# Milkyspit ML-1 vs. Surefire L-1 (old) & L-1 (new)



## Flashdark (Oct 21, 2006)

I have long promised a more exhaustive review on the Surefire L-1 series as well as a comparison to the Milkyspit ML-1 version of this light. Here it is – finally!

*Manufacturer:* *Updated 10/23/06 16:20 P.M. CDT Updates in Blue*

L-1 (old) Surefire

L-1 (new) Surefire

ML-1 Milkyspit

*Cost:*

L-1 (old) $125

L-1 (new) $115-135

ML-1 $180 Complete (includes shipping).
ML-1 $80 Your light modified (includes shipping).

*Lumen Output:*

L-1 (old) .7 low / 15 high

L-1 (new) 1.1 low / 22 high 

ML-1 ~1.5 low / ~45-60 high, depending on emitter and driver chosen.

*Type of Beam:*

L-1 (old) Flood, with a minor hotspot. An F04 improves it.

L-1 (new) Pencil-beam with no spill. Designed for distance only. An F04 is required for any spill result!

ML-1 Hotspot with good, surrounding spill. An F04 improves the flood aspect of the beam. Good distance with good spill.

*Optics / Head:* 

L-1 (old) NX05 optic. No reflector.

L-1 (new) TIR-focused optic. No reflector. All of the extra length found in this light is the result of the new, longer head.

ML-1 Customer-selected emitter set in a (recommended) McR18 reflector. The L-1 (old) head is used as a shell for this build.

*Head Versatility:* 

L-1 (old) Can be used on the L-1 (old or new), as well as an E1e. 1-2 lumens of output can be expected on the E1e platform.

L-1 (new) Can be used on the L-1 (old or new), as well as an E1e. 3-5 lumens of output can be expected on the E1e platform.

ML-1 Can be used on the L-1 (old or new), as well as an E1e. 8-10 lumens of output can be expected on the E1e platform. *I need to expand upon the options available for this build. Although I alluded to the possible choices in the following paragraph (Beam Quality - Overall), I did not do this subject justice the first time around. I have just ordered my 2nd ML-1 from Milky and this time I specified maximum runtime on the ML-1 platform, as well as maximum lumen output when transferring to an alternate E1e platform. I told him that I would accept any tint mandated by these parameters as well as a 3-5 lumen penalty on the ML-1 output. As long as you are willing to "color within the lines" that limit compliance with such a request, almost any combination is possible. This is the beauty of a custom-build!!! I can't wait to see what he comes up with this time!!!!*

*Beam Quality - Overall:* 

L-1 (old) Poor. Frequently has a purple tint. Older, “Luxeon lottery” for tint and power.

L-1 (new) Tight, square beam with rounded corners. Has a distant, thin halo that functions only as an irritant. However, we are now a generation downstream and there has been a quantum improvement in the “power-output” and “tint” consistency.

ML-1 Gorgeous! Emitters are hand-picked all the way for power, tint, runtime, and quality. Not used unless perfect!! Customer gets to pick color temperature and beam characteristics!! I have the LuxIII “TYAH” emitter in a McR18 reflector. No “Luxeon-lottery” here my friends! WOW!! Head and shoulders, the most useful and pleasant beam overall.

*Beam Quality (at a distance):* 

L-1 (old) Minimal. Primarily designed for short-range flood.

L-1 (new) Excellent. Pure throw. Concentrated "pencil-beam" designed for this purpose only.

ML-1 Excellent. 85% +/- of the L-1 (new) throw, with excellent accompanying spill. (You don’t really miss the 15% +/-.) 

*Beam Usefulness on "LOW":* 

L-1 (old) Perfect power output level for close work or puttering around when eyes are fully night-adapted. Other than this, you always seem to want more light, and as a result, tend to engage “high” mode wastefully.

L-1 (new) Brighter than the L-1 (old). When you also consider the concentrated beam, it seems twice as bright on low. If you have always wanted more light out of the L-1 on “low”, you now have it. Bright enough so that it is beginning to be a little too bright for fully, night-adapted eyes. An F04 is needed for spill and to "soften things up".

ML-1 With an F04 attached to the ML-1, you have a less-concentrated hotspot than with the L-1 (new)/F04 combination. Even so, as a result of the increased output of the ML-1, and the fact that the F04 gives the ML-1 beam twice the flood angle of the L-1 (new), it seems twice as bright as the L-1 (new). Beautiful spill with the F04 filter attached! About as good as you are going to get I think. Night-adaptation suffers more substantially, but practicality goes way up! For an additional fee, Milky informs me that a resistor can be put in the tail cap to lower the lumen output in the "low" setting, if night-vision is critical.

*Beam Usefulness on "HIGH"*: 

L-1 (old) Almost identical to a KL-1 (older version). Slightly more than an L2 on “low”. All flood, short-range.

L-1 (new) All throw, no spill. Excellent result, but, useless without an F04 for versatility and flood/spill at shorter ranges. Noticeably brighter than the L-1 (old).

ML-1 This is the way the L-1 should have been in the first place!! Original KL-1 flood characteristics with an F04 attached. Great distance capability without the F04, and a beautiful beam overall! At least twice the lumen output overall of the L-1 (new)! It needs to be used at a distance, without the F04, to truly appreciate the power output. It is now my primary EDC, period. If anybody can beat this, I want to see it!!!

*Size Comparison:* 

L-1 (old) E2e size. Shorter than the L4. Just about right for normal hands.

