# ExtremeBeam Alpha-TAC XT8 with the Metal MOLLE right-angle adaptor - Review



## subwoofer (Apr 6, 2012)

To some the ExtremeBeam Alpha-TAC XT8 will need no introduction, but to others it may be greeted with suspicion and dismissed as ‘another one of those copies’.

Let me start with a picture or two….






















Shown above are two ends of the spectrum. One is the original design made to a high standard by the owners of the design and patents, and the other is a cheap clone, poorly made and trying to succeed based on the reputation and innovation of another. A story we see repeated all too often, and in this case, the clones are so well known in the consumer market many view _them_ as the original.

The clones however are but a poor imitation compared to the light that came first.








The confusion may be partly due to the fact that ExtremeBeam is not the original trading name this design was sold under, and previously the XT8 was sold directly to the military and police not to the consumer market. Despite the less familiar name change this is the genuine article with true ownership of the design and related patents.




Initial Impressions:

Initial impressions may be biased by the proliferation of the XT8’s clones. --- These prejudices are quickly swept aside when you pick up the XT8 and can literally feel the difference.

Simply from holding it, you can feel the aluminium body is substantially made - the XT8 feels solid and dependable.

As you first remove the tailcap the XT8 continues to impress with the precise fit, one, then two o-rings appear and the fully square-cut threads are revealed.

The XT8 has a forward clicky momentary tailcap switch perfectly suited to this type of light, and is a standard P60 host giving you great flexibility.



What is in the box:

The XT8’s packaging is a cardboard/blister pack showing the entire light and included batteries. On the reverse of the pack information on the XT8.











The XT8 and supplied holster.







Also included for review is the Metal MOLLE right-angle adaptor accessory for the XT8. Made to the same high standards as the XT8, this adaptor allows the XT8 to be converted into a right-angle light providing alternative grip options and a light that can be clipped onto standard Molle fixing points providing hands free use.













Looking inside:

The XT8 shows its pedigree further as you take a look inside.

The tailcap showing the double o-rings, fully square-cut threads and large surface area negative contact.














Looking down into the battery tube, and you can see why the XT8 feels so strong – 4mm thick tubing!






The head to battery tube joint is the same, with square threads and double o-rings.






Shown almost fully disassembled (Not pictured is the head itself opened – this also has double o-rings)







The Metal MOLLE is cut from a solid block of aluminium and has threads and seals to match the XT8














The right-angle XT8






The P60 module supplied with the XT8 is a Cree R2 with orange peel reflector.








Modes and User Interface:

When the going gets tough you want to KISS (keep it simple ……), and the XT8 as supplied does this.

A single high mode output with momentary (forward clicky) tailcap switch, is all there is to it.

Being a P60 host you can of course swap out the module and



Batteries and output:

The supplied module has input voltage ranging from 3.5-10V.

Primarily designed as a military specification light, the battery tube (with its substantial wall thickness) will only accommodate CR123 cells in diameter and length.

This photo shows the end of the second cell and its position relative to the shoulder that the tailcap screws onto.






This means that you need to use either primary cells, or the 10V max input voltage allows you to use RCR123s, but not just any…

Here you can see the most trusted brand of li-ion, AW, in comparison to primary cells. The AW protected cells are the closest I’ve found to an original CR123 in size and do fit into the XT8. Also tested are the AW IMR unprotected cells which again closely match the size of a primary.






Topping up the AW cells with Cottonpicker’s Nona-Charger.






If used in hostile environments, you will not be bothering with rechargeable cells, so stick with primaries. In less hostile environments, you may choose between unprotected cells which avoids sudden loss of output due to protection kicking in, or protected to prevent cell damage. In both cases, the AW cells are ideal as the IMR chemistry is ‘safe’ though lower capacity, and the protected cells are the only cells of this type I know of which will fit.



In The Lab

_In an attempt to quantify the actual beam profile I developed the following test. There are probably many flaws in my method, but it is simple and easy to carry out and seems to provide a good enough comparison.

The method used was to put the light on the edge of a table 1m from a wall, with a tape measure on the wall. The zero of the scale is placed in the centre of the hotspot and a lux meter is then positioned at points along the scale, with the measurements recorded. Beam shots are often taken with the light shining on a flat white wall, so this method is simply measuring the actual intensity across the beam on a flat surface, not the spherical light emission.

The results are then plotted on a graph.

For the best throw you want to see a sharp peak with less of the distracting spill. For the best flood light the trace should be pretty flat._

Shown here with a generic Cree R2 P60 module running off 18650, the XT8 with two lithium primaries massively outshines it.








_Taking this a little further, I calculated an approximate factor to apply to the lux measurements, as each measurement gets further from the centre of the beam, it corresponds to a larger area onto which the light is falling. It seems to me that this should also be taken into consideration, so I applied these area corrections and came up with this odd looking graph.

The key quantity here is the area under the graph line. This should correspond to the total light output._








The XT8’s profile is similar to the generic R2 module, but with much higher output.



The beam of the XT8

Remember that the XT8 is a standard P60 host, so if you don’t like the beam of the standard module, simply swap it out for one you prefer. The reason the XT8 uses this standard is to provide the owner with a light they can keep going with the most common type of spare they are likely to come across.

Shown here with a relatively normal exposure






And the exact scene underexposed to better show the hotspot shape






The supplied P60 module gives you a beam with plenty of spill but a strong hotspot to pierce the gloom.



Using the XT8

To take the words of a well known advertising campaign, ‘it does what it says on the…..’ box.

The XT8 is simple, reliable, versatile and durable. Combined with the Metal MOLLE, you have something else, which to me is even more usable.

The tail-cap switch is well designed with the rounded shoulders of the cap giving easy access to the switch. Even with gloved hands the light is easy and positive to operate.

The clip works well, with the springy steel returning to its original position even if bent out quite a lot. It does not appear to be removable as the clip looks like a press fit into the battery tube. For weapon mounting you may need to slide the clip over the mount, but this should not be a problem.












The holster provided is as well made as the XT8 and will take the light bezel down or up. There is a choice of fixed belt loop or a quick release loop fixed with a stud and Velcro combination to provide a secure fixture that is easily removed.













For me the standard light is transformed with the addition of the Metal MOLLE adaptor. The right angle head allows for a wide variety of grip positions and makes the switch easier to operate while keeping the beam pointed forwards.

The holster will also accommodate the XT8 in its right-angle form. Allowing you to have a forward facing light mounted on you belt.

The square shape of the Metal MOLLE means you can stand the light facing forward or upward on a flat surface, and provides the ultimate anti-roll feature.






Of course the Metal MOLLE is designed with a clip to fix onto the molle webbing on your load carrier. The main clip is still usable, so you can clip the XT8 whichever way up you prefer.






Unless I decide to gun mount the XT8, I’ll be keeping it in the right-angle configuration.







The XT8 is in a different class to even the best of its clones. In terms of build quality, durability and reliability, the XT8 is a true military specification light.



Sample provided for review by ExtremeBeam.

I’ll update post 2 of this thread once I have some more comments to add....


----------



## subwoofer (Apr 6, 2012)

reserved for further updates...

