# M3 No Guilt Setup



## cl0123 (Oct 6, 2008)

What are some of the possible ways to run guilt-free lumens on an M3? 

Specifically, is it possible to make use of a *Fivemega*'s MN Bi-Pin holder and some aftermarket bulbs on a non-Turbo M3 bezel? I have searched and saw most recommendations on two 17500 li-ions to power an HO-M3 lamp. However, I have just tried a 2x18650 + WA1111 combination on an M6 earlier and really liked the resulting beam. Is that (running a WA1111 on 2x17500) too much to ask for? Or do I have to go with an extender on the M3 body to use two 17670's instead? 

Thanks to google and an old post from *Size15*, I am so glad to find that the M6 bezel can be coupled to an M3 body. I just picked up a semi-lego from the CPF Marketplace which is an M3T body mated to a non-T scalloped bezel. I am not exactly a big fan of the bulky turbo head form factor anyway but am glad that the T option is available by a little lego-ing. In addition, I am hoping to find a way to generate more of a "wall of light" effect from this tiny M3. This one will be a stored in the corner on the kitchen counter for those no power days to come. Hopefully, the shape and size of this M3 will please the better-half too. All comments and suggestions welcome. 

With Aloha, 

Clarence


----------



## stansbrew (Oct 6, 2008)

I just got my M3 today and I am going to try the M6 turbo had with a wa1111 and 3 rcr123's.......we will see!


----------



## mdocod (Oct 6, 2008)

FMs bi-pin socket will only fit in the "full size" turbo-heads, not the M3's Z46. 

Here's pretty much all the options you can do as it pertains to the M3's bezel. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cell configuration: 2x17500

Bulb Option:
SF MN10: 9.5W, 151 - 94 lumen in 52 minutes
LF HO-M3: 12W, 238 - 145 lumen in 40 minutes
LF EO-M3: 15.5W, 268 - 162 lumen in 30 minutes

Body Option:
SF M3T body with standard M3 bezel installed +++
SF 6P, C2, D2, Z2, M2, (G2?), +1 cell extender, +leef C to M adapter and M3 bezel ++(some extenders fit 17mm cells, some don't)
SF 9P, C3, (G3?), +leef C to M adapter and M3 bezel ++
G&P T9 ++leef C to M adapter and M3 bezel +
G&P T6 +1 cell extender, +leef C to M adapter and M3 bezel +
Cabelas XPG 6V 2 cell +1 cell extender, +leef C to M adapter and M3 bezel +
Cabelas XPG 9V 3 cell +leef C to M adapter and M3 bezel +
SureFire M3 (non-turbo) +++
Leefbody 2x18500 adapted to M head with M3 bezel and SF compatible tailcap +++

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cell configuration: 2x18500

Bulb Option:
SF MN10: 9.5W, 153 - 98 lumen in 67 minutes
SF MN11: 20W, 320 - 170 lumen in 28 minutes
LF HO-M3: 12W, 240 - 152 lumen in 51 minutes
LF EO-M3: 15.5W, 272 - 171 lumen in 39 minutes

Body Option:
Leefbody 2x18500 adapted to M head with M3 head/bezel and SF compatible tailcap +++

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cell configuration: 2x17670

Bulb Option:
MN10: 9.5W, 154 - 100 lumen in 74 minutes
MN11: 20W, 330 - 175 lumen in 31 minutes
LF HO-M3: 12W, 241 - 155 lumen in 57 minutes
LF EO-M3: 15.5W, 273 - 172 lumen in 44 minutes