L-1 (new) ½” too long for a single-cell light. In my opinion, it is just about the maximum tolerable length for an EDC light. Maybe, too long. The additional length is all in the head. The bodies are identical in length.

ML-1 Identical with the L-1 (old) because it IS an L-1 (old) body and head.

*Strength Comparison:* 

L-1 (old) Four flat sides at the 90’ points. Very thin body wall at these points. 99% of the time, this will not be a problem. Milky informs me that "there's a bulkhead built into the body at roughly the center point... this adds substantially to the body's strength. As for the flats, the sidewall is roughly 1mm in thickness at its thinnest point."

L-1 (new) The thickest body with the greatest strength. Putting the L-1 (old) head or the ML-1 head on an L-1 (new) body will give you the light with the greatest strength if this, for whatever reason, is an important consideration for you. 

ML-1 Milky uses the L-1 (old) body, which I prefer because of the feel, but, like the L-1 (old), it is not as strong as the L-1 (new). Milky informs me that "there's a bulkhead built into the body at roughly the center point... this adds substantially to the body's strength. As for the flats, the sidewall is roughly 1mm in thickness at its thinnest point."

*Electronics:* *The electronics in the body capsules are identical on all three lights.*

*Parts Interchangeability:* *All parts interchangeable on all three lights – bodies, heads, tail caps, clips. *

*Feel:* 

L-1 (old) The four flat sides of the body make it drop just right into the pads of your fingers.

L-1 (new) It feels bigger because the flat sides around the battery location are missing. It carries the full diameter all the way down the light. As a result, it feels uncomfortably bulkier. Stronger yes, but it just feels more cumbersome. A small (but irritating) point on a light that is already too damn big for a “single-cell”.

ML-1 The four flat sides of the body make it drop just right into the pads of your fingers.

*Runtimes: (low) Normal* operations in all respects until: (Then, "low" begins to dim.) 

L-1 (old) 153 hours.

L-1 (new) 90 hours.

ML-1 70 hours. Three tests were run with identical results! 

*Runtimes: (low)* Low output falls to *moon-mode* at:

L-1 (old) 160 hours.

L-1 (new) 118 hours. The last request for “high” probably caused the fall to moon-mode.

ML-1 113-130 hours. Results are from three different tests. Takes longer to dim down to moon-mode than the Surefire lights (from 70 hours to 113 hours). Milky’s emitter efficiency?

*Runtimes: (low)* some low-power, moon-mode output, but full-power *"high"* was *still available,* on demand, until: 

L-1 (old) 197 hours. (functional, although “high” mode was occasionally somewhat cantankerous).

L-1 (new) 118 hours. 

ML-1 120+ hours on tests #2 & #3. (Test #1 was 170 hours! It should be noted that after about 170 hours, moon-mode was so dim that it was difficult to even read your watch.)

*Runtimes: (low)* *death* certificate signed at: 

L-1 (old) 208 hours.

L-1 (new) 168-176 hours. (I was asleep when the light died sometime during the night.)

ML-1 140-170 hours on tests #2 & #3. (Test #1 was 268+ hours?!) As an aside, it should be noted that after about 170 hours, moon- mode was so dim as to be ineffective.

*Runtimes: (high)* 

L-1 (old) 6(?) hours. (Regarded as improbable by some, but untested. Frankly, I think that it would. Inefficient or not, it is only pulling 15 lumens in "high".)

L-1 (new) 4.5+ hours observed. (Note: Aspersions were cast upon the legitimacy of the runtime-estimate parentage, and thus, a full test was run.) Test #1 - Perceptible dimming was evident before the 2-hour point. At 2+20, the dimming was substantial, with output about 10-12 lumens, dropping down to about 2 lumens by 3+00. At 3+45, still holding at about 1.5 lumens output, when I turned the light off, it never turned back on. However, if I had waited long enough, it apparently would have. Test #2 yielded the same results as Test #1, only this time, I waited until 4+35 before I turned the light off. When I tried to turn the light back on, it took 4 minutes to re-light, but it DID re-light! When I tried the same thing at the 5+00 point, it took 17 minutes to re-light!! Do you see the pattern here? The lower the battery voltage, the longer the time it takes to re-light, if ever. I let the light run to the 6+00 point where it was still putting out about .6-.7 lumens. At this point, I terminated the test, but this battery voltage/re-light phenomenon merits further investigation. 

ML-1 4.5(++?) hours observed. 2+ hours before perceptible dimming on test #1 & #2. Perceptible dimming was evident at about 2+20, dropping down to about 3 lumens by 3+00. Test #2 ran at about 2 lumens until the 4+30 hour point. When I then turned the light off, it never turned back on. Whether it would have or not if I had been patient, I do not know. *My gut instinct is that, if I had just left it alone, this light would have gone to the 5+30 hour point or longer before the output became useless. OUTSTANDING! Especially considering the power output!* The ML-1 holds it's incredible, maximum output-power (2-3 times more than the new L-1) about 25% longer than the new L-1. 

*A Runtime Observation:!!!*

It is becoming increasing clear that there is an interesting and possibly detrimental characteristic in many "regulated LED" lights. When batteries are approaching exhaustion, if you turn the light off, there may not be enough voltage left in the batteries to "re-fire" the LED, and the light just won't turn back on!! I know that this is highly variable from light-to-light based on the regulation circuit employed (and I guess the internal resistance, or some such thing), but it should be a consideration in your testing if you are going to bet your life on the light. The L-1 regulation circuit is one of those lights where this is a factor. Therefore, *when approaching the end of the battery life, don't turn the thing off unless you can afford to have the thing fail to turn back on!!!* Apparently, the time that it takes to re-light (if it is going to re-light at all) is directly proportional to the battery voltage available. The lower the battery voltage, the longer the time it takes to re-light, if ever.