Readers Note:

Following various comments, I want to make it clear that I have not been provided with evidence to support the historical information relating to the manufacturer and design of the light that is included in this review. The information was provided to me in good faith, and (mistakenly or not) included in the review in good faith.

I will not change the main review post itself as the replies in the thread may then seem out of context.

The testing, measurements, photographs and reported user experience are all my own work and are reported as accurately as possible.


----------



## kj2 (Apr 6, 2012)

That molle adaptor, funny thing  

Only one thing I don't understand; "The confusion may be partly due to the fact that ExtremeBeam is not the original trading name this design was sold under, and previously the XT8 was sold directly to the military and police not to the consumer market. Despite the less familiar name change this is the genuine article with true ownership of the design and related patents." -Then why does this light, seems so "crappy" to me? If you would remove the name from the light, I would say it's a XX-fire light.


----------



## subwoofer (Apr 6, 2012)

kj2 said:


> That molle adaptor, funny thing
> 
> Only one thing I don't understand; "The confusion may be partly due to the fact that ExtremeBeam is not the original trading name this design was sold under, and previously the XT8 was sold directly to the military and police not to the consumer market. Despite the less familiar name change this is the genuine article with true ownership of the design and related patents." -Then why does this light, seems so "crappy" to me? If you would remove the name from the light, I would say it's a XX-fire light.



The reason is that the consumer market has been flooded with the crappy clones. You have been prejudiced into automatically assuming that this design is cheap and nasty, when in fact, if you look at the detail of the review, you will find the XT8 is solidly built, and will serve you well through the toughest of times, exactly when you need a light to keep on going.

Free yourself from your prejudices, and open your eyes.


----------



## Chicken Drumstick (Apr 6, 2012)

Thanks for the review Subwoofer, makes for a good read 

Is this light regulated? And as you are in the UK same as me, can you buy these in the UK?

Lastly, what exactly is a P60?

Thanks.


----------



## kj2 (Apr 6, 2012)

subwoofer said:


> The reason is that the consumer market has been flooded with the crappy clones. You have been prejudiced into automatically assuming that this design is cheap and nasty, when in fact, if you look at the detail of the review, you will find the XT8 is solidly built, and will serve you well through the toughest of times, exactly when you need a light to keep on going.
> 
> Free yourself from your prejudices, and open your eyes.


Ow, I have read the review. Thanks there for btw 
But if cheap-clones have cloned your design, isn't handy to change your design? so the clones/fakes don't look-a-like your light. Sure with square threads and double o-rings, it much better than the XX-fire lights.
But if you look at the pics. LED not good centred and that holster. Very cheap looking (with button in the velcro- God, I hate that), brands like Fenix- has this much better done.


----------



## jirik_cz (Apr 6, 2012)

kj2 said:


> ...Then why does this light, seems so "crappy" to me? If you would remove the name from the light, I would say it's a XX-fire light.



I agree. If you look on the extreme beam website I don't see any single original design. All are just generic designs/copies we see on the market for many years.


----------



## subwoofer (Apr 6, 2012)

Chicken Drumstick said:


> Thanks for the review Subwoofer, makes for a good read
> 
> Is this light regulated? And as you are in the UK same as me, can you buy these in the UK?
> 
> ...



I don't know of any UK stockists at the moment. The review sample was actually sent from the US to me.

As this light uses the generic drop-in P60 module (do a search on CPF for P60), I didn't test the module for regulation, only carrying out the beam profile test. Remember that this is a bomb-proof P60 host and you can replace the original module with any to suit your tastes.




kj2 said:


> Ow, I have read the review. Thanks there for btw
> But if cheap-clones have cloned your design, isn't handy to change your design? so the clones/fakes don't look-a-like your light. Sure with square threads and double o-rings, it much better than the XX-fire lights.
> But if you look at the pics. LED not good centred and that holster. Very cheap looking (with button in the velcro- God, I hate that), brands like Fenix- has this much better done.



It looks like you are trying to find fault when there is none, and there is no need to be down on a design just because it is the most ripped off design out there. Why do you think the clones of this light are so prolific...it is because the design is good.

If you change your designs every time they are ripped off, you would be changing them all the time. Just because someone copies you why change it? Tell that to all the other manufacturers whoes lights have been ripped off. Fenix, Jet Beam, Surefire to name but a few would all have to redesign - I don't think so.

The LED centring is fine, it is simply the lighting angle when I took the photo that has left a little shade one side of the LED and it is lighter the other side. Plus try to remember, the host here is military specification and you can easily swap out the P60 module for any you like.

The holster again looks like the XXXXfire rip offs, because they are cloning the holster as well. The XT8 holster is excellent, with the choice of fixed belt look or popper/velcro loop for easy fitting. The material is thick and durable. I too have a few of the cheap XXXfire versions and this is so much better.

I shall stop trying to convince you now. The review speaks for itself really.



jirik_cz said:


> I agree. If you look on the extreme beam website I don't see any single original design. All are just generic designs/copies we see on the market for many years.



Yes the ExtremeBeam designs have all been ripped off for many years. ExtremeBeam themselves have not really entered into the consumer market before, instead concentrating on the military and police. All the designs on the ExtremeBeam website are original, it was ExtremeBeam that designed them, own the patents and suffer from the plague of cloners.


As Morpheus said "Free your mind"


----------



## kj2 (Apr 6, 2012)

subwoofer said:


> It looks like you are trying to find fault when there is none, and there is no need to be down on a design just because it is the most ripped off design out there. Why do you think the clones of this light are so prolific...it is because the design is good.
> 
> If you change your designs every time they are ripped off, you would be changing them all the time. Just because someone copies you why change it? Tell that to all the other manufacturers whoes lights have been ripped off. Fenix, Jet Beam, Surefire to name but a few would all have to redesign - I don't think so.
> 
> ...



But still IMO - Looks like a knock-off, packaging looks cheap. No go for me. -and I will leave it by that.


----------



## Racer (Apr 6, 2012)

As promised, I do hereby publicly eat my words for saying that they appeared to be nothing more than a cheap knockoff sold as the real thing. Though if I were going to sell quality products that at least superficially appear to be cheap knock-offs, I would at least go on the offensive and address that issue with the community as opposed to claiming indignation that someone would even suggest that.

However, I stand by my claim that their marketing does appear to be outright fraud, and that somebody should report them to the FTC for deceptive business practices. I sincerely doubt that they are the preferred flashlight for basically _all_ armed forces world-wide. Half of what I look for in a product is a quality product. The other half of what I look for is a quality company to have a long term relationship with. Sorry, I'm still not convinced. 

Looking at every other banner add on CPF: Some claim to be bomb-proof, some claim to be innovative, some claim to listen to their customers. All are believable or at least plausible. Except for this company. And if I was the only one who thought that, then I wouldn't even be typing this. But I suspect there are a few that share my opinion on this.

EDIT: Don't worry, I'll shut up now about this. No need to send me nasty PMs.


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Apr 6, 2012)

I was just asked if this review meets my 100 dollar extreme beam review challenge. No it does not.

I would expect a 100% side by side comparo. pictures of everything, side by side of everything,
this one barely reviews anything about the apparent clone. sorry, but no dice on this review.

the lights aren't even the same general size.

