# Surefire L4, 120 lumens improved version



## Chao (Apr 4, 2009)

This is 2009, 120 lumens Surefire L4, it is the improved version, I think only the LED and circuit changed; besides, it looks exactly same as the previous version.













This New L4 has a SSC emitter installed, and there is a “B” printed on the head ahead the serial number.

Lux reading: 3750 lux

Beamshots: Old (100 lum) vs. New (120 lum)

5m: left, 100 lum L4; right, 120 lum L4








10m: left, 100 lum L4; right, 120 lum L4








Some observations:
Output: surefire still under estimated the output of this new L4, judged from the ceiling bounce test, the total output was identical to E2DL.

Beam: the beam pattern is very nice, very smooth with noticeable hotspot, and brighter wide spill. No artificial ring, no donut. Although the throw is improved in this new L4, I would think it’s still the wall of light.

Tint: Mine looks like cool white, if compared to other lights with warmer tint, it looks a little purplish, I like this tint, and at least it is not greenish.

Runtime: 120 vs. 100 lumens








The runtime has also been improved in this 120 lum version, however, the performance of using 14650 is not well, so the TW4 setup still works, jut not as bright as using two primary cells.

This new L4 has a great improvement compared to the previous version in output, beam pattern, and runtime. It has a nice flood beam combined with decent throw, this is good for either indoors or outdoors. However, if SF can make a 2-stages version, that would be better, at least, for me.

This new L4 also been well discussed in this thread, https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/218892


----------



## Kiessling (Apr 4, 2009)

Moved to reviews.

I don't see no left and right ... just ne runtime graph and one each beamshots. Something wrong with th epics or did I understand something wrong?

BTW ... got mine, too, and I think it lost some of its floodiness, but the beam is still not throwy and quite bright.

bernie


----------



## Chao (Apr 4, 2009)

oops, sorry for that, I made some changes of the figures, hope its clear now.


----------



## Kiessling (Apr 4, 2009)

Yes, now they show. Thanx !

Great runtime there. I like it.

Although my KL4A has the "B" instead of and not in addition to the "A" letter.

I admti though that I would heva preferred the light to retain the flood character it had. Not that it is a bad light like that, but it has a more pronounced spot.

bernie


----------



## Search (Apr 4, 2009)

Ahhh!!

I was going to buy an L4 in the next few weeks due to the "wall of light" tag it has.

When I saw the 120 lumens improved performance I figured it would be just as floody but brighter.


Anyway anyone can give some outdoor beamshots comparing the flood of the two? So I can see if I need to find a used one or if this new one is still pretty floody.

The hallway beamshot didn't help because it wasn't open, but from what I could tell it still has as much side spill with a brighter hotspot, is this an accurate description?


----------



## seale_navy (Apr 4, 2009)

oh wow... finally a review...thanks chao once again..


----------



## jkdguy (Apr 4, 2009)

Chao,

Thanks for the beamshots. How hot does this new Surefire L4 get in your hand when it's been on for several minutes?


----------



## Kiessling (Apr 4, 2009)

It gets warm but not hot as the old model. Think E2DL. As the runtime is similar, output and heat should be, too, on a theoretical level.

I think the important positive factor is the significant increase in runtime and reduction of heat as well as brighter output. The beam pattern is not the same as it was, but it is still a very attractive general purpose beam. 

IMHO they should have renamed the light to avoid confusion. But that is just me. 

It is a very simple light, like the old one. On and off. I like that.


----------



## Chao (Apr 4, 2009)

Search said:


> Anyway anyone can give some outdoor beamshots comparing the flood of the two? So I can see if I need to find a used one or if this new one is still pretty floody.
> 
> The hallway beamshot didn't help because it wasn't open, but from what I could tell it still has as much side spill with a brighter hotspot, is this an accurate description?



I found a thread has L4 outdoor beamshot that showed the nice floody, though its 100 lumens versions. https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/211633


----------



## BigBoy (Apr 4, 2009)

Does anybody know if you can use IMR16340 cells with this light?


----------



## selfbuilt (Apr 4, 2009)

Thanks for the comparison review Chao, very useful. :thumbsup:

The use of the SSC makes sense for a general purpose beam. My old LuxV L2 still sits in my desk drawer, but doesn't see much action anymore (like the flood, but not the heat or donut hole).