*Overall Evaluation:*


L-1 (old) Technologically out-of-date. Throw it in the “hurricane bag” and get a better light. Excellent for runtime only, with night-adapted eyes. For any other purpose, it has been superseded. 

L-1 (new) An excellent light if you do not have the money for a Milkyspit mod. You must have an F04 on the front of it to have a practical light. Good enough for use as a primary EDC. A fine light with some limitations. A big improvement over the L-1 (old) in terms of power, tint, and the added distance capability.

*ML-1 Hands down, the best light of the bunch. Surefire parts and quality, double the power (or more), guaranteed results, selectable result, better runtime than you have any right to expect, considering the power output, an EDC “religious experience”! Amen Milky! No contest here at all. Sorry Surefire. Apologies to P.K., but you need to buy a Milkyspit ML-1 and duplicate it. He is a generation ahead of you in performance. (A definitive note: If you look carefully at the runtimes, you will realize that the ML-1 is, in almost every case, as good and sometimes better than the new L-1, which has 1/3-1/2 of the ML-1 power output. In addition, the ML-1 holds it's maximum output about 25% longer than the new L-1! Incredible!!) Granted, I chose the LuxIII TYAH emitter partly to achieve this end result, but still..... It is now my primary EDC, period. If anybody can beat this, I want to see it!!!*


*P.S.* I do not know *Milkyspit* at all. He answered a blind post query about improving a Surefire L-1 and I decided to give him a try. I now have three of his creations (an ML-1 and 2 MilkMites), and plan to purchase at least three more (tentatively, an M180/KL-2, an X500/M3, and an X700+/KT-4) - all custom, site-unseen work based on his word and reputation for quality and results. So far, he has left me speechless with everything that he has created. He builds exactly what you ask for, so make sure you ask for what you want. He guarantees his work. His product has, so far, been *an order of magnitude better* than anything currently available for purchase from a standard manufacturer, including Surefire. *That, ladies and gentlemen, is indeed saying something*! Until something changes, I plan to let him build all of my lights. I have finally learned that, in general, it is faster, and cheaper to have something built exactly the way you want it than to fruitlessly spend money trying to find it. We all have an idea of what we would like to have. The trick, as I see it, is to find someone who is capable of actually building it right the first time and guaranteeing the results. I think that I have. 


Thanks for listening,
Flashdark sends, satisfied.


----------



## Flea Bag (Oct 21, 2006)

Wow! I've saved your review to my CPU because it's so comprehensive especially with regards to the runtime descriptions!

Thank you for the excellent contribution!


----------



## dizzy (Oct 21, 2006)

Flashdark, stop beating around the bush and tell us how you really feel about your ML-1.:lolsign:

Excellent review of all the lights. I fully intend to have Milky do some mods to my L1 and L2 when I figure out which way I want to go with them.


----------



## Flashdark (Oct 21, 2006)

dizzy said:


> Flashdark, stop beating around the bush and tell us how you really feel about your ML-1.:lolsign:


 
I LIKE IT !! OK?
 
 
Flashdark sends.


----------



## milkyspit (Oct 21, 2006)

Flashdark, looks like you figured out how to transfer your review from Word? Sorry I wasn't able to offer more help... been playing musical sick person here in the Milky house lately! oo:

Some minor corrections, your original text italicized, mine boldface... I don't think they materially change your review, but in the interest of correctness you might want to update...

_ML-1 $180 Complete
ML-1 $80 Your light modded
_
*Those prices include shipping... the actual prices are $175 and $75, respectively.
*
_ML-1 Can only be used on an L-1 platform (old or new).
_
*Actually, can be used in the same situations where any other L-1 head could be used, including the E1e. Could also be direct driven from a single RCR123 Li-ion cell on an E1e or similar for short periods of time.
*
_[Low beam] Night-adaptation suffers more substantially, but practicality goes way up!
_
*Tailcap resistance could be changed for an optional fee to make the low beam dimmer if desired.
* 
_ML-1 Milky uses the L-1 (old) body, which I prefer because of the feel, but, like the L-1 (old), it is not as strong as the L-1 (new).
_
 *FWIW, there's a bulkhead built into the body at roughly the center point... this adds substantially to the body's strength. As for the flats, the sidewall is roughly 1mm in thickness at its thinnest point.
* 
_[Runtime on high] __L-1 (old) 6(?) hours.
_ 
*There's no way the high beam of the old-style L-1 will last 4 hours... current draw from the 123 cell is higher than it is for the ML-1.
*
_[Runtime on high] __L-1 (new) 4 hours. (Surefire publication)
_ 
 *This sounds highly suspicious. If the circuitry is the same in all three lights, then this runtime should be no longer than the ML-1.
* 
BTW, many thanks for an incredibly detailed review! You obviously spent a lot of time putting it together. Kudos Flashdark!
:bow: :bow: :bow:


----------



## Flashdark (Oct 21, 2006)

*Scott,*

I corrected a couple of the entries. Sorry, I was thinking about your MilkMites when I discussed head versatility. I also should have noted that the prices include shipping. As far as the tail cap resistor goes, I personally would not find it desirable to lose the increased brightness on "low". I think it is great. It is one of the things that makes your light so appealing to me. However, I added a comment about an optional tail cap resistor to reduce the lumen output if desired. I also added a comment about the strength of the old L-1 body. I didn't know about the central bulkhead. As far as runtimes go, I had to defer to the published claims about the runtime in "high". I sent the only L-1 (old) head that I had left to you, so I couldn't test that one. I did however cast doubt upon it's veracity. As far as the L-1 (new) head goes, if your head runs for 4+ hours total @ 45-60 lumens, I could certainly believe that Surefire's would @ 22 lumens, as they claim. A confirming runtime test is now underway. *If these corrections are acceptable, I will change to "black" and chisel it in stone for "cut and paste" quote by you.*

Thanks Scott,
Flashdark sends.


----------



## milkyspit (Oct 21, 2006)

Flashdark, the corrections seem fine. Chisel away!


----------



## toyopet (Oct 21, 2006)

Flashdark said:


> ML-1 ~1.5 low / ~45-60 high, depending on emitter and driver chosen.


Flashdark, what is the driver that the user can choose to achieve 45-60 lumens on high? Are you refering to the Vf of the emitter's bin code?


----------



## Flashdark (Oct 21, 2006)

*Oops, Double post. Sorry.*


----------



## Flashdark (Oct 21, 2006)

*toyopet,*

Beats me. I'm technologically challanged! I wouldn't know a driver from a 9-iron, but I can tell you that I have the LuxIII TYAH emitter. You will have to ask Milky on his "ML-1 Information" thread on the "Homemade & Modified" forum. I can verify 45 lumens at least. It becomes pretty obvious when I remove the F04 and go for "distance". I have trouble estimating whether or not I indeed put out a full 60 lumens, but it wouldn't surprise me. It has almost the same throw as the 22-lumen L-1 but with a spill that is at least 3 times as wide. If that is the measure, it does indeed put out 60 lumens.

Hope this helps,
Flashdark sends.


----------



## :)> (Oct 21, 2006)

Flashdark,

Try baking it in the oven for awhile to see if it warms up:lolsign:

Your review makes me want one of these real bad but I have just spent many dollars on another light so I guess I will have to wait. 

-Goatee


----------



## Flashdark (Oct 21, 2006)

*Goat,*

Welcome back! The oven is warming up. This is one you need to seriously consider. The head also transfers to the E1e platform in case the L-1 regulator system goes down. On the E1e, it will put out about 10-12 lumens. So now we have two heads that will do this. The L1-RD (old), which will run at full power on the E1e because of it's low Vf, and Milky's ML-1-WH (only 10-12 lumens but it beats the heck out of the two Surefire L-1 heads). Great versatility when things start to break. 

Flashdark sends.


----------



## :)> (Oct 21, 2006)

I'm in a real weak state of mind right now when it comes to buying lights and I need to rest before making the purchase. Your review is just so very compelling.

I can't believe the amount of money that I have spent on this stuff

-Goatee


----------



## Flashdark (Oct 21, 2006)

*Goat,*

I know what you mean. If I ever sold my collection, I could pay off my house.

Flashdark sends, *impoverished.*


----------



## Nebula (Oct 21, 2006)

Flashdark - Thanks for an excellent review. I purchased the Milky L1 after reading the consistently positive comments on the light and on Milky's work. While I am extremely happy with the ML-1, I have to add that I could not be more pleased with Scott's craftsmanship, professionalism, and dedication to building exceptional products. I too plan to send him more money - and in the very near future! Kirk K.


----------



## alantch (Oct 22, 2006)

Flashdark - thanks for the excellent and detailed review. Like Nebula, I got an ML-1 from Scott based purely on all the positive comments that I could gather in CPF about his work. I also have the newer version of the L1 btw, and on comparing the beam, spill and throw characteristics between the two, I knew that the ML-1 was better - but by how much? Until your review comes along! Thank you very much for the effort. Link to thread saved.


----------



## Flashdark (Oct 22, 2006)

*nebula & alantch,*

You are most welcome gentlemen. I will probably fine-tune this post over time. I want to experiment more with this battery voltage/re-light phenomenon, and re-visit the runtimes for the ML-1.

Flashdark sends.


----------



## alantch (Oct 23, 2006)

I thought I'd contribute to this thread by way of some beam shots, so today, with some time to spare, I took the opportunity to take some low and high beam shots of the ML-1 and the L-1 (new). All are taken with the same exposure settings. It can be seen that the ML-1 blows away the L-1 (new) in terms of spill and total output in both low and high modes. ML-1 is with UX0J. 






L-1 (new) Low beam





ML-1 Low beam. Same exposure to show difference in beam intensity. Considerably more spill then L-1 (new), but does not show here.





L-1 (new) High beam. Absence of spill - all throw. Squarish beam profile. Notice the faint outer ring.





ML-1 High beam. Nice!





Left L-1 (new); Right ML-1. Both on high beam


----------



## marxs (Oct 23, 2006)

wow that is a pretty big improvement. ive been waiting for someone to post beamshots, i like pictures.


----------



## milkyspit (Oct 23, 2006)

*Alan, WOW!* to the difference. I have both lights (of course) and have seen this in real life, but still your photos bring things into perspective in a way that even going back and forth between the lights cannot.


Also, *WOW!* on the photography! Me, I'm beamshot challenged. Thanks so much for your very welcome addition to the Milky L1 infobase! 