I was thinking more exact 50/50 side-by-side of everything

pop that head, look at the circuit and see if the pill is quality, or junk hidden under a thick metal cover,
stuff like that. I can put crap in a box, but if the box is polished platinum, you wouldn't know any different

*example: ExtremeBeam SAR 5 vs akoray k109 would be ideal*, both are 1xcr123


both are the low end where if it was going to be built cheap it would show

I do agree the extreme beam here doesn't look cheap at all in this review.
I still have a grudge with extreme beam -ads- because of any reasons stated in the closed thread


----------



## csshih (Apr 7, 2012)

subwoofer said:


> As this light uses the generic drop-in P60 module (do a search on CPF for P60), I didn't test the module for regulation, only carrying out the beam profile test. Remember that this is a bomb-proof P60 host and you can replace the original module with any to suit your tastes.



Free your mind, indeed.
Surefire came out with the p60/d26 design.

I would love to hear the brand it was released under beforehand. got a NSN?
Patents? do tell.

Also, XR-E? Surefire is starting to use XM-Ls...

Craig


----------



## subwoofer (Apr 7, 2012)

csshih said:


> Free your mind, indeed.
> Surefire came out with the p60/d26 design.
> 
> I would love to hear the brand it was released under beforehand. got a NSN?
> ...



Yes, The P60 was designed by Surefire, no argument there. The point is that after a good 'standard' is developed, the fact that others use it is no bad thing as it allows interchangeability. Imagine if the ES lightbulb fitting was only used by one manufacturer after it was invented.

Unfortunately I cannot publish the original brand, but it is well known. It is not for me to explain further at this time, I have simply reviewed the XT8 without prejudice.

With its Metal MOLLE adaptor, the XT8 is unique and works really well. This is not something I've seen in any clone.

I have presented a review for a genuine well built product which the manufacturers *own *all the rights to, and which is the original design. I am not a representative of ExtremeBeam, and will not defend them or respond to any demands for further information. You can take this up with ExtremeBeam.

Please accept this review for what it is. An honest review of a product.


----------



## Chicago X (Apr 8, 2012)

subwoofer said:


> Unfortunately I cannot publish the original brand, but it is well known. It is not for me to explain further at this time, I have simply reviewed the XT8 without prejudice.
> 
> 
> 
> Please accept this review for what it is. An honest review of a product.




Honest? This is little more than a free ad.

Did you pay for the lights in question? If not, why no mention of the free torch? 

This "mystery brand" is another fairy tale from an unscrupulous seller; the claims are getting even more ridiculous, as this company tries desperately to 'back door' their way into the market.

I'm disgusted by the lack of vetting of advertisers here. Greed spoils all.


----------



## subwoofer (Apr 9, 2012)

Chicago X said:


> Honest? This is little more than a free ad.
> 
> Did you pay for the lights in question? If not, why no mention of the free torch?
> 
> ...



If you check the original review you will see it was clearly stated that the review sample was provided by ExtremeBeam.

The vast majority of reviews posted on CPF are based on samples provided to a reviewer by the manufacturer. So is it your opinion that the majority of reviews on CPF are simply free ads?

Personally I find product reviews to be one of the best types of information on the internet. My intention is to give back to the forum community by taking a considerable amount of my own time to review a variety of products.

I am not an agent for any manufacturer, nor am I paid to review products. There is no profit in reviewing for me other than to give back to the Forum.

Try to engage your brain before shouting your mouth off with false accusations.


Please try to limit all future responses to this thread to comments/questions about the product on review, the ExtremeBeam XT8.

If you wish to bash the manufacturer or have any comments not specifically relating to this product review, please start up your own thread.


----------



## Chicago X (Apr 9, 2012)

Why should I reference anything besides what you've written here?

Did you see the FTC warning about disclosure ?

While your straw man argument may feel good, I am not questioning ANY other review on CPF, nor have you addressed any of the issues raised. 

I started my own thread, and was pointed back here, to the ONLY favorable review on any forum I could find. 

Have you returned the light? If not, then you were compensated for your time. Please don't attempt to high-road the situation. 

Many are still waiting for any proof of the ridiculous claims this 'manufacturer' makes.


----------



## subwoofer (Apr 9, 2012)

Chicago X said:


> Why should I reference anything besides what you've written here?
> 
> Did you see the FTC warning about disclosure ?
> 
> ...



Q: "Why should I reference anything besides what you've written here?"
A: You have referenced what you term "ridiculous claims" the manufacturer has made (presumably in its adverts which are nothing to do with this review). In the review I have not said that ExtremeBeam or the XT8 are the preferred choice of anyone or made any other claims.

The manufacturer usually provides some information with each review sample. In this case the information provided is that ExtremeBeam have full ownership of the patents and design for this light and that the design was previously distributed under a different brand name. I have passed this information on. If you wish to challenge this claim, please take it up with ExtremeBeam directly and do not refer to it in this review thread.

Q: "Did you see the FTC warning about disclosure ?"
A: Yes. And I did disclose that the review sample was provided to me by ExtremeBeam. If I have contravened a CPF policy, I will happily respond to a moderator directly via PM regarding this and correct any problems. 

S(statement):"While your straw man argument may feel good, I am not questioning ANY other review on CPF, nor have you addressed any of the issues raised."
R(response): You are challenging a fundamental process by which the majority of reviews are possible, so you ARE questioning every other review on CPF. If you wish to discuss this further, please start a thread regarding the review process and I will happily discuss it with you there. It is not a discussion that is relevant to one product review which you appear to be challenging mainly because you have an issue with ExtremeBeam as a company.

S:"I started my own thread, and was pointed back here, to the ONLY favorable review on any forum I could find."
R: I have carried out a product review. Personally I have found the XT8 to be very well made, and have said so in the review. The photographs support the review text. Why would you be pointed back here to discuss ExtremeBeam, on a review thread in the Flashlight Reviews section? Was this advised by a moderator? As I have just asked you a question not relevant to this thread, please could you PM that reply to me.

Q:"Have you returned the light? If not, then you were compensated for your time. Please don't attempt to high-road the situation."
A: No. Review samples are not returned. Exactly like the majority of the reviewers on CPF.

Firstly, I have to pay customs charges to receive 'free' products, then I have to document the light for review in the form of detailed photographs, carry out quantitative measurements and process the data, describe its function and give an impression of the product to the forum readers. I also pay for batteries, invest in test equipment, and take the flack from argumentative people have who nothing better to offer than criticism. So, NO, I am not compensated by not returning the item.

The review process can damage the lights and in owning them cannot be held liable if they are damaged. It also makes comparative reviews possible, so the retention of review samples is not for personal gain. I have far more lights than I need or want, but maintain a 'library' of reference lights in order to improve future reviews.

S:"Many are still waiting for any proof of the ridiculous claims this 'manufacturer' makes."
Rlease feel free to take this up directly with ExtremeBeam, but restrict any further posts in this thread to questions regarding the XT8 on review.

Flashlights are my passion and interest. I am a MEMBER of CPF and not employed by and flashlight manufacturer.