----------



## Search (Apr 4, 2009)

Chao said:


> I found a thread has L4 outdoor beamshot that showed the nice floody, though its 100 lumens versions. https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/211633


 


I've seen those, I wasn't clear though.

I was curious if you could take some beamshots of the two so I could see the difference.

A comparison other than the hall because it doesn't allow you to see the whole picture.


----------



## henry1960 (Apr 5, 2009)

How would this new L4 2009 compare to the E2D?

Is the new L4 2009 Brighter and more throw then the E2D?
Thanks, Henry


----------



## Chao (Apr 5, 2009)

henry1960 said:


> How would this new L4 2009 compare to the E2D?
> 
> Is the new L4 2009 Brighter and more throw then the E2D?
> Thanks, Henry



This 120 lumens L4 is brighter than the E2D with MN03 lamp, and also has more throw in my test (L4 3750 lux, E2D 2400 lux)


----------



## henry1960 (Apr 5, 2009)

Chao,

Thankyou for that info.....Henry


----------



## toby_pra (Apr 7, 2009)

Very nice Review! :twothumbs


----------



## 1996alnl (Apr 7, 2009)

If this new L4 has the same light output on a ceiling bounce test as a E2DL then is it safe to say it's a 200 lumen light?


----------



## greenLED (Apr 7, 2009)

Any heat issues? One reason I never got an L4 was the excessive heat.


----------



## Chao (Apr 8, 2009)

1996alnl said:


> If this new L4 has the same light output on a ceiling bounce test as a E2DL then is it safe to say it's a 200 lumen light?


I am not sure whether my E2DL has 200 lumens, just know they have same output in my celiling bounch test.



greenLED said:


> Any heat issues? One reason I never got an L4 was the excessive heat.



I ran my old and this new L4 together, and after 7 min, the old L4 was getting hot as expected, the new L4 was just warm.


----------



## 1996alnl (Apr 8, 2009)

Chao, MrGman tested a E2DL in a lab sphere awhile back and it put out just over 200 actual lumens.
This light is a real powerhouse.

Go to the LED light section. The thread is stickied on the top with all his results.


----------



## Chao (Apr 8, 2009)

1996alnl said:


> Chao, MrGman tested a E2DL in a lab sphere awhile back and it put out just over 200 actual lumens.
> This light is a real powerhouse.
> 
> Go to the LED light section. The thread is stickied on the top with all his results.



Cool! I know that thread, just don't know when the E2DL data was updated in, see it now, thanks 1996alnl.


----------



## Patriot (Apr 8, 2009)

Very nice review. It would be interesting to see the new L4 compared with the E2DL now. Is it safe to assume that the L4 is the only surefire light that's using the SCC LED? It seems that all the rest have been Cree based.

Outstanding beam quality imo. It's still reasonably floody and zero donut effect! :twothumbs


----------



## 1996alnl (Apr 9, 2009)

So as i understand it this newer L4 doesn't like single cell Li-on.
Too bad,i would of bought one if it was just as bright with a 17670 cell.

Anyone tried theirs with 16340's?


----------



## boness (Apr 9, 2009)

Maybe I missed it ,But what is the run time


----------



## Patriot (Apr 10, 2009)

boness said:


> Maybe I missed it ,But what is the run time




The detailed run-time graphs are in the first post.


----------



## henry1960 (Apr 10, 2009)

Two Hours.......:mecry:


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Apr 12, 2009)

Patriot said:


> Very nice review. It would be interesting to see the new L4 compared with the E2DL now. Is it safe to assume that the L4 is the only surefire light that's using the SCC LED? It seems that all the rest have been Cree based.
> 
> Outstanding beam quality imo. It's still reasonably floody and zero donut effect! :twothumbs



All of the SF lights that use a reflector are now using the SCC LED. L5, C2L, 6PL, etc. That is except for the L7, L2, which use Lux V. Not sure about Kroma.

Bill

Bill


----------



## :)> (Apr 13, 2009)

I checked mine against my Ra Clicky 140n and the L4 is maybe a tad brighter than the Ra 140 on burst... they look pretty darn close.


----------



## 270winchester (Apr 13, 2009)

ah screw you guys. Now I want a new L4.:thumbsdow

thanks a lot.