Body Option:
SF M3T body with standard M3 bezel installed +1 cell extender, +++
SF 6P, C2, D2, Z2, M2, (G2?), +2 ONE cell extenders, +leef C to M adapter and M3 bezel ++
SF 9P, C3, (G3?), +1 cell extender, +leef C to M adapter and M3 bezel ++
G&P T9 +1 cell extender, +leef C to M adapter and M3 bezel +
G&P T6 +2 ONE cell extenders, +leef C to M adapter and M3 bezel +
Cabelas XPG 6V 2 cell +2 ONE cell extenders, +leef C to M adapter and M3 bezel +
Cabelas XPG 9V 3 cell +1 cell extender, +leef C to M adapter and M3 bezel +
SureFire M3 + 1 cell extender ++(some extenders fit 17mm cells, some don't)
Surefire M4 with M3 bezel installed +++
Leefbody 2x18500 +1 cell extender, adapted to M head with M3 bezel and SF compatible tailcap +++
Leefbody 2x18650 M head with M3 bezel and SF compatible tailcap +++

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cell configuration: 2x18650

Bulb Option:
SF MN10: 10W, 154 - 103 lumen in 104 minutes
SF MN11: 20.5W, 360 - 215 lumen in 43 minutes
LF HO-M3: 12.5W, 241 - 169 lumen in 80 minutes
LF EO-M3: 16.5W, 280 - 188 lumen in 60 minutes

Body Option:
Leefbody 2x18650 M head with M3 head/bezel and SF compatible tailcap +++

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Eric


----------



## mdocod (Oct 6, 2008)

stansbrew said:


> I just got my M3 today and I am going to try the M6 turbo had with a wa1111 and 3 rcr123's.......we will see!



The WA1111 is a 6V bulb that we overdrive a bit on 2 18650 li-ion cells ordinarily.

Protected RCR123s will not even power up the 1111 without tripping the protection circuit, but if for some reason, it does work (unprotected cells would be about the only way), then you can expect the bulb to instaflash immediately at the 10+V that the cells would probably deliver at first..

The maximum safe continuous discharge rate for most RCR123s is ~1.2A. The WA1111 pulls about 3.3-3.5A when overdriven on 2 li-ions. By some miracle, if the 3xRCR123s sagged enough not to blow the bulb, then they would be operating at a discharge rate that would destroy the cells in about 2 cycles. 

OR, what you meant to say is CR123, in which case, it will work fine, but runtime will be about 10 minutes or less, and brightness won't be as impressive as one would hope for, and most CR123s will not tolerate the load well at all. Limit continuous runs to like 30 seconds at a time to keep the cells from overheating and going into thermal shutdown. You'll want to stick to quality name brand cells to try this, be warned that the likelihood of causing an explosive cell situation on this setup is above average. Akin to the ole N62 for the M4 

Eric


----------



## stansbrew (Oct 6, 2008)

Thanks, but I just had to give it a try! It only works with the surefire batts. but ooooooooo its cool!


----------



## cl0123 (Oct 6, 2008)

Bummer :shakehead, HO-M3 and EO-M3 are closer to $20 a pop than the dollars-friendlier WA1111's. Well, hopefully, I will not be blowing up any of those too often now that I know to clean them with alcohol after installation. 

The light that I just got came with an MN10 and three CR123 primaries (showing around 3.06v each). The beam thus produced is pretty dismal and center-bright (not knowing another better word to describe it) only. Seeing some of your performance numbers below, would that mean I will be able to see a brighter beam just by switching from three CR123 primaries to 2x17500 rechargeable li-ion cells? I guess I will find out in a few more hours...


With Aloha, 

Clarence




mdocod said:


> FMs bi-pin socket will only fit in the "full size" turbo-heads, not the M3's Z46.
> 
> Here's pretty much all the options you can do as it pertains to the M3's bezel.
> 
> ...


----------



## mdocod (Oct 6, 2008)

SureFire Lumens and MDOCOD lumens are a different thing.

I'm listing an estimated torch lumen fresh from the charger, diminishing to the point before the batteries fall on their face and start really ramping down fast. This representation helps illustrate the fact that incans are not steady runners, they dim as they run, and making them run "flat" is best achieved by using larger cells to power them. 