----------



## Got Lumens? (Apr 9, 2012)

I will reply with your request, and stick to the review.
I need to ask did you read the announcement about posting in this forum?All "reviews" threads are to be posted within their applicable forums. *If administrators or moderators wish to have them published in the Reviews forum, they will move them there.* If the reviewer, when posting, wishes to request inclusion in the Reviews forum, they may attach a notice as the first line in their post such as "for submission in the Reviews forum". Alternatively, they can omit such a first line, and simply PM a moderator or administrator asking that it be considered.

After careful consideration and abuse of the advertising policy, dealer and manufacture links will no longer be permitted in review threads.

Federal Trade Commission link: The FTC’s Revised Endorsement Guides (Reviewer FAQ's) 
​
Where is the light manufactured?
As far as I know US Military lights need to be manufacturered here and not simply designed and marketed by a US company, not your fault.

I am a bit confused by your reviews light graphs :thinking:
Could you share with us what light meter was used for your tests? Were they comparing a bare P60 Cree R2 dropin to the XT8? And why would you rest the flashlight on a tables edge when your beamshot clearly shows you using a proper tripod for testing? Was the generic P60 dropin rested on the tables edge also, or was that data included from somewhere else? Was it your intent to prove that the beam is consistant within the hotspot? Did you measure the sizes of the spill and hotspot at 1M to figure the beams angles? You use 4.2V for the generic P60 and then 6V for the XT8, that in itself is going to cause most of the differences in the two lines of your graph. I really would like to see at least two other lights compared to the XT8 running the same batteries in each, at the same voltages, and measured at the same time intevals. I can not come to any conclusions with your graphs as you did them.

The term calculated generally applies to readings that are taken in graduated distances away from the light source(flashlight) and not graduated angular readings at the set distance of 1M. The optics collmination of a light have a great effect upon lux measurements. Some can even be inaccurate at 1M, depends upon the optics, that is why they are calculated using several readings from greater distances.

What is the second light in the pictures for? Is that the light you used to make your graphs? Or is that an additional battery tube to give the voltage ratings of 3.5-10V? What is the cottonpickers charger for? The light comes with two primaries.

About the light, is the clip removeable or fixed? Hows the knurling compare to other lights? How does the switch feel? How audible is the switch? In your reviewers opinion do you think that 2-1/2 threads gives the head enough strength? In what environments did you test the light? How is the tint of the beam compared to others? Are the contacts Gold electroplated or brass? Does the size of the switches contact interfere with any brands of batteries wrappings? You show the Molle attachment, is that a seperate accessory or does it come with the light? Which picture is what? Is the XT8 the one that has a textured switch cover? Your pictures are very nice, but lack description of what you are trying to show in the review. Does the light come with a manual, or just the box? Are there spare o-rings that come with the light? Your review put's great emphasis on the clones, why? This is my first look at the XT8. I am not judging this light based on company history and who copied it. I would like to know more about the light itself and objective observations.

As you see by my post, I am left with more questions than the review answers. Any updates to post#2 are greatly appreciated.

GL


----------



## Gryffin (Apr 9, 2012)

Interesting. The XXXfire version has always struck me as the most compact and best looking of the P60 cheapies, but it has a rattle in the tail switch that drives me nuts. Does the XT8 switch rattle?


----------



## subwoofer (Apr 9, 2012)

Got Lumens? said:


> I will reply with your request, and stick to the review.
> I need to ask did you read the announcement about posting in this forum?All "reviews" threads are to be posted within their applicable forums. *If administrators or moderators wish to have them published in the Reviews forum, they will move them there.* If the reviewer, when posting, wishes to request inclusion in the Reviews forum, they may attach a notice as the first line in their post such as "for submission in the Reviews forum". Alternatively, they can omit such a first line, and simply PM a moderator or administrator asking that it be considered.
> 
> After careful consideration and abuse of the advertising policy, dealer and manufacture links will no longer be permitted in review threads.
> ...



How do you think this review got into the review section, bearing in mind it is not possible to post directly in the Flashlight Review forum section? - Yes, that's right, a CPF moderator I PMed moved it for me.

You may also have noticed that apart from the image links, there are no links at all in my review, dealer/manufacturer or otherwise. If any CPF moderator has any issues with my posts/reviews they will PM me and I will co-operate directly with them.

Several of your questions are already answered in the review, so I won't repeat myself.

If I decide to publish my test equipment details and methods I will. I do the best I can with the resources and time I have. Right now I don't have the time to go into more detail. 

The 'reference' Cree R2 is a regular feature of many of my reviews to give a standard benchmark for comparison, nothing else.

I am always looking for way to improve my reviews, so welcome all constructive criticism or requests. I also need to avoid making their production so onerous and time consuming that I can't ever finish them.

If, as, and when I have more time to add detail to this review I will consider the points you are interested in.

I am constantly amazed at how demanding some forum members are. I see you (GL) also post reviews, and should someone choose to pick holes in them they could, but that wouldn't be very productive would it.


I give as much time as I can to contribute (hopefully) useful and interesting content to CPF, and have now completely exhausted all time, effort and desire to give any further time to this review thread. Thanks for your support. Over and out.


----------



## subwoofer (Apr 9, 2012)

Gryffin said:


> Interesting. The XXXfire version has always struck me as the most compact and best looking of the P60 cheapies, but it has a rattle in the tail switch that drives me nuts. Does the XT8 switch rattle?



No rattles at all, and unlike the XXXfire, the XT8 has a forward clicky.


----------



## Chicago X (Apr 9, 2012)

The ridiculous claims are those perpetuated in your 'review' - the claims that EB was the originator rather than the imitator. 

*"Glass lens won't melt...like Lexan." Yeah, that is a real concern with that XR-E. 300+ degrees F is what _that _takes.


*You received a free torch and were therefore compensated. Period. It's immaterial whether it works out to minimum wage, or even to what you're accustomed to being paid. You didn't pay for the torch, and you kept it. End of that discussion.


*On to your review: was the torch shipped with the scratches/chips in the ano, or did those occur during testing ?



I have NO PROBLEM with the majority of the reviews here, especially from the very even-handed and respected reviewers we all know.

Why? Because they can admit when a manufacturer's claim is over-the-top or nonsensical. They review the torches, warts and all.

This is little more than a love-letter to an already circumspect seller, and those who can look beyond the obvious can recognize it for themselves.




ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS WHO HAVE *PURCHASED *THIS LIGHT WHO MAY BE WILLING TO COMMENT ?


----------



## Esko (Apr 9, 2012)

subwoofer said:


> One is the original design made to a high standard by the owners of the design and patents, and the other is a cheap clone, poorly made and trying to succeed based on the reputation and innovation of another.





subwoofer said:


> Despite the less familiar name change this is the genuine article with true ownership of the design and related patents.





subwoofer said:


> All the designs on the ExtremeBeam website are original, it was ExtremeBeam that designed them, own the patents and suffer from the plague of cloners.





subwoofer said:


> In this case the information provided is that ExtremeBeam have full ownership of the patents and design for this light and that the design was previously distributed under a different brand name. I have passed this information on.



Well, this reputation and innovation seems to be very unknown here in CPF. But, according to your numerous comments, it seems to be very widely known among cheap clone manufacturers in China. And has been that for years.

Although I am not sure what reputation you are talking about. There seems to be no reputation at all among ordinary customers (the target market of those clone manufacturers). How can you exploit reputation that doesn't seem to exist?