----------



## Marlinaholic (Apr 16, 2009)

Yeah, no kidding 270, that's why I bought one from the poster right above you tonight!  I need another surefire like a large 45 caliber hydra shok hole in the head :sigh: but who can resist?  All my other Surefires are TIR, so I figured I "need" an L4 just to see what they are like.


----------



## 1996alnl (Apr 26, 2009)

Anyone know what the tailcap current measurement is from this new L4?


----------



## seale_navy (Apr 27, 2009)

I think its the same.. with the z57 tailcap. Do u want the measurement of the z57?


----------



## 1996alnl (Apr 28, 2009)

seale_navy said:


> I think its the same.. with the z57 tailcap. Do u want the measurement of the z57?


 
Sure,i just wanted to know if the electronics are the same as the LuxV version.


----------



## Kiessling (Apr 28, 2009)

They can't be as the new L4 uses a buck driver and the old one a boost driver.


----------



## easilyled (Apr 28, 2009)

In my opinion, putting an SSC-P4 in the L4 is a cop-out.

The original L4 was much brighter than other similar sized Surefire lights and the beam pattern was the much coveted,
floody "wall of light" which offered something usefully different.

This is because it had a Lux-V (quad-die) led in it compared to the single-die luxeons around at the time.

With the so-called "improved" version, the output and beam pattern are similar to a whole host of other lights
with this generation of led in it, like the E2DL, for example.

So its only "improved" because the present generation of led emitters are much more efficient than originally,
but not because of any innovation on the part of Surefire or any desire to recreate what set the L4 apart in the first place.

Surefire should have replaced the original lux-V with one of the new generation quad-die emitters instead of an SSC-P4.

This would have again resulted in a brighter than normal wall-of-light compared to the L4's contemporaries.

I've had my original L4 modded with a Cree MC-E by darkzero and love its utility (it has a McE2S in the tailcap to provide 2 levels).


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Apr 28, 2009)

easilyled, :thumbsup::thumbsup:

Bill


----------



## 1996alnl (Apr 28, 2009)

Well i don't own the newer version L4 so i can't comment on it's beam,but those who own it say it's flawless.
I do own a couple SSC P4 lights so i have a pretty good idea what the new L4 is all about.
This P4 emitter from SSC is impressive,bright smooth and no rings or artifacts in the beam.
Having said that.
I agree with easilyled's comments above, as i decided to put a P7 in my older L4 and let me tell you it's a huge improvement over the LuxV.

Not to knock this new L4 but i think the smart (and cheaper) route for Surefire would of been to retain the original driver etc.. and drop in a MC-E or a P7.Yes i know it's underdriven..so what? It's still brighter and that means long runtimes.
I'm getting 90 min. of runtime with a AW17670 cell and it's much brighter than the LuxV AND i have a "wall of light",i mean a true wall of light.


----------



## Marlinaholic (Apr 30, 2009)

I have a Milky MC-E Special Reserve L2 coming, so that might give me an idea of what "might have been"  if Surefire had used an MC-E in their new L4. We'll see.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Apr 30, 2009)

I am going to have to reserve my opinion on the new L4 until I see one personally. I do know that the Seoul P4 used in the P6L throws a very wide beam, wider than the Lux V KL4. The smaller diameter of a KL4 reflector and the Seoul P4 should produce a very wide overall beam spread, and I suspect a very wide center beam. Apparently the transition between the center beam and spread is more pronounced. 

Bill


----------



## dcycleman (Apr 30, 2009)

I have a new 120lm version and it is the floodiest light I have, more than a pd30 or the sf e2ls new and old. thats not really saying much, but I find it very floody and from most of the people posting that have both new/old L4s they say its just as floody as the old model only with a brighter hotspot. I gotta say I like it a lot, I have a few lights and thats my chosen edc/bedside light. plus it just looks cool.


----------



## Marlinaholic (May 1, 2009)

Well I got my MC-E Milky and got to test it tonight against the new L4. Here are my observations:

Throw is nearly identical on both lights, at a distance, one doesn't beat the other on lighting something up. I was worried the Milky would be too floody and useless at say 75 yards, but it isn't at all.

Spill area is larger on the Milky of course, but not by a huge margin, but enough to notice.

The Milky light has MUCH warmer tint and the spill is noticeably brighter. This is what really sets the Milky apart from the stock L4, the light coming out of that MC-E is nice and warm white looking, while the L4 is cold and blueish by comparison.