:bow: :bow:


----------



## Chronos (Oct 23, 2006)

alantch said:


> I thought I'd contribute to this thread by way of some beam shots...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


GREAT shots! This is exactly what I saw with my Milky L1. I had both the late-model LuxIII TIROS L1 head and the ML1 modded head. 

The ML1 head had a wonderfully useful beam without resorting to the F04 beamshaper. The Milky L1 gave me a nice throw and spill and far more lumens than the stock L1 head.


----------



## milkyspit (Oct 23, 2006)

P.S. I'm going to link your photos into the *Milky L1 Information Thread*, Alan. If that's a problem please PM me and I'll remove them.


----------



## alantch (Oct 23, 2006)

Milky, you're most welcomed. Glad I can make a useful contribution for a change. Been a lurker most of the time here


----------



## jdriller (Oct 23, 2006)

SF should hire Milky to make the L1.


----------



## Flashdark (Oct 23, 2006)

*alantch,*

Thank you very, very much for the beamshots. The only camera that I own is a "Brownie Box" camera from 1950, so I sure couldn't take them! This is exactly what we needed to finish things up. Your beamshots elegantly *prove* every point that I *tried* to make in the text of the review; but as others said, a picture says it all. The side-by-side "high" beam comparison makes my point. The power output of the ML-1 is stunning! When you finally realize that you have in your hand a G2/C2/M2-P60, the size of an E1e, that will run for up to 170 hours, you begin to appreciate what Milky has done. I sure do. *That's why I just bought a second one. This time, I asked Milky for "maximum runtime on the ML-1 platform, coupled with maximum power output when transfered to an E1e platform, coupled with a nice white TWOH tint, if possible." Naturally, for Milky, this was possible, and my light is now finished and ready to ship!!*

*Go Milky! Go Milky! Go Milky!*
Flashdark sends, (hoarse from cheering!).


----------



## MSaxatilus (Oct 24, 2006)

> SF should hire Milky to make the L1.


 
..... in addition, isn't the above referenced beamshots enough to prove that the knucklehead over at Surefire that thinks optics are better than reflectors should loose his job?

I hate optics. :eeew: 

I second JDriller's comments. :goodjob:


----------



## Blindasabat (Oct 24, 2006)

MSaxatilus said:


> ..... in addition, isn't the above referenced beamshots enough to prove that the knucklehead over at Surefire that thinks optics are better than reflectors should loose his job?
> 
> I hate optics.



To be fair, there are many good uses for the tiros optics. I keep one in the car so I don't light up the interior when I shine it out the passenger or rear window. I use my stock L1 (new) as the perfect light on low for illuminating the sidewalk or street while jogging at night without alerting everyone to my presence. Spill can be bad, and an F04 can change the tiros beam, while no $10 attachment focuses a reflector.


----------



## Archangel (Oct 24, 2006)

MSaxatilus said:


> ..... in addition, isn't the above referenced beamshots enough to prove that the knucklehead over at Surefire that thinks optics are better than reflectors should lose his job?


Hardly. Give the Surefire L1 the output of the ML-1 and things will be a bit different.


----------



## milkyspit (Oct 24, 2006)

*Bat, *I think MSaxatilus was expressing his opinion... strongly worded, yes, but still just his personal opinion on optics vs. reflectors. There are many who share his viewpoint on optics.

I also realize anything I say here will look like it's biased toward the ML1, which is my creation, and I can do nothing about that. Just wanted to offer some thoughts on the matter. I certainly wouldn't beat up MSax too much about what he posted. I could be mistaken but don't think it was meant as an indictment of the TIROS optic in general regardless of user or purpose. MSax hates optics. Period.

I also don't think we should turn the obvious effort that Flashdark put into writing a comprehensive review into a debate of reflectors vs. optics. That's best done elsewhere. As this thread stands, it's IMHO a great writeup that can help introduce folks who have never seen an ML1, old L1, or new L1 to the nuances of each. That, again IMHO, is a great asset to this forum!
:bow:

As far as the TIROS optic itself, I have mixed feelings. I appreciate the engineering that must have gone into making something with such a concentrated beam and so little sidespill... and yet I do find the multi-colored ringy artifacts to be a step backward in many respects from the beam quality we'd been seeing progressively improve from the earliest days of the low dome Luxeon up to the present, where we can enjoy numerous choices of nicely-tinted emitters coupled with exceptional reflectors (and even a few optics... the large-diameter Fraen optics come to mind) that maximize on those emitters' strengths.

My personal speculation, with nothing to back it up, is that SureFire created the TIROS in response to a request from the military... in military and LEO use in particular there is a tactical advantage to putting a beam on a subject while keeping the periphery around him dark. This gives the light wielder a clear tactical advantage. In civilian use the advantage is less clear, but SureFire isn't trying to be all things to all people... they design tools, and for the most part those tools work very well for the intended purpose. As with even the best tools of all sorts, though, they aren't of much value when used for the wrong purposes. (How many screwdrivers have punctured the lids of paint cans while being used as openers? How many wood chisels have been chipped when pressed into service as pry bars?)

Guess that's all I've got to say. Not sure if it was of much value, but hopefully it'll be useful for a couple people at least.



Blindasabat said:


> To be fair, there are many good uses for the tiros optics. I keep one in the car so I don't light up the interior when I shine it out the passenger or rear window. I use my stock L1 (new) as the perfect light on low for illuminating the sidewalk or street while jogging at night without alerting everyone to my presence. Spill can be bad, and an F04 can change the tiros beam, while no $10 attachment focuses a reflector.