Sure enough, the light seems to be very sturdy (except for the threads which are suspiciously short).

You have many comments about the original patents and designs by Extremebeam. Could you please give us some references on those patents? Surely you know they have patents, do you? You have been referring to them so many times. Or is it just that they told you they have them, but they think that the patents are secret and mustn't be released publicly? This is really *THE ONLY* information needed to shut down the skeptics. Extremebeam surely seem to be proud of the Molle (with a big text telling "Patents pending world-wide"). So, how about the lights? Do they really have any patents on them? If they do, what are they?


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Apr 9, 2012)

$100.00 extremebeam review challenge is still up for grabs. I want to help anyone who will irrefutably fully review the product
vs some clone that stole an extremebeam original design...that would mean any flashlight out there that looks near exact in many ways

get an akoray 109 and a sar 5 and see what the product is all about, do a complete exhaustive fair review of every last component. 


If no one does this better than subwoofer before the end of 2012, then subwoofer will get the loot based on what I said in the closed thread. 
(how to judge 'better' will have to be based on lack of backlash) 

someone can reply 'I'll take it' and then you get 4 months to prep


----------



## Got Lumens? (Apr 9, 2012)

Subwoofer,
Thank You for the reply. I am just trying to be as objective as possible to the XT8 lights review. My comments were not made to offend anyone or yourself. I appologize if I seem offensive, that is not my intent.

I asked in a round about way if your review was self posted, You answered that question, and more. I asked about your test equipment, test environments, and questioned your already stated methods. You stated you didn't mind constructive critisism to improve upon your reviews and processes. I have offered you mine based upon my experiences and knowledge I have, and your response appeared very defensive to me.

I try to do reviews unbiased and objectively. I do each review independantly. I duplicate/replicate identical tests that may have been included in other reviews. This provides the most accurate comparisons I can with the methods and tests I perform. My interjected comments state they are my opinion. If someone finds fault, I admit it, and change my review or comments based on the new information. I have not asked any of my reviews to be moved here. I do not have the time, equipment, and resources to do so. I am not perfect, I make mistakes, and It helps me to do better and get more enjoyment from this hobby.

Yes, reviewing lights is very time consuming and expensive, as I have found out. My questions I asked come directly from this XT8's reviews' content. ~57% of my questions were directly related to the light, you indirectly answered one of them. ~34% of my questions were related to your testing methodoligy and setup, you answered none. ~9% of my comments are associated with the above, and you answerd one. 

Time permitting, IMO It would be great to see some of them answered. I appreciate you considering to doing so. Some of them may greatly add to the XT8s review.
GL


----------



## subwoofer (Apr 10, 2012)

Post 2 updated to add a readers note.

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...aptor-Review&p=3917328&viewfull=1#post3917328

There has been no intention on my part to mislead or report false information (if I have). I shall be more careful in future reviews to highlight any unsupported manufacturer information or claims.


----------



## Labrador72 (Apr 10, 2012)

Another nice review, thank you Subwoofer.


----------



## qwertyydude (Apr 12, 2012)

I think what throws me on the skeptical side is not just the cheesy packaging, take a look at real American made lights like Surefire and Maglite. The packaging is very simple, mostly blister packs or a simple form fitting box. The only companies to use packaging as wasteful and grandiose as Extreme Beam are Chinese generics. And funny thing too is that I see the "Police" sticker on it. One thing you quickly catch on to when you're real flashaholics is that "Police" on a flashlight screams cheap.

And there's really nothing that distinguishes these lights at all form the generics. Not just that but even the Akoray K-109, which according to the OP is a clone of the SAR 5, has been around since at least 2009. If Extreme Beam was the originator, I'd say either the Chinese have top secret corporate spies, or Extreme Beam simply used Chinese manufacturers. I'm more inclined to believe Chinese manufacturers because I highly doubt that Extreme Beam originated ALL of those generic designs the OP is claiming were cloned by China.

I mean right now I'm looking at my Trustfire X8. True this is a relatively new flashlight, but it's basically a copy of the Ultrafire C8, the design of which dates back to the very beginning of Cree's domination of the power led market which strangely enough predates this company. So unless China specifically copied Extreme Beam before they were "popular", which is highly unlikely because China only copies what's popular, I'd say the burden of proof to prove originality lies with Extreme Beam. And after reading through their horribly designed website, I put them in the same category as Night Owl flashlights, who also claim to be the originators of their design.

Basically I don't think Extreme Beam is trying very hard.


----------



## subwoofer (Apr 12, 2012)

qwertyydude said:


> Not just that but even the Akoray K-109, which according to the OP is a clone of the SAR 5, has been around since at least 2009. If Extreme Beam was the originator, I'd say either the Chinese have top secret corporate spies, or Extreme Beam simply used Chinese manufacturers. I'm more inclined to believe Chinese manufacturers because I highly doubt that Extreme Beam originated ALL of those generic designs the OP is claiming were cloned by China.



Just to set the record straight, as the OP of THIS review thread, I did not say the Akoray K-109 is a clone of the SAR 5, nor did I claim the ExtremeBeam originated all of the generic designs.

Did you realise you are posting in a review thread for the XT8?


----------



## duro (Apr 12, 2012)

HAHA, extremebeam...I just had a good laugh at their website and all of their marketing hype. "With Law Enforcement S.W.A.T. , Military Scouts, the Hunter/Fieldsman, and Search and Rescue teams in mind, the TAC 24 provides the operator the precision advantage by producing a well refined High-Definition, High Contrast beam of extremely bright white light. The color spectrum of the TAC 24’s High-Output beam allows for high color-contrast, for the detection of colored material hidden in surrounding brush.​


This High-Definition advantage"

Is your flashlight High Definition?

​


----------



## Got Lumens? (Apr 12, 2012)

duro said:


> HAHA, extremebeam...I just had a good laugh at their website and all of their marketing hype. "With Law Enforcement S.W.A.T. , Military Scouts, the Hunter/Fieldsman, and Search and Rescue teams in mind, the TAC 24 provides the operator the precision advantage by producing a well refined High-Definition, High Contrast beam of extremely bright white light. The color spectrum of the TAC 24’s High-Output beam allows for high color-contrast, for the detection of colored material hidden in surrounding brush.​
> 
> This High-Definition advantage"
> Is your flashlight High Definition?


Which of thier five live websites did you visit? I emailed Tony(Vice President of marketing) at extremebeam on Tuesday. I reemailed today and the email bounced. 

Subwoofer, enjoy your Extremebeam flashlight. 
Thank You for your review and bringing this manufacturer, and extemebeam international to our attention.


----------



## duro (Apr 12, 2012)

Got Lumens? said:


> Which of thier five live websites did you visit? I emailed Tony(Vice President of marketing) at extremebeam on Tuesday. I reemailed today and the email bounced.
> 
> Subwoofer, enjoy your Extremebeam flashlight.
> Thank You for your review and bringing this manufacturer, and extemebeam international to our attention.



http://www.extremebeam.com/products_tac24.html


----------



## jirik_cz (Apr 13, 2012)

Anyone remembers the HuntLight FT-01XSE flashlight? Light that was selling at the beginning of Cree XR-E era at the end of 2006?
http://www.flashlightreviews.com/reviews/huntlight_ft01xse.htm


----------



## Got Lumens? (Apr 13, 2012)

Thank You for sharing. What does that light have to do with the XT8 review?
GL

Edit: Gotcha Jirik :thumbsup: I do see the simularities, but it looks closer to the clone in this review and not the XT8, definately close though.