The hi and low level is great on the Milky, I prefer it to a single mode. The low mode is truly amazing, 60 lumens of floody light, I own a couple dozen lights, but nothing that lights up such a large area softly like this light on low mode. Wow!  

Overall, I would say the Milky L2 MC-E is definitely worth the money. The new L4 isn't a bad light at all either, and one of the best floody lights I own. For a stock light, its pretty amazing, but the MC-E would have made it better obviously.


----------



## 270winchester (May 1, 2009)

easilyled said:


> In my opinion, putting an SSC-P4 in the L4 is a cop-out.
> 
> The original L4 was much brighter than other similar sized Surefire lights and the beam pattern was the much coveted,
> floody "wall of light" which offered something usefully different.
> ...



CPF has been moaning for years now for an L4 with a SSC type emitter. In fact people paid good money to swap SSCs into L4 head I recollect. The campaign against the TIRs focused on the optics not being floody enough and the campaign against the Lux V complained of the donut hole and heat.

Now Surefire finally comes out with one that is bright and floody people are saying it;s a cop-out.

Now we see why Surefire is taking their time with the newer lights...you ain't gonna please the critics anyhow, so might as well get it right.



> With the so-called "improved" version, the output and* beam pattern *are similar to a whole host of other lights
> with this generation of led in it, like the E2DL, for example.


interesting. DId you compare the E2DL and the L4 side by side to reach that conclusion?

Now pretend you are a SF engineer:

*ring ring*
"Surefire technical support"
"Hi, I am not satisfied with your L4 beam"
"Sir, what kind of beam would you like?"
"A very bright beam with a large hot spot."
"Sir, we have many complaints that the older L4 was too floody so we designed the TIR for throw with spill, and the L4 was updated with a modern emitter"
"But I want a more modern emitter like a quad die because the SSC emitter was too much of a cop-out."
"Sir, to do that we have to redesign the heatsink, reflector, and electronics." *looks over at the order sheets for the SSC emitters and get quote for MC-E and P7 emitter* "The price of the new light will reflect the additional R&D. it will cost _____"
"Oh, are you selling a flashlight or a car? well then, I'm gonna go ahead and buy a light from _____, they are much cheaper. Thanks for nothing."

I gotta be honest I would not be excited to go on CPF if I worked for SF.


----------



## easilyled (May 1, 2009)

270winchester, I would certainly not want to be a manufacturer.

However you seem to forget that there were a huge number of people that used to love the L4 because it *wasn't *more intense
in the centre than in the periphery of the beam.

The fact that McGizmo designed, manufactured and sold his Mules successfully is testimony to the fact that there is a requirement for this.

There are plenty of other beam patterns like the new L4 in existence, so this appears to me to be a duplication.

Why take away a niche that was being fulfilled before?

There are many military and policing operations (particularly close-quarter searches) where its useful to have a broad area beam without being dazzled by a bright hot-spot.


----------



## dcycleman (May 1, 2009)

my 120 LM L4 doesnt have a dazzling hotspot, honestly its probably the most useful beam I have seen, only downside being runtime, and even that isnt that bad. Its not the light I would take on an extended hike or hunting because it doesnt have super low survival mode. But all in all its my fav.


----------



## 270winchester (May 1, 2009)

easilyled said:


> However you seem to forget that there were a huge number of people that used to love the L4 because it *wasn't *more intense
> in the centre than in the periphery of the beam.



if I remember correctly the 2 KL4s I have have distinct hotspots apart from the periphrals.



> The fact that McGizmo designed, manufactured and sold his Mules successfully is testimony to the fact that there is a requirement for this.



The Mule sold decently on CPF, but it will be a commercial disaster in the general market. There is a reason why no major manufacturer makes a Mule-type light, I think.



> There are plenty of other beam patterns like the new L4 in existence, so this appears to me to be a duplication.



So I assume you have a new L4 to draw conclusion from, right?



> There are many military and policing operations (particularly close-quarter searches) where its useful to have a broad area beam without being dazzled by a bright hot-spot.


if hte new L4 is too spotty for someone, he can certainly use an FM04 beam shaper.


----------



## easilyled (May 1, 2009)

270winchester said:


> if I remember correctly the 2 KL4s I have have distinct hotspots apart from the periphrals.