----------



## milkyspit (Oct 24, 2006)

Archangel, I'm not sure of the situation with the TIROS version of the L1 but I have done some poking around with the KL1 gen4 (TIROS) and earlier. Along with introduction of the TIROS, SureFire rebiased the gen4 to drive at 50% higher current output. That may or may not be the case with the L1 old and new... but it is entirely possible that the TIROS *is* pushing the same or even more output. Remember, the TIROS hotspot is 10-15% more intense than the ML1 according to Flashdark, and runtime for the L1 new-style is shorter than that of the ML1. Also remember that even the best optic will cause about a 10% reduction in output. Put all this together and the TIROS may indeed be the beneficiary of the same or greater output. Maybe the phrasing could have been more tactful, but MSax does have a point hidden in there!


----------



## Archangel (Oct 24, 2006)

(smirk) You make it sound like Blindasabat and i were ganging up on him...


----------



## milkyspit (Oct 24, 2006)

No conspiracy theories here guys. Just trying to nip a potential trouble spot in the bud. It might also have been a contributing factor to my mood that I had three teeny tiny little boys screaming their lungs out because they didn't want to go to bed, at the time I was posting... oo:


----------



## Chronos (Oct 24, 2006)

LOL, Just look at what an optic did for my desired beam quality with the Chronoster. I'll have to take better beamshot pics once things settle down around here. It is an AMAZING beam, ideal for trekking around at night. No tunnel vision/moon here. Just a very controlled, somewhat shaped ram of light.


----------



## slaps (Oct 25, 2006)

I love my ML-1 with SV1H emitter and delrin tailcap. For me it's the perfect EDC light. My Fenix L1T isn't bad, but it doesn't even come to matching my Milky.


----------



## Blindasabat (Oct 26, 2006)

Milky,
I thought I was being tactful and being clear it was my opinion when I said "To be fair..." just to give a balance to the optic versus reflector discussion and a dose of objective facts about how the TIR can be used and I use almost every day. I agree with everything you said, I have no hard feelings either way, but I don't think there is reason to hate any light (unless it bit you) just a preference. Nobody has to buy what they don't want. I'm sure MSaxatilus and I would have a good time debating light bending devices over a cold drink.:touche:

That said...

*Great review* and comparison Flashdark! Thanks for all your work and excellent write-up. I have been on the fence about an ML1 for a while and this review may have just pushed me over the edge to make my first light purchase in a while. 
<edit> I did decide to get an ML1 and have been enjoying it for a couple of days. Great light! Nice size (only ~10mm shorter than the L1, but noticeable) and two good useable light levels.


----------



## wasBlinded (Nov 7, 2006)

I'm trying to figure out why this light induces such breathless praise! I can see that it is at least a gen 3 L1 with upgraded Lux3 and McR18 reflector - both very worthy upgrades. Is there anything else? Has the boost circuit of the L1 been changed?

I'm not knocking the Milky L1. Even if the handpicked emitter and reflector are the only substantial changes, it is a reasonable value given parts cost and labor involved, but I am curious.:candle:


----------



## Blindasabat (Nov 7, 2006)

I guess I wouldn't praise it breathlessly (I'd take a breath), but it is a good solid high end light.
It has almost all the desires of most people covered: bright, two easily accessible useable levels, good tint (custom picked U-bins actually), nice beam, simple to operate 2-stage momentary switch, single cell, tough HA, SF quality, and not least of all, the backing of an active CPF member in Milkyspit. It is noticeably shorter and lighter than the current L1 too.
I feel it's a light you can pick it up any time, any where, and it will meet your needs. 



wasBlinded said:


> I'm trying to figure out why this light induces such breathless praise! I can see that it is at least a gen 3 L1 with upgraded Lux3 and McR18 reflector - both very worthy upgrades. Is there anything else? Has the boost circuit of the L1 been changed?
> 
> I'm not knocking the Milky L1. Even if the handpicked emitter and reflector are the only substantial changes, it is a reasonable value given parts cost and labor involved, but I am curious.


----------



## Flashdark (Nov 10, 2006)

*wasBlinded,*

Having thought about it, and played with the ML-1 for a long time, I guess that it is just so pleasing to so many of us that a potentially great light has *finally* "made the grade". This is all due to very long and hard work on Milky's part, over a long period of time. "Low" is now *far* more practical, "high" has doubled or tripled in power output, all with a beam that is now beautifully balanced for throw + spill, because it is now "reflectored". On top of it all, the customer gets to pick the result (within certain limits). Long runtime or power, more power when transfered to an E1e platform or less, creamy white beam or cool blue. And all of this with no "luxeon lottery", guaranteed results, Surefire parts, and quality assembly. (In case you are not too familiar with the "mod market", there are some pretty grim chopshops out there). This product is a long-term, "labor-of-love" for Milky and it shows. I have just purchased my second ML-1 and will probably get several more. I recently showed this light to a friend of mine and he instantly came to the conclusion that this was the "Holy Grail" for a practical, portable "EDC". Incidently, he knows nothing about flashlights. His reactions were instinctive. With the continuing problem of "unbalanced "Pairs" and "Triples" when changing batteries, the single-battery light is immune. Hopefully, some of these thoughts may help. Just the ramblings of a satisfied neophyte.

Flashdark sends.