----------



## ma_sha1 (Apr 14, 2012)

subwoofer said:


> The holster again looks like the XXXXfire rip offs, because they are cloning the holster as well


 :shakehead


----------



## jirik_cz (Apr 14, 2012)

Got Lumens? said:


> Thank You for sharing. What does that light have to do with the XT8 review?
> GL



I could be wrong, but I think it is the original design. Just my two cents to the discussion who copied who...


----------



## indychris (Apr 17, 2012)

The OP mentions that this design was first released under a different name; was this light originally manufactured under the SuperFire company?


----------



## RedForest UK (Apr 18, 2012)

I am actually pleasantly surprised with the quality of that host and drop-in. Also, while the review may have made a few claims which are very much open to dispute, I do believe they were all made in good faith and it was, to the best of the OP's knowledge at least, an honest (and pretty good) review of one of their lights. It appears that extremebeam's customers are not being ripped off as badly as I would have believed before this review, which is certainly a good thing. 

I don't however think it meets the $100 challenge set in the last thread, as that was specifically aimed at a teardown of construction lights to see the internals of a preferably non-P60 host light (the one that was externally the same as the Akoray _clones_ was the preferable option) and the money was there in order to allow someone to purchase the light with themselves so as they are truly free from any bias, deliberate or not. Also to eliminate the possibility that the manufacturer could send a higher quality specially selected light than the production version (though I am not claiming this is what happened here).

However, while they may not be be ripping their customers off with poor quality lights at massively inflated prices as I worried previously, I'm afraid it seems almost certain that extremebeam are at best massively exaggerating their claims, and at worst still downright lying to their prospective customers. 

They still have a lot to answer for from a marketing perspective. Let's hope this is the start of a more transparent approach to their business.


On a side note, I think I'll start a thread in the battery section to clarify if anyone has had the chance to test their own brand batteries. They seem to have removed their claims that they are the 'best' and 'latest technology' etc but their 'tungsten carbide' printed on the side of the primary cells seems at least a little misleading (and silly) to me.


----------



## Esko (Apr 18, 2012)

indychris said:


> The OP mentions that this design was first released under a different name; was this light originally manufactured under the SuperFire company?



Hmm. Let's see if I got this right.

The original brand name was Superfire. But then that other company "Surefire" decided to exploit their excellent reputation and copied their name? Don't know about the truth, but according to everything I have read, it surely sounds logical.

Those lousy copycats. They just copy everything!


----------



## indychris (Apr 18, 2012)

Esko said:


> Hmm. Let's see if I got this right.
> 
> The original brand name was Superfire. But then that other company "Surefire" decided to exploit their excellent reputation and copied their name? Don't know about the truth, but according to everything I have read, it surely sounds logical.
> 
> Those lousy copycats. They just copy everything!



I was simply pondering. I don't know much about ExtremeBeam other than the fact that the name David Wilson of Utah shows up under patent applications for both ExtremeBeam and a company known as SuperFire as was revealed in this older CPF thread: http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...-flashlights&p=2508810&viewfull=1#post2508810

I notice that there are some 'tactical' style lights still available online under the name SuperFire and was just curious if these might happen to be the earlier version of lights now manufactured under the ExtremeBeam name.

I was simply curious if anyone was aware if the two are related as a David Wilson of Utah seems to be connected to both.


----------



## RedForest UK (Apr 18, 2012)

indychris said:


> ...the name David Wilson of Utah shows up under patent applications for both ExtremeBeam and a company known as SuperFire as was revealed in this older CPF thread: http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?189480-American-(USA)-made-flashlights&p=2508810&viewfull=1#post2508810
> 
> I notice that there are some 'tactical' style lights still available online under the name SuperFire and was just curious if these might happen to be the earlier version of lights now manufactured under the ExtremeBeam name.
> 
> I was simply curious if anyone was aware if the two are related as a David Wilson of Utah seems to be connected to both.



That is a very useful nugget of information.


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Apr 18, 2012)

RedForest UK said:


> That is a very useful nugget of information.



this guy on linked in 
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/c-david-wilson/44/250/1b7


----------



## Gryffin (Apr 18, 2012)

Zero connections. Not much of a "people person" I guess.


----------



## Chicago X (Apr 19, 2012)

Much thanks to member '_Aluminous_' for the info below:



Aluminous said:


> I've been following this thread and the 'Superfire mystery' posts... I thought I'd look into this, and here's what I've found from public records information. I don't claim conclusive knowledge of what this all means, but there are significant signs of a China connection, and I thought the results of this convoluted maze might be of interest.
> 
> The guy posts Superfire videos on Youtube as "TheBigCowboy": http://www.youtube.com/user/TheBigCowboy . The cowboy theme recurs elsewhere too.
> 
> ...


----------



## Got Lumens? (Apr 19, 2012)

Chicago X said:


> Much thanks to member '_Aluminous_' for the info below:


That's awsome! Thanks to Aluminous for the research :thumbsup:
Here's a little more about Extremebeam. They actually have five live Urls associated with there Extremebeam business. I won't list them, but I will share a little company info. Off of a Dubai site. According to this post there were actually two companies that joined forces, I am guessing that would be David and Anthony :shrug: Emails to Anthony have bounced, and the holding compnay went out of business. Come on guys, jump in with some facts, to save yourselves some bad publicity. I know your lights are manufactured in China, I know that you have changed your website at least twice since you first posted here on CPF to correct misinformation. 

*My appologies to Subwoofer*, your review has sparked quite the controversary 
GL


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Apr 19, 2012)

*.....

*


----------



## RedForest UK (Apr 19, 2012)

Wow, it does actually say that right there, from the horses mouth so to speak.

I am coming round to the idea that they are a design team/company who have been around for a while behind the scenes working with/in China (probably under the Superfire brand, working with the factory/workers responsible for the original Ultrafires) and quite possibly with a good deal of input into the original designs of many of these ultrafire etc lights. Many of the similar ones available on the market _now_ are clones of these and not as high quality. However. original ultrafires have been known to be of decent quality by more budget oriented members for quite a while and this seems to have been ignored/rebuffed by CPF moderators etc until they get a US front willing to pay some advertising fees, which to me seems a little dissapointing.

Anyway, some of their claims seem a little more reasonable now, maybe they have got a few of their lights used by the claimed military forces, but they can hardly claim to be first choice of them. Others are still downright laughable and wrong, such as being the world leaders/first choice/most durable out there, and the original '99% of all soldiers chose extremebeam over any other brand' (before it was slightly watered down) etc. They are better than I had originally worried, but way below what they claim (and may like to think).

I am still unsure as to some of their other lights, such as the one which is like the later clones of the Akoray K106. I do not understand how Akoray could have come out with a better quality fully programmable UI etc before them and then they release a similar light using the body exterior of the other cheaper _clones of_ the Akoray.. Maybe they do just outsource manufacture to the same factories they originally worked with but specify a bit higher quality finish e.g. square threads, o-rings etc, or maybe they are still actively involved in the design process of these lights using a factory which just happens to have very porous system for protection of their intellectual property.