In that case, your memory isn't very good. Its far from distinct. You have to look quite hard to identify a hot spot, which is very gradual, 
especially when compared to the new L4. (which you can see in this very review) 




270winchester said:


> The Mule sold decently on CPF, but it will be a commercial disaster in the general market. There is a reason why no major manufacturer makes a Mule-type light, I think.



You mean like the original L4 that probably inspired it. That was far from a disaster commercially. In fact it was one of SF's most popular lights.




270winchester said:


> So I assume you have a new L4 to draw conclusion from, right?


No, I haven't but I don't need to. I am basing my opinion on the beamshots in this review and others
and its quite obvious to me that they resemble the beam of any light with an SSC-P4 in conjunction with a small reflector.
There is no magic wand that somehow is going to transform this combination into something other than what it is.
The difference between the beams is because one uses a quad die and the other uses an SSC-P4.






270winchester said:


> if hte new L4 is too spotty for someone, he can certainly use an FM04 beam shaper.



And lose a lot of the output at the same time. 
What a waste, compared to having a decent flood-type light for the many situations in which it would come in use.


----------



## 270winchester (May 1, 2009)

easilyled said:


> In that case, your memory isn't very good. Its far from distinct. You have to look quite hard to identify a hot spot, which is very gradual,
> especially when compared to the new L4. (which you can see in this very review)



nice attitude. 

I have them sitting in front of me.





> You mean like the original L4 that probably inspired it. That was far from a disaster commercially. In fact it was one of SF's most popular lights.


You missed the point. The Mule has NO reflector. a light with no optic(lens or reflector) will be a commercial disaster.



> And lose a lot of the output at the same time.
> What a waste, compared to having a decent flood-type light for the many situations in which it would come in use.


the loss through the plastic lens is minimal from what I remember about the discussions on it. The L4 puts out about the same amount of light as the E2DL which is tested to be about 200 lumens, so the loss of 10-20% is not a big deal compared to the flexibility to have a light with a balanced reach-flood beam and a flood light.




> No, I haven't but I don't need to. I am basing my opinion on the beamshots in this review and others


so you are ignoring first hand feedback from owners who report that the beam of the new L4 is pretty floody. Already then. Without seeing it in person, how can make an assertion like this:



> With the so-called "improved" version, the output and* beam pattern *are similar to a whole host of other lights
> with this generation of led in it, like the E2DL, for example.


I have seen the new L4 in action and compared to the older L4s I have, they are a bit different but I consider them a worthy upgrade.

Your assessment that the L4s have similar beams to E2DL, however, is hard to ignore.

We should probably stop here, there is no good outcome when anyone argue with someone who makes statements about a light without seeing it first hand, to stop detracting from the thread.

Thank you Chao for the review. I'm gonna get one next week.


----------



## easilyled (May 2, 2009)

270winchester, I didn't miss the point about the Mules. You did. (It was my point after all, remember!)

It was lights with a beam like the original L4 that led to the concept of not using a reflector at all (in the Mules) 
because that was the next logical step in making the beam even smoother and more "hotspotless". 

Your saying that Mules would be a commercial disaster is completely baseless as you have no means of knowing this unless you're psychic. 
For all you know they may be a resounding success and this wouldn't surprise me in the least seeing how well received they were here.
All it would take is the correct marketing to make the user realise what their intended function is.

I am not ignoring those that say that this beam is nice and floody, but frankly I know these type of beams very well since I have a Titan
and I also have an SSC-P4 with McR18 and an SSC-P4 with McR20 in Aleph lights. 

These beams are nice and smooth and yes they are "quite" floody. However this is relative, and they still have a more pronounced hotspot than the orignal L4 by a significant amount. 

The most telling point is the beamshots at the beginning of this review comparing the original to the new L4 where its abundantly clear to anyone that there is a big difference. 

No need for me to waste money on a new L4 to prove this since its documented here right in front of you. 

There is no doubt in my mind that the original L4 served a purpose that its replacement cannot and does not.

I agree that this thread shouldn't be derailed further. 

If you are happy to buy another ED2L in all but name, then good luck to you.


