also takes 1 1/3-1 1/2 turns to lockout.


----------



## Glenn7 (Apr 25, 2011)

would be good if you could do a side by side 100 meter beam shot of the tri and single XML M3C4's


----------



## pageyjim (Apr 25, 2011)

Glenn7 said:


> would be good if you could do a side by side 100 meter beam shot of the tri and single XML M3C4's


 
Definitely plan on doing that. But I am not able to share that at the moment. I do not have an appropriate camera. Hope to fix that soon though. The beam on the single xml def. has a tight hotspot with a decent amount of spill. (Along with a donut hole and rings.) I'm a lot disappointed with the beam, it is very ringy. I wasn't expecting that. I suspect that it won't be noticeable outside but it bothers me nonetheless. I can't find any other mention or evidence on youtube etc. either. If I keep getting the oddballs like this it will cure my new hobby but quick!


----------



## Glenn7 (Apr 25, 2011)

Hmmm not good mate

I wonder if you took the bezel off and reflector out and see if its all been seated correctly - also sometimes (well you cant get rid of rings) beams need distance to mature/focus hope it works out - guess you could send it back?


----------



## pageyjim (Apr 25, 2011)

Glenn7 said:


> Hmmm not good mate
> 
> I wonder if you took the bezel off and reflector out and see if its all been seated correctly - also sometimes (well you cant get rid of rings) beams need distance to mature/focus hope it works out - guess you could send it back?


 
Well this light is definitely made to be used outside and I suspect all will be fine there. I just didn't see any evidence of rings like this on all the youtube wall shots or reviews. I will check the reflector as you suggested thanks. The distrubutor said "it's a flashlight and nothing is perfect." Anyway lol I hope to get some comparison beamshots up soon. I guess it is quite common with smooth reflectors.


----------



## siana (Apr 27, 2011)

Here is the link for comparative beamshots of EagleTac M3C4 Triple XM-L, Fenix TK35 XM-L : at 12, 70, 100 meters 
http://www.thaicpf.com/webboard/index.php?topic=2682.0

and also Lumintop TD-15X XM-L. Though it’s in Thai, but it’s not so difficult to understand and otherwise the Google translate will help.


----------



## oatmanutd (Apr 30, 2011)

siana said:


> Here is the link for comparative beamshots of EagleTac M3C4 Triple XM-L, Fenix TK35 XM-L : at 12, 70, 100 meters
> http://www.thaicpf.com/webboard/index.php?topic=2682.0
> 
> and also Lumintop TD-15X XM-L. Though it’s in Thai, but it’s not so difficult to understand and otherwise the Google translate will help.


 
Hey, that was my post you are right it's in Thai I also added 180 meters shot :naughty: I have to say I am a little disappointed I really thought it's going to be much brighter


----------