SureFire does something similar, but instead of estimate, they actually test it, but then they represent something like an average output with 1 torch lumen rating on the configuration. With the LOLA lamps, the output is going to be fairly similar on CR123s as it is on li-ions, HOLA lamps see more overdrive from the li-ion configurations (with larger cells as required). 

As you know, the MN10 is rated 125 lumen by SF, an in my estimation, on a pair of 17500s, it'll start at 151 torch lumens, and diminish to 94 torch lumens in 52 minutes. The difference is not something large enough to be important either way. The 17500s will probably start off a little brighter than CR123s, (maybe), but the CR123s will probably have a *slightly* flatter discharge at this load. at the end of the day, the difference is to little to worry about.

The strength of the MN10 and similar powered bulbs comes into play outdoors. They really reach out nicely and provide excellent identification of surroundings in natural environments. 

I've personally found that incans are just not very impressive if you test them indoors at close range. Get it outdoors and let it stretch it's legs some 

Eric


----------



## brighterisbetter (Oct 7, 2008)

I was going to attempt to provide some help with the OP, but looks like Eric beat me to it, and said it better than I ever could have. Well done:twothumbs


----------



## Patriot (Oct 7, 2008)

brighterisbetter said:


> I was going to attempt to provide some help with the OP, but looks like Eric beat me to it, and said it better than I ever could have. Well done:twothumbs




Yeah, Eric's post pretty much takes the cake! 





My version of the "no guilt" M3 has been an M3 with turbo head, a pair of 17500's and the Lumens Factory EO-M3T. I have to double tap the switch to turn it on but it's a beautiful beam. I've been so impressed with the LF lamps. I don't know how they always seem to get it right but I guess they really do their homework.


----------



## cl0123 (Oct 7, 2008)

Well, it is indeed brighter, but not quite the flood-light type of "wow" beam like the M6 with M20. I did not play enough to see it dimming down, but it is indeed impressive coming from such an almost MagMini-size instrument. 

What I do not understand is the battery chemistry? I've tested two brand new unused SF primaries which showed 3.2+ volts. The old non-SF cells that I used in the M3 for the last two nights were primaries registering 3.0+ volts. Regardless, three CR123s should produce 9v of potentials to drive the bulbs versus perhaps 8 volts from 2x17500. 

It has got to be a cell-chemistry reason that allows more current to light up the filaments. Or so I think.



cl0123 said:


> ...switching from three CR123 primaries to 2x17500 rechargeable li-ion cells? I guess I will find out in a few more hours...


----------



## mdocod (Oct 7, 2008)

Hello cl0123,

just have to dig a bit deeper and this will make perfect sense.

Open circuit voltage and running voltage are very different, and has to do with the internal resistance of the cell delivering the juice. 

If you apply a ~1A load to a fully charged 17500 size li-ion cell, the voltage drops to about 4.05V within a few seconds, and diminishes from there as it discharges. 

If you apply a ~1A load to a fresh CR123, it will drop to ~2.5V within a few seconds, holds steady around there for quite awhile, then starts to taper off downward from there in the later half of the discharge. 

under the load, the cells do not deliver the voltage you are measuring open circuit. 

3xCR123s into an MN10, runs about 7.5V on fresh cells. 

2x17500 into an MN10, runs about 8V on freshly charged cells. 

---------------------------------------------------------

Think of it in terms of air tools in a shop. Having more PSI in the tank, does not always mean you will get more PSI to the tool, you have to have a big enough hose, and big enough pressure regulator to maintain pressure through the system. Imagine having 2 tanks side by side. One is pressurized to 100PSI (8.4V 2xli-ion) and has all 1/2" fittings and hose. The other is pressurized to 115PSI(3xCR123s) and has all 3/8" fittings and hose. Which one will perform better when connected to a high drain air tool? As it turns out (and I know this from experience), the larger fittings make a noteworthy difference, and the actual pressure that makes it too the tool, will be higher on the 100PSI tank with the bigger hose and fittings. 