----------



## Marlinaholic (May 3, 2009)

I gotta say, the beamshots are a little misleading. Close to a wall even the new L4 looks like its all hotspot, but as a guy who owns an E1B, E2DL, E2L, E1L, 6P LED, and the new L4 I gotta say there is a world of difference between the new L4 and the TIR lights, or the 6P led for that matter. Get the E2DL and the new L4 and take them outside in total darkness and just try them from 25 to 150 yards. No comparison. The Defender is like a concentrated narrow blast of light with some good usable spill, but the L4 will light up the whole side of a building or a large tree with almost no distinct hotspot. Now indoors at close range, this difference is not nearly as distinct. I never pass judgement on any light until I take it out for half an hour in total darkness (I live in a rural area) and test it from a few feet to as far as it will shine. Sometimes a light that looks pretty ho hum inside a room with some artificial lights on and only a few feet of space to show its stuff really surprises you once you take it outside at night and give it a few hundred feet to work with.


----------



## dcycleman (May 3, 2009)

Yeah, I have 2 e2l's new/old, 6pled, p2d, pd30, and a new L4. the L4 is waaay more floody than any of my other lights. waaaaay more floody than my 6p led (which is a floody light). I think you are being misled by the beam shots as well. really the new L4 has more throw and coorespondingly more flood as well due to the fact that all SF did was put in a hotter LED, the reflector remains the same. So your peripheral lighting is actually better on the new one.


----------



## dcycleman (May 3, 2009)

oh yeah, dude the L4 and a e2dl could not POSSIBLY be more different. No offense but you make yourself sound ignorant.


----------



## easilyled (May 3, 2009)

dcycleman said:


> oh yeah, dude the L4 and a e2dl could not POSSIBLY be more different. No offense but you make yourself sound ignorant.



Dude, I've learned to be wary of people that address me as "dude", then start a sentence with "no offence" and end it by going for the jugular. 

A simple "you're wrong" or "you're mistaken" would have sufficed. :thumbsup:

For the record you are correct. The E2DL was the wrong example for me to use as I had forgotten that it uses a TIR optic. I hold my hands up on that.

However this was not really my main point which was that the new L4 is a different animal to the old one and for me I feel it is a letdown.

As stated before, this is only my opinion and your mileage may vary.


----------



## dcycleman (May 3, 2009)

Ahhh, that may have been a strong choice of words:touche:
like I said no offense, after all we are all cpf'rslovecpf


----------



## 1996alnl (May 3, 2009)

I agree that sometimes indoor beamshots are not always an accurate way of presenting a lights potential.
Especialy 1 meter from a wall..outdoors is a true test when comparing lights.
If the new L4 is floodier than a 6P that's impressive,and if it has a bit of throw to it that's even better.


----------



## Chao (May 11, 2009)

Just saw nice outdoor beamshots (120 lums L4 vs. 100 lums L4 vs. E2DL) https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/211633&page=2#45


----------



## WDR65 (May 21, 2009)

I just recieved my new L4 today and am quite pleased with both the beam and the output. Though I really like the wall of light from the original L4's this new one is a better general purpose light, at least for me. 

The reason I say that is that the L4 has a very similar beam to Lux V U2. I have always thought that the Lux V U2 has one of the best all around beams of any light that I have ever owned. It replaced both L2's and L1's as my EDC light for a good while, until it just became too large for what I normally used it for. 

I'll post about it again after I've run it through its paces outdoors and during hunting season but for now I think Surefire actually came up with a winner even if the change is a bit controversial.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (May 21, 2009)

WDR65 said:


> I just recieved my new L4 today and am quite pleased with both the beam and the output. Though I really like the wall of light from the original L4's this new one is a better general purpose light, at least for me.
> 
> The reason I say that is that the L4 has a very similar beam to Lux V U2. I have always thought that the Lux V U2 has one of the best all around beams of any light that I have ever owned. It replaced both L2's and L1's as my EDC light for a good while, until it just became too large for what I normally used it for.
> 
> I'll post about it again after I've run it through its paces outdoors and during hunting season but for now I think Surefire actually came up with a winner even if the change is a bit controversial.



I also like the Lux V U2 and use it alot, at all of the levels depending on my needs. I know it is larger than the Seoul P4 L4, but don't you miss the flexability of the U2, with its 6 levels, and how can a single level light like the new L4 really compare?