But they said it right there themseleves, they have very high product margins (something I don't think any of us would be surprised about). If you look at what Surefire charges for lights and they themselves claim higher product margins then it does suggest a low build cost, whether that's indicative of the quality I will leave for others to judge, but what it means for value for money is somewhat self-evident.


I would still love to know what they meant by their 'patent pending plunger system' they were claiming followed by a link to their sales website in their first post here; after a member asked about a 'plunger like system which holds the batteries' (Nitecore's Piston Drive). I would like to know if they gave license to whoever made that post to just make it up completely to draw a new customer to their sales website, or if they do genuinely have a 'patent pending plunger system' and it was an honest mistake.. That could to me speak quite a lot about the morals of the company.


----------



## indychris (Apr 19, 2012)

_*Content removed by Greta

This is a review thread... we've already done the "witch hunt" thing.

Please stick to the review, gentlemen... ok?

Thanks... _


----------



## Chicago X (Apr 19, 2012)

indychris said:


> _*Content removed by Greta
> 
> This is a review thread... we've already done the "witch hunt" thing.
> 
> ...



Here's a quote from the thread I started to ask questions about the light:



Norm said:


> There are currently a couple of review threads in the review forum authored by subwoofer, reading those may be helpful, it also looks like a good place to ask some question.
> 
> Norm



Sorry , Norm. :shrug:

Here's the thread for discussion, I suppose: http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?336917-Any-ExtremeBeam-owners-care-to-chime-in


----------



## jwyj (Apr 20, 2012)

These flashlights body looks familiar so I went to my budget bin and found 2 which I bought a few years ago during my pre-cpf days.
I put in the 6PL for size comparism.  Seems like they are almost the same.


----------



## RedForest UK (Apr 20, 2012)

What are the threads like on those old Ultrafires? I wouldn't be surprised if they are the same, Superfire (probably now extremebeam) were apparently closely related to the _original _Ultrafire (probably same factory/manufacturing). Then there were disputes and break ups of the company and cloning etc, I think the original Ultrafire team re-branded as Trustfire and kept doing some OEM etc, but still there are cheaper, poorer quality clones under the same names too, which makes the whole thing more confusing when comparisons are asked for. For example, you could be comparing to a supposed 'clone' or a genuine clone of what they claim is also a 'clone' (but is probably actually the same light), with very different results.

This whole thread seems to highlight what has been known by many more budget minded for quite a while now, not all ***fires are crap. Many are clones in a dodgy market area and are of poor quality, but there are good quality originals out there which are well worth the asking prices and more. I think a forum should be dedicated to helping a prospective buyer to sort out the genuine sellers and quality pieces from these actual clones rather than just using branding heuristics to dismiss all lights that have a similar name entirely.

I am currently imagining four types of light.


1. Actual crappy clones. Cheap and poor quality. Disapproved of by CPF, probably rightly so, but they can have their place for limited uses on a tight budget.
2. Original Ultrafires/Trustfires and some other chinese brands. Quite cheap but decent quality. Long also disapproved of by CPF, in my opinion very unfairly.
3. Good quality mid-high range brands e.g. Fenix, Jetbeam. Mid-price, decent to high quality. Approved of by CPF, fair enough.
4. Top quality high range name brands e.g Surefire, HDS etc. Very high price, high quality. Strongly recommended by CPF but for many out of price range.


The whole Extremebeam issue has helped highlight these tiers of quality/price to me very clearly. They claim strongly to be in bracket 4 for quality, while charging prices of bracket 3, but are actually in bracket 2. There are clones of them (bracket 1), but their claims of being tier 4 and that tier 3 lights are also clones (they made some crazy claims in the first thread) are just silly. This just seems unfair and is the crux of the problem for me.

It has also served to highlight the perhaps slightly unfair generalisation of crappiness to the tier 2 lights in the above comparison, I'd like them to be given a little more chance for genuine reviews on CPF, as they are in some other places.


----------



## Racer (Apr 20, 2012)

For buying something off the internet, I use the same methodology whether it's a flashlight or power tools or pillow cases. 

1. User review rating - people who bought the product and felt strongly enough (good or bad) to do a review.

2. User review quantity - Obviously the more reviews there are, the more likely you are to be able to spot issues with the product or company.

That's pretty much it. If there's a problem with the product or even the company, you'll see it in the 500 reviews. Sometimes there's a flaw that runs common to a lot of comments, and you can look at the flaw and decide for yourself if it's a deal breaker. Like I bought a tent, a bunch of the reviews said it was hard to put up, but I bought it anyway.

For flashlights it's harder because the vendors are usually smaller shops and it's harder to track the general consensus about a product or brand. The only way you can get a feel for that with flashlights is to look at individual threads on a few sites like this one. If 100 people bought one and nobody is reporting any major problems, that's usually good enough for me. Then if I see people raving about their good experiences with returns and such, then that's icing on the cake.


----------



## Chicago X (Apr 20, 2012)

Racer said:


> 1. User review rating - people who bought the product and felt strongly enough (good or bad) to do a review.



I'm still looking for a single purchaser, both here and over at the CPFMP, for ANY input.

Until then, all we have are the sponsoring vendor's outrageous claims, and what amounts to a paid review.


----------



## shelm (Apr 20, 2012)

Chicago X said:


> and what amounts to a paid review.


+ 1

well said ChiX.
k = d


----------



## shelm (Apr 20, 2012)

oops double post


----------



## dc38 (Apr 21, 2012)

RedForest UK said:


> Wow, it does actually say that right there, from the horses mouth so to speak.
> 
> I am coming round to the idea that they are a design team/company who have been around for a while behind the scenes working with/in China (probably under the Superfire brand



That would actually explain alot! I used to have a superfire before I lost it at school about 5 years ago, I was deeply saddened. The superfire did seem to match the extremely aggressive knurling of the EB's, had a slightly slimmer profile than the UF wf501b,(the knockoff), and was a tad shorter from head to tail. The build quality was a type 3 anodizing vs the type 2 on the ultrafire that i bought to replace the superfire (the UF was NOWHERE even close to the quality of the "budget" Superfire) Not only that, I cannot seem to find superfires around anymore  Thank you for that little history lesson!


----------



## RedForest UK (Apr 21, 2012)

Chicago X said:


> I'm still looking for a single purchaser, both here and over at the CPFMP, for ANY input.
> 
> Until then, all we have are the sponsoring vendor's outrageous claims, and what amounts to a paid review.



Here are a couple of threads with responses from genuine owners of extremebeam lights:

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?327138-Extreme-Beam-xt8-pro-ranger

Then the OP of this thread is the same as the last poster from the above one.

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?327751-Fenix-TK-15-Maglite-x50-Extreme-beam-sx-21


Both users seem at least a little underwhelmed with what they got compared to extremebeam's claims.


----------



## vickers214 (Apr 21, 2012)

bottom link is dead, 330 meters is some claim, I have an XML U2 driven at 2.8 amp in a massive head that would only just to say put a tiny bit of light that far.