----------------------------------------------------------

So in the end, it really all boils down to how much voltage the bulb is running at. More voltage = brighter. Open circuit voltage is only one factor in the equation, the CR123s have more internal resistance, so they can't maintain that voltage when the current starts flowing. 

Eric


----------



## cl0123 (Oct 7, 2008)

mdocod said:


> ...has to do with the internal resistance of the cell delivering the juice.



Thanks, it does make a lot of sense. I knew it has a lot to do with the cell type (chemistry) and hence the inherent internal resistances developed when a load is applied. Of course, the real problem for me is to study enough of those actual discharge vs time results to reasonably estimate the behaviors of each type. :shakehead Looking on the bright side, I am just glad that you put out your incandescent guide to make things a lot quicker and easier for novices like yours truly. 

For the least, my quick M3 experiment confirms what I've read on CPF so far, so good. 


With Aloha, 

Clarence


----------



## Sgt. LED (Oct 7, 2008)

I know this is not what you are talking about but I want to share anyway.


----------



## jumpstat (Oct 9, 2008)

The best setup from my personal experience for a Guilt free M3 is MN11 in Z46 + Leef 2x18650 M/C + SW01 tailcap. Power by AW's 2xP18650s.

If you want to use the M3 body, then a 1 cell extender A19 can also be coupled to the M3 body. But must be bored a little bit to get the required internal diameter to fit the 18650 batts. Alternatively an 17670 can be used but 18650 is way much better....

This used to be mine...


----------



## brandx (Oct 9, 2008)

Clarence.... I had a similar dilemna with my M3. In standard form it is simply anemic for it's size compared to today's LED pocket rockets. Contact 'Milky' about his "Project-M" and run it on AW 17500's. I am very pleased with mine. True, the cost of conversion to LED's would purchase enough bulbs to last some time, but for a 'go to' light I figure the cost is also 'insurance' that when I pick it up it will light up and not have a burned out bulb. (disregarding battery condition which is equal for both bulbs and LED's)


----------



## cl0123 (Oct 20, 2008)

More experiment times with the lights

Coming from the old Mag 3D's, anything smaller but brighter seems to be a blessing. After playing with the M3 I've bought from *Solscud007*, I became curious as to "what if" one more cell is added to the formula. Coincidentally, *Brighterisbetter* happened to dump his M4 to fund his *Elephant* in the Mod B/S/T and I snatched it up semi-impulsively. Doing a little mix and match over last weekend, I came up with this:





Dimensionally, they are pretty much the same lengthwise, as you can see. 

This is how I powered them, again, in the spirit of *Guilt-Free Lumens*:






Friendly disputing mdocod's excellent incandescent guide, which suggested about 30 minutes of run-time:


mdocod said:


> Cell configuration: 2x17500
> 
> Bulb Option:
> SF MN10: 9.5W, 151 - 94 lumen in 52 minutes
> ...



I was never able to fire up the EO-M3 with my two AW Protected 17500 cells. These two cells are both new direct from and have had no more than five cycles on them. I finally bought some of those pro-gold contact cleaner sprays and will try them out later this week. 

Conclusion: on paper, the EO-M3 is a slightly brighter bulb than the HO-M3. However, for those running two 17500 cells in an M3 body, the HO-M3 may be a more versatile lamp. It will work with both the 2x17500 or the 3-Primaries configuations. Great product!


Other observations:


Using three CR123 primaries, the EO-M3 lights up just fine.
Using two 17670 AW (as in the M4 tube), the EO-M3 lights up just fine.
Using two 18650 AW (in a Leef tube), again EO-M3 lights up fine.

Need help on:


How do you use those Pro-Gold spray cleaners?
Besides the contact points between the spring and the cells, where else do you "spray and clean" with?
What exactly is the "double tap" technique? I did try to unscrew and re-fasten the tailcap, but the EO-M3 just would not light up with 2x17500.
Will unprotected 17500 cells make any difference? (Of course, I don't think I would try this route though)

With Aloha, 

Clarence


----------



## brighterisbetter (Oct 21, 2008)

cl0123 said:


> Coincidentally, *Brighterisbetter* happened to dump his M4 to fund his *Elephant* in the Mod B/S/T and I snatched it up semi-impulsively.