P.S. Milky, I think that I may be sending a new ML-1 customer to you in the near future.


----------



## wasBlinded (Nov 11, 2006)

I agree that from what people say it is a great light after the mods. I will say that putting in a McR18 and a premium bin Luxeon is pretty simple to do (I've done it to my L1) and it did not take me much time. Parts alone for this mod would run about $35.

You are saying it has twice or thrice the output, which makes me wonder if there have been changes to the circuit? If the brightness increase is simply due to an LED change, then a doubling of output on high is pretty unlikely and would not be a typical result.

I'm certainly not critical of Milkyspit or the value of the ML-1, he is making lots of people happy and does some excellent work that I too have benefitted from in the past.


----------



## milkyspit (Nov 11, 2006)

wasBlinded said:


> I agree that from what people say it is a great light after the mods. I will say that putting in a McR18 and a premium bin Luxeon is pretty simple to do (I've done it to my L1) and it did not take me much time. Parts alone for this mod would run about $35.
> 
> You are saying it has twice or thrice the output, which makes me wonder if there have been changes to the circuit? If the brightness increase is simply due to an LED change, then a doubling of output on high is pretty unlikely and would not be a typical result.
> 
> I'm certainly not critical of Milkyspit or the value of the ML-1, he is making lots of people happy and does some excellent work that I too have benefitted from in the past.




*WasBlinded, *what are you trying to do to me!?!

:laughing:

I've been watching this thread for a while for my own educational benefit, seeing what others said about the value of the Milky L1. Mind you, I'm a user as well as the builder! Love mine and am just as much an evangelist as the other folks who thankfully share my personal view on the value of this light. I really would have liked to see SureFire go more in this direction than the one they chose to take with TIROS optic, narrow beam profile, artifacts, lack of sidespill, etc. Admittedly that's personal preference, and apparently the view of some others, too.
:shrug:

I've never made much of a secret of what I do with the Milky L1... if you were to go through my past posts here and elsewhere you'd find pretty much all the answers. That said, some notes on the build in no particular order... and just to mention, I really don't like to dissect the value of a build, much prefer that the customer tells ME if it's a good value or not... buuuut...

The circuit itself remains stock. That also means everything other than the head itself retains SureFire's lifetime warranty, which I think is a pretty good benefit to have. 

As for the head itself, it's a total rebuild... better heatsinking, better emitter, better optics (well, REFLECTOR in place of optic), and a lot of care in assembly. This last part IMHO makes all the difference!

Now looking at values, let's assign a fair market value of $125 to the new L1 even though SureFire says we should only be able to buy them at retail price, which is $135. Let's also pretend you located an old-style L1 on somebody's shelf, managed to open the new-style L1 head without damage, or had a spare old-style head gathering dust in a drawer. Then we'll add the parts cost at your $35 estimate. That puts the total cost for a DIY mod at $160... and it's a $160 with a lot of assumptions, plus the additional assumption that everything goes perfectly.

Meanwhile, *the Milky L1 currently costs $169 *(has come down a few dollars from the original build price due to finding some improved pricing on components, and passing the savings along to the customer)... so you're essentially paying me $9 to build the light for you, and I get to collect all the parts, disassemble the stock light, clean all the parts, rebuild everything, and make no mistakes whatsoever... then test all the above, which incidentally doesn't always pass, meaning more work for me. Please forgive my rudeness here, but I think I've earned my $9! Sorry if that comes off a little strong.

But wait, there's more. 

If you went the DIY route, you would be counting on the reflector you bought to be perfect and that single emitter you bought to be an above average performer. These aren't IMHO very rational assumptions. The difference for me is that I'm not buying one emitter but rather 20, 30, 50... in each of several bins! Then for any given Milky L1 build I'll hand test between 6 and 12 of those to choose the best one given understanding of the L1 circuit's performance, the customer's tint preference, etc... and that hand testing comes after I've ALREADY hand tested ALL the emitters to determine Vf and identify outperformers... and no, they don't all do so well... there have even been times in the past when I haven't built ANY Milky L1s because I didn't think ANY emitter I had on hand was good enough. I try to keep the standards particularly high on this build.

The L1 circuit is a strange animal and one I've spent 2+ years learning about... that's a LOT of time invested in learning... time for which the customer benefits, and a big reason the Milky L1 performs as well as it does. It's not a simple emitter swap, it's about pairing the RIGHT emitter with the circuit to make everything function well as a SYSTEM. Was just reading a post by Newbie that touched on similar things last night... strange coincidence!

Yes, the right emitter will indeed double the output of an L1 and even increase the runtime. Why? Lots of reasons, but among them, the replacement emitter is likely to be higher-flux, therefore more lumens for the same input power... also more lumens per watt and therefore better runtime... the synergy between circuit and emitter can make a big difference, too, so the output boost will be more than the flux increase alone would suggest... and remember, the emitters going into a Milky L1 are ALL OUTPERFORMERS, which also boosts the output beyond what one might expect. I've done ceiling bounce A-B tests with new L1, old L1, and Milky L1, and the ML1 does indeed beat both... others have done similar tests with the same results.

Hmm... probably rambled long enough! If anyone actually got this far, much appreciated, and hope I didn't bore you! 

Hope this helps!


----------



## EricMack (Nov 11, 2006)

Ya know, these little two sentence, vague answer posts are really getting under my skin! How 'bout some details, Milky? :nana:  


 
EM


----------



## wasBlinded (Nov 11, 2006)

Thanks, Scott. Thats exactly the kind of information I was looking for.