----------



## RedForest UK (Apr 21, 2012)

Wow, something must be going on there. It definitely worked when I quoted it and now it is certainly gone.

Here is a quote of the main comment (a reply from someone who bought a tac-24) from the first thread in case that one mysteriously disappears too: 



coconutz said:


> I unwittingly purchased their tac-24 a year ago and was very disappointed. They claimed it could throw 330 meters. It was obviously designed for throw as it had a small hotspot with mediocre spill. It was lucky to reach 220 yds as opposed to the claimed 330 meters. Supposedly, the light could also focus the spot with the twist of it's head. That feature was visually nonexistent. The tac had MSRP of over $300, however I was able to get it for around $170 (the xt8 can be had for $80). I'm sure you could find a light find a light that could putperform the tac-24 for under 80. Luckily, I was able to get a full refund for mine. I guess there is a reason why I've never found a review for any of the extreme beam lights.



The thread goes on for the OP to say that he already ordered an sx-21 and hopes it isn't as disappointing. The last post says he received it and the beam is good but 'time will tell' if he likes it.


In the next thread, which is now mysteriously gone, the same person says that he tested the sx-21 'when it got dark' (as can still be seen under the google search result) and was very disappointed. He said:



bassdawg said:


> My mag _x50_ has only 104 lumens but it blows away the _extreme beam_ . So now i have a Fenix TK 15 ordered to replace the Extreme .





If you search that quote it should still come up on google cache under the thread heading result. The OP meant the Maglite XL50 when he said the x50 by the way.


----------



## Chicago X (Apr 21, 2012)

RedForest UK said:


> Wow, something must be going on there. It definitely worked when I quoted it and now it is certainly gone.



That's not shady. Not at all.


----------



## RedForest UK (Apr 21, 2012)

Thanks to Norm for providing a new link to the second thread with the dead link, it appears that it wasn't completely removed, so the situation has become less mysterious (implying something dodgy going on  ) and more just confusing. Here it is anyway:

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?337145


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Apr 24, 2012)

peeps....

if you think the extremebeam deal is not settled, for whatever reason.....I still wanna see someone do a real
review so we can see... not the thicker bodies, but the electronics and materials inside, is it junk, same as ultrafire, or what ?


If no one steps up and tries for a more exhaustive side-by-side of extremebeam vs it's apparent clone, then subwoofer 
(this review) will end up getting my $100 bucks after 2012 ends....as the only reviewer who did anything (even though it 
doesn't meet the '100 dollar review' deal)

so, I am losing $100 bucks not matter what, but I'd rather not give it to _*this*_ review. I will though, if no one else steps up.


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Apr 24, 2012)

RedForest UK said:


> I don't understand why you are so open to giving away $100. If a review doesn't meet the criteria set then why give it the $100. I was under the impression that the $100 was for compensation for purchasing the light from extrembeam itself but some may not be comfortable giving them that much money anyway. I would do it but I can see just as many possible complaints about me doing a review from my own viewpoint as it is clearly not entirely impartial.
> 
> I would try contacting some well known reviewers who have a lot of reference lights to compare to, or people who often disassemble lights and report back. I would recommend contacting selfbuilt, HKJ, and people like ergotelis and vinhnguyen possibly. You could well find some very good reviewers over at BLF too who are technically minded and have good experience with budget lights qualities and deficiencies, after all most reviews over there already include comparisons to the cheaper ***fire lights anyway.



1) I never really said the 100 bucks is for any specific purpose, I said it is 100 bucks. do whatever you want with it
2) side by side review, I said
3) subwoofer asked, I said no...but to make sure I do not look like a chump [and there really is no
100 dollars], I am gonna man-up and send 100 bucks to 'someone', to prove I am not just a windbag

so if someone does it better and a review that generates less controversy (in other words public opinion
should be 'yeah it was a neutral un-biased review') that person gets the 100 bucks

if no one steps up, the 100 bucks has to go to someone or I am a lying b**ch, right ?

I am not funding anything, I just want someone with the skills and review skills to maybe
have some incentive to 'work on the extremebeam controversy' in a little more detail than 
a standard review, since extremebeam pumps 'a little bit more hype' into marketing


----------



## RedForest UK (Apr 24, 2012)

Ok, fair enough.

I would strongly recommend signing up to BLF and advertising it there as well though, you may well get a few takers and some good choice of who you feel is best qualified to do a 'teardown' of the light based on their previous reviews. You can then cross-post the review over here with confirmation that the $100 challenge has been accepted and paid out along with hopefully a very good insight into the build quality and performance differences between the extremebeam and the 'knock-offs'.

I also would have no issue with subwoofer doing the review himself, I just feel he would need to do a little more of a technical exploration of the internals of a light to justify earning the $100. Or even just doing it on the drop-in of the light covered in this review would be better than nothing, with pictures if possible and in comparison to the build quality of the 'generic R2' drop-in.


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Apr 24, 2012)

RedForest UK said:


> Ok, fair enough.
> 
> I would strongly recommend signing up to BLF and advertising it there as well though, you may well get a few takers and some good choice of who you feel is best qualified to do a 'teardown' of the light based on their previous reviews. You can then cross-post the review over here with confirmation that the $100 challenge has been accepted and paid out along with hopefully a very good insight into the build quality and performance differences between the extremebeam and the 'knock-offs'.



this is for current CPF members and reviewers only, I will post nothing on any other forum about it


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Aug 6, 2012)

upon further review, careful consideration and thought, this doesn't qualify, no 100 bucks
for this review.


----------



## markeday (Sep 14, 2013)

Hey Subwoofer,I see that the xt8 takes the p60 ,bear with my stupidity are all p60 modules the same size?I'm getting this light next I'm putting the edc triple in this baby for close up inspection,with the right angle adapter this thing will be perfect.And what about colored lenses is there an adaptor for pop on or screw in lenses?


----------



## subwoofer (Sep 15, 2013)

markeday said:


> Hey Subwoofer,I see that the xt8 takes the p60 ,bear with my stupidity are all p60 modules the same size?I'm getting this light next I'm putting the edc triple in this baby for close up inspection,with the right angle adapter this thing will be perfect.And what about colored lenses is there an adaptor for pop on or screw in lenses?



P60 modules all being the same size - well supposedly, P60 is a standard size, but there are a few exceptions about whether or not a spring is included and some modules not fitting in some hosts.

Regarding the XT8, all the modules I have including some incan bulbs fit well, but I don't have some of the more specialised modules, so cannot confirm 100% compatibility. Any P60 should fit, but some might not.

I think Extremebeam do pop-on coloured lenses, but you could also fit an actual coloured (or UV P60) module.


----------



## markeday (Sep 15, 2013)

I see that edc sells a spring for a buck because you need it in solar force hosts to.Thanks again for the info I'll check it out


----------



## TMedina (Oct 10, 2013)

Does the right angle piece match the threading for a Solarforce bezel and battery tube?


----------



## subwoofer (Oct 11, 2013)

TMedina said:


> Does the right angle piece match the threading for a Solarforce bezel and battery tube?



If you look at the photos of the threads in the review you will see they are very chunky square-cut threads. I don't have a Solarforce light to check, but I would doubt very much that Solarforce use these heavy duty threads.


----------