Glad you like it, the M4 is my second favorite Weaponlight series SF, the M3 being the first.



cl0123 said:


> I was never able to fire up the EO-M3 with my two AW Protected 17500 cells. These two cells are both new direct from and have had no more than five cycles on them.


I used unprotected 17500's with the EO-M3 and no problems whatsoever, though I would caution against prolonged runtimes.



cl0123 said:


> Need help on:
> 
> 
> Will unprotected 17500 cells make any difference? (Of course, I don't think I would try this route though)


In my experience, I never waited for the tell-tale dimming to notify it was time for a recharge. Just top off cells every now and then to be sure, and don't over do it. If you're gonna stick with the stock body, I'd go this route, or see if AW comes out with an IMR17500 soon and do that instead.

P.S. Should you decide the EO-M3's not for you, I'll buy it back.....at a discount of course :naughty:


----------



## cl0123 (Oct 21, 2008)

Hey, so I did learn something around here! It's the PCL that hinders the EO-M3. I admit the M4 purchase was not "planned" but coupling it with a smaller M3 head actually works out quite nice. I have it in one of the kitchens drawers and already heard some "wow's" from my better-half already. She did not care for the bulky turbo head but at the same was pleasantly surprised by the output of the M4 + EO-M3 configuration. 

It's very noble of you to offer to buy it back, but in all honesty I cannot do that because it does work just as described.  Ok, I've already bought a second one as back-up and stashed in the same kitchen drawer. So I am not going to mess with my setup now. 

With Aloha, 

Clarence



brighterisbetter said:


> Glad you like it, the M4 is my second favorite Weaponlight series SF, the M3 being the first.
> 
> I used unprotected 17500's with the EO-M3 and no problems whatsoever, though I would caution against prolonged runtimes.
> 
> ...


----------



## mdocod (Oct 21, 2008)

cl0123 said:


> More experiment times with the lights
> 
> Coming from the old Mag 3D's, anything smaller but brighter seems to be a blessing. After playing with the M3 I've bought from *Solscud007*, I became curious as to "what if" one more cell is added to the formula. Coincidentally, *Brighterisbetter* happened to dump his M4 to fund his *Elephant* in the Mod B/S/T and I snatched it up semi-impulsively. Doing a little mix and match over last weekend, I came up with this:
> 
> ...



The EO-M3 is, as I recall (unless something has changed), a 2 amp bulb. If this is the case, then you are the first person to report not being able to fire up this lamp on these cells. There are a ton of people out there running 2 amp bulbs, the EO-9, EO-M3, ROP low, etc, on 2x17500s. I have personally tested numerous pairs of AW17500s on the EO-9, which has the same power consumption as a EO-M3. 

Try doing a little "tapping" on the tailcap to see if it fires up, if it does, then you likely have an underperforming 17500 or a bum PCB. If it does NOT fire up, then you probably just have some other contact problem like the spring on the EO-M3 isn't making contact with he top of the cell for some strange reason, or something like that. 

(the "double tap" technique is actually sometimes a multiple tap technique, basically you are just quickly cycling the circuit open and closed repeatedly to see if the filament will warm up enough to fire up all the way and run continuously under the steady load of the hot filament, it's an old-school workaround for low-limit PCBs combined with high current requirements of cold filaments.)

Maybe LF changed the recipe for the bulb? Maybe they upped the EO-M3 to the same power consumption as the EO-M3T? Maybe?

Maybe you got "weird" EO-M3 that accidentally had a bulb from a EO-M3T installed in it?

There are lots of possibilities, but none of them involve me being wrong  (JK)

Eric


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 21, 2008)

No Eric, the EO-M3 is same as before.
The EO-M3T's lamp will not even fit into the lamp module of the EO-M3, so that's a no also.