I'm certainly not trying to do anything to you - this is after all a light review thread, where the value of the light, its performance, and modifications are subjects of interest. Your many satisfied customers speak volumes about the light too.

Thanks!


----------



## nuggett (Nov 12, 2006)

After playing with mine at the beach tonight, I was at first dissappointed it was no brighter than my wifes 1x123 huntlight LED  I could sense her smug grin :nana: until I changed out batts, then marital harmony returned. :hahaha: :kiss: :kiss: The spent cell tested at ZERO on the ZTS !
No register at all! 
The more I use the ML1, the more respect I have for it. Excellent runtime BTW. I use it without concern about the batterys life. Whats even better, is the bezel from the E2d fits! How cool is that! Dont have an "O" ring though. What size ring does it take? Any sources?


----------



## nuggett (Nov 12, 2006)

"how cool is that!!!"


----------



## milkyspit (Nov 12, 2006)

Say, that's very cool looking! Didn't see that one coming!


----------



## jlowe2 (Nov 25, 2006)

well you sold me on have my l-1 modded by milkyspit!


----------



## Flashdark (Nov 25, 2006)

*jlowe2,*

You won't be sorry. I'm thinking about buying my third one.

Flashdark sends,
Flashdark spends.


----------



## milkyspit (Nov 30, 2006)

jlowe2 said:


> well you sold me on have my l-1 modded by milkyspit!



Jlowe2, given all the craziness with CPF lately, wanted to make sure I knew where you were at with your L1 mod... could you PM me or send email over here?


----------



## Ralls (Dec 12, 2006)

I feel like I need to chime in here. I have the exact model as the one tested, an ML1 with TYAH Lux III. I also had a stock new-style L1 that I sold to get the ML1. The ML1 beats it hands down and is much more versatile. I've owned a fair number of lights in my quest to find the perfect light and I believe that I have found it in the ML1. I don't have a lot of money to spend on lights, so I try to do a lot of research before I purchase a light and Flashdark did an excellent job in his review for anybody considering a purchase of this light. 

I am a pilot and I was looking for a light that I could use for the aircraft preflight as well as in the cockpit at night. I have to be honest and say that the ML1 has a very nice useful low output, but it can sometimes still be too bright for night adapted eyes, so I bought a red filter and it's perfect now. I feel though that if the low were any lower that it wouldn't be as versatile as it is, and as was stated in the review, Milky can put a resistor in the tailcap to achieve a lower low.

I love the fact that this light only requires one 123 battery and that it has such a long runtime, even on high, for only requiring a single cell. I have had this light for about three months now and I have only gone through about three cells. I always replace the cell once I lose high output, but this is a great light for any emergency situation, as you will not be left in the dark. I could probably get more time out of my cells, but I have to confess that I still have fun playing with the light because I love it so much.

I was seriously considering a Surefire A2 after reading so many rave reviews about it--a friend has one and it is an amazing light, but I feel like the ML1 suits my needs better. The cons of the A2 for me were the fact that it requires two cells, only lasts for an hour on high, the bulb will eventually need to be replaced and they're not cheap, and the A2 is longer than the ML1. I am not knocking the A2, though, because if I could afford one I would. But for those considering an A2, the price is about the same.

The L1 is such a fine platform to improve upon. It's not the smallest light, but I find the old-style L1 to be just the right size for my hand and even my pocket. It is built like a tank and the mechanical two-stage switch is the epitome of perfection. Surefire's customer service has been good to me, as well. I asked for some replacement o-rings and they sent me two replacement sets. I also need to get a replacement lanyard ring and I'm sure that it will not be a problem.

My hat is off to Milky for such a gem and I love to champion such a fine product.


----------



## MarNav1 (May 30, 2007)

I agree with the above post and now the L1 can be made even better with a Seoul mod. Just got mine back a few weeks ago and I can't say enough good
about it. I'm going to have him do another and they will replace alot of other
lights.


----------



## Braddah_Bill (Jun 5, 2007)

Just checking in as another VERY satisfied ML1 customer....hands down the ML1 is an awesome light.


Flashdark, I took your beam shots changed the JPEGs to GIFs and animated it to give them a different perspective.







Bill


----------



## ensile (Jun 16, 2007)

is there a thread on milky's "menu" for the kl1 ? i'd like to know what emitters + drivers are offered and tint, all in all i'm not fussy just wanted to see what kind of runtimes/brightness can be chosen. cheers.


----------



## milkyspit (Jun 16, 2007)

ensile said:


> is there a thread on milky's "menu" for the kl1 ? i'd like to know what emitters + drivers are offered and tint, all in all i'm not fussy just wanted to see what kind of runtimes/brightness can be chosen. cheers.



Ensile, the menu changes from time to time based on parts availability... best to PM me with what you want and I can offer the best match(es) and pricing... barring that, you can send me email here...






The 'official' Milky L1 thread is over here: *Milky L1 Info Thread*


----------



## Quickbeam (Jun 17, 2007)

One of the things about ordering an ML1 is that you no longer have the original to do a side-by-side beamshot comparison. However, the old style KL1 produces almost exactly the same amount of light (just slightly more) as the old L1 on high, and has the same beam pattern. I have ordered a ML1 with Seoul P4 and when it comes in I'll take a side-by-side shot with the ML1, KL1 (as old L1 substitute), and 2nd gen L1 and post it here.


----------