Bill

Bill


----------



## WDR65 (May 22, 2009)

Bill,
That's a good question. I'm not really replacing my U2 with it as I will still carry it either in my truck or in my bag when I'm out. The L4 just offers me the same beamshape with a bit more output and longer runtime at that output. When I'm hunting or outdoors I'm normally carrying in my pockets at least an E1B and probably an E2DL also if I'm wearing 5.11 pants. So I'll just add the L4 to the mix. 

The reason I don't mind using the single output L4 versus the U2 Lux V for my purposes is that I have bad habit of running the light on high when tracking wounded game as I like to see as much of the area around me as possible. While I may use the low mode on my PT EOS to walk into or out of a dark area I like to have fairly bright lights with decent spill beams to track with. 

The new L4 may not be an EDC light for me but it serves its purpose in my small, constantly evolving group of Surefires.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (May 22, 2009)

WDR65, thanks for your well thought out response. :thumbsup:

Bill


----------



## lightknot (May 27, 2009)

1996alnl -The 2009 KL4 120 lumen head will not run on a single CR123. It will, however run very well on a single RCR123. I use a battery station RCR123 with their charger. Battery Station claims that these cells come off the charger at 4.2v. I run a Vital Gear FB1 HA body with the SF KL4 head and the anodizing matches perfectly. Pocket rocket!


----------



## 1996alnl (May 27, 2009)

lightknot said:


> 1996alnl -The 2009 KL4 120 lumen head will not run on a single CR123. It will, however run very well on a single RCR123. I use a battery station RCR123 with their charger. Battery Station claims that these cells come off the charger at 4.2v. I run a Vital Gear FB1 HA body with the SF KL4 head and the anodizing matches perfectly. Pocket rocket!


 
Well that's good to know;
So the newer version will work with a 17670 cell then, for the extra runtime.

Awsome..


----------



## munchs (Jun 1, 2009)

lightknot said:


> 1996alnl -The 2009 KL4 120 lumen head will not run on a single CR123. It will, however run very well on a single RCR123. I use a battery station RCR123 with their charger. Battery Station claims that these cells come off the charger at 4.2v. I run a Vital Gear FB1 HA body with the SF KL4 head and the anodizing matches perfectly. Pocket rocket!


 

That's a good info. 
Then is there any advantage of having a newer version L4 over old version with Lux5w other than it having a more efficient led?

I have an old version MC-E moded. It's an awesome flashlight. It's runs on all battery variations including 3v primaries with an output the same as the original's! ofcourse, when using 3.7litium cell, it's about 3 times brighter!!!
It seems to me that the old version has a better circuit then...?:thinking:


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Jun 2, 2009)

munchs said:


> That's a good info.
> Then is there any advantage of having a newer version L4 over old version with Lux5w other than it having a more efficient led?
> 
> I have an old version MC-E moded. It's an awesome flashlight. It's runs on all battery variations including 3v primaries with an output the same as the original's! ofcourse, when using 3.7litium cell, it's about 3 times brighter!!!
> It seems to me that the old version has a better circuit then...?:thinking:



The older KL4 head (L4) using a constant current boost circuit and if your MC-E is configured like the Lux V was then it will work very fairly effeciently with one RCR123, and not so with one CR123. The newest L4's use a buck circuit. 

BTW, invest in a reasonably priced DMM so you can really keep tabs on your LiIon cells.

Bill


----------



## kelmo (Mar 17, 2010)

I'm a little late to this party. I just got the latest KL4 and I'm really impressed. It still puts out a lot of spill. But it also has a really fat hotspot. It still fills a room with the proverbial "wall of light" IMHO. And it still comes in a very compact package. It maintains its pedigree, flood, room filling flood. The perfect complement for the KX2C.

Twice the runtime and half the heat, whats not to love? I have retired my LuxV...


----------



## madmax718 (Mar 23, 2010)

So now that it uses a Buck circuit, can you use LiPO rechargable 123's with it?


----------



## steve68 (Aug 29, 2011)

Sorry for bringing up this old thread, but maybe there is somebody out there who can help me.

Sine I have received my L4 - I love it. Small, very powerfull and the formfactor is very nice. BUT sometimes it is much to bright for my purpose. Sometimes I switch it to the body of my LX2 -
and it works with an low level which is perfect for me. 
But I would prefer to keep it on the L4 Body (it`s smaller).

My question: Do you know a switch which I could easily change by myself - to get two levels ? And where could I order this ? 

Many regards from Germany

Steve


----------