I tried firing up my own M3 with a pair of AW's 17500 on a EO-M3 just now, a single click did it.

So it is quite weird, maybe you need to check with AW on this.

Cheers,

Mark


----------



## cl0123 (Oct 21, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> No Eric, the EO-M3 is same as before.
> 
> I tried firing up my own M3 with a pair of AW's 17500 on a EO-M3 just now, a single click did it.


Mark, 

Are those protected or unprotected AW's? Your single-click-did-it-test may, provided you are indeed using those protected AW's, confirm that the issue is on my side. Bruce (brighterisbetter) was also able to fire up the EO-M3 using two blue unprotected AW 17500. 

BTW, thanks for participating in the CPF on a hobbyist level among us. I just revisited the EO-M3 page again on Lighthound and discovered that this particular is actually designed to be used


> (For 3 x CR123A or 2 x 3.7V Rechargeable Battery, M Series Flashlights)


Curious though, do both the EO-M3 and the EO-M3T use the same filaments? Or are they two totally different bulbs?



mdocod said:


> (the "double tap" technique is actually sometimes a multiple tap technique, basically you are just quickly cycling the circuit open and closed repeatedly to see if the filament will warm up enough to fire up all the way and run continuously under the steady load of the hot filament, it's an old-school workaround for low-limit PCBs combined with high current requirements of cold filaments.)
> 
> Maybe you got "weird" EO-M3 that accidentally had a bulb from a EO-M3T installed in it?



Eric, 

So what I did (unscrewing and re-fastening the tailcap) was essentially similar to the double-tapping technique. That's good to know. 

I did not pay close attention to the sizes of the button top on each of the cells, and I can recheck that. However, without removing the head from the M3, I was able to fire up the EO-M3 by just changing to three primary 123 cells using the M3 tube. Secondly, just by unscrewing the entire head and without removing the bulb from the Z46 bezel, the EO-M3 again lit up once I mated the head to the M4 body carrying two 17670 cells. All cells were fairly recently recharged, or at least the Pila charger wouldn't charge any of them by dropping them in (solid green indicator). I do have another new EO-M3 that just came in from Lighthound last Saturday. I am fairly certain I tested that one too against the used lamp I acquired, but there is no harm to try that again. 

If I do get a "weird EO-M3", I am going to frame it and keep it as a collector's item. :candle:

With Aloha, 

Clarence


----------



## brighterisbetter (Oct 21, 2008)

cl0123 said:


> All cells were fairly recently recharged, or at least the Pila charger wouldn't charge any of them by dropping them in (solid green indicator).



It's always a good idea to press the reset button(s) after placing the cells in the IBC charger too. I've found that often the green light syndrome happens sporadically with what I think to be fully charged cells, but once I press the reset, it goes to red and takes an addt'l few minutes to top off.


----------



## mdocod (Oct 23, 2008)

The EO-M3T is a higher power bulb than the EO-M3, they contain different lamps all-together.

There's probably nothing wrong with your EO-M3, as you say it lights up on 2x17670s, so there is something else wrong there. 

There's honestly really no need for any additional confirmation that the EO-M3 would work on 2x17500s based purely on the protection circuit allowing it. I can personally assure you that it has been well documented and reported for awhile now that AWs protected 17500s will fire up 2 amp lamps without hesitation. The only real room for an issue remaining on the table is either a contact problem or a PCB problem.

Untwisting and re-twisting the tail-cap repeatedly would probably NOT replicate the effect desired from "multi-tapping" the tail-cap to fire up a lamp on a stubborn PCB. Unless you could do it just right, but best just to tap on a "push-for-on" tailcap repeatedly to see what happens.

I would double check for how things are lining up, and if you have a volt-meter, please report cell voltage of these 17500s.


----------



## Siskik (Oct 24, 2008)

Sounds like a similar situation I had with my HO-M3. 
Try switching tailcaps and see if that works.
If that works, it's probably the spring in the TC.

(My EO-M3 also works fine with 2x17500 AW protected)

John


----------



## cl0123 (Oct 25, 2008)

Here are what I found after a few more attempts.


Voltages of the 17500 were reading 4.116v and 4.123v. I have since recharged them in the Pila charger.
With the twisty tightened down all the way, tapping the cap vigorously gave me a dim amber glow out of the EO-M3 bulb. I know what tapping means now. Yet, the light did not light up like it should.
None of the twisty style (3 HA, 2 BK) tailcaps worked.
Installing a clicky (Z48) lit up the M3 with EO-M3 (finally). Yet every time I pointed the light down, it turned itself off. I am now quite convinced that there must be a contact issue somewhere.

With Aloha, 

Clarence


----------



## mdocod (Oct 25, 2008)

cl0123 said:


> Here are what I found after a few more attempts.
> 
> 
> Voltages of the 17500 were reading 4.116v and 4.123v. I have since recharged them in the Pila charger.
> ...



A little bit of spring stretch on both ends is worth a shot. just be careful not to bust em off. (I like to support the base of the spring with one tool while carefully stretching with another).


----------



## cl0123 (Oct 25, 2008)

mdocod said:


> A little bit of spring stretch on both ends is worth a shot. just be careful not to bust em off. (I like to support the base of the spring with one tool while carefully stretching with another).


Eric, 

Thanks again for the suggestion. The fact that the M3 would  off at certain angles does suggest it ought to be a contact issue within the hardwares. When the EO-M3 did come on, it is a nice intense beam as well. The center spot is smaller but more intense than that produced by the HO-M3T. Deriving from your numbers, the EO-M3 filaments probably require a more secure contact/connection in order to allow the higher currents to pass through them. That sort of explains why the same body and tailcap set up would light up the HO-M3T and the MN10 but just not the EO-M3. 

Two nights ago, I tested the setup by ONLY swapping bulbs in the Z46 bezel:


MN10 - lit up with no problem
EO-M3 - lit up right after I swapped out the MN10. Turned light off. Would not come back on again. Tapping vigorously created a half-second orange glow but the bulb refused to light up.

For a moment, I really thought the EO-M3 is like an old carburetor that requires significant warm-up (by the MN10). Good thing I gave in to sleep and waited until the weekends to do the tests again. 

Let me read the instructions on the Radio Shack cleaners, re-service the lights and conquer this minor nuisance. Somehow EO-M3 just doesn't like my favorite M3 light. :sigh:

With Aloha, 

Clarence


----------



## Daniel_sk (Oct 26, 2008)

Damn...Why did I click on this thread? :mecry: Now I am thinking about a M3/M4 modded light.

A Leef 2x18650 C-M body + some SF tailcap + Z46 or KT4 head. I'd be running LF bulbs EO-M3 or EO-M3T (depends on the head).

Can anyone comment the brightness of a EO-M3 + 2x18650 setup? Will it impress me?  I had a WA1111 + 2xC lion setup but it was too big and heavy and I don't like Maglites - the brightness though was insane. The LF bulbs are quite cheap and have a longer life span because they are not overdriven. 

Anyone can guess a realistic runtime on with EO-M3 + 2x18650? What other high output options are there with this setup?

Is there a big difference between the Z46/KT4 head? I'd prefer throw but the KT4 heads are expensive and difficult to buy. In the end - it really depends on if I can find such a head on CPFMP for a good price...

I don't really need this light but it's the flashaholic addiction calling again :shakehead.


----------



## Sgt. LED (Oct 26, 2008)

Thanks to the above pic I have sought out and bought an M4 body for my M3 LED head I linked to above. 

I was on the lookout for an M3 body but the pic looked so good I had to go with that M4 straight tube! The 4 cell should run a good long while to.


I think the 4 cell body will feel better in the hand too.


----------

