# Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+



## selfbuilt (Mar 2, 2014)

*Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*

*Warning: even more pic heavy than usual. *















Thrunite has sent me their updated 1xXM-L2, 3x18650 "thrower" light, now known as the TN32. The likely reason for the new model number is the significant internal build differences from the old TN31 that I reviewed previously. 

Let's see how it compares … 

*Manufacturer Reported Specifications:* 
(note: as always, these are simply what the manufacturer provides – scroll down to see my actual testing results).


LED: Cree XM-L2 U2 LED
Max 1702 lumen output using 3 * 18650 batteries
Level 1: 0.6 lm/80 days; Level 2: 21 lm/7 days; Level 3: 307 lm/11.5 hours; Level 4: 709 lm/4 hours; Level 5: 1132 lm/2 hours; Level 6: 1702 lm/1.5 hours; Strobe: 2 hours.
Working voltage: 8V-13V.
Max Runtime: 2000 hours
Max beam distance: 979 meters
Peak beam intensity: 240,000cd
Impact resistant: 1.2 meters.
Waterproof to IPX-8 standard, 2M.
Dimensions: 201.70mm length, 79mm bezel diameter.
Weight: 650g (without batteries)
Copper circuit provides better heat dissipation performance
Improved UI for more lumens
Ultra-clear tempered glass lens with anti-reflective coating.
Reverse polarity protection design
Momentary forward click tactical switch.
Strobe mode for tactical and emergency use.
Smooth reflector for max light output. 
Highly focused beam for maximum distance
Tactical knurling for firm grip.
Aircraft grade aluminum body.
Streamlined body design.
Mechanical reversed polarity protection design for battery carrier.
Intelligent highly efficient circuit board design for max performance and long run time.
Specially designed for Military, Law Enforcement, Self-defense, Hunting, Search & Rescue and Outdoor activities.
Intelligent temperature controlled light output for user safety.
Include accessories: Holster, Lanyard, User's Manual, Warranty card, extra o-ring.
MSRP: $180














Packaging has been updated slightly, but is generally not that different. The TN32 still comes in a presentation case, with metal hinges and closing clasps. Inside are the light, belt pouch, wrist lanyard, manual, warranty card, and extra o-rings and spare boot cover. 













From left to right: AW Protected 18650 2200mAh; Thrunite TN32, TN31; Niwalker Vostro BK-FA01; L3 Illumination X40; Fenix TK51. 

All dimensions directly measured, and given with no batteries installed (unless indicated):

*Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2)*: Weight: 655.9g (808g with 3x18650), Length: 201mm, Width (bezel): 79.0mm
*Thrunite TN31 (XM-L)*: Weight: 572g (est 724g with 3x18650), Length: 203mm, Width (bezel): 79.0mm 
*ArmyTek Barracuda (XM-L2)*: Weight 400.8g, Length 264mm, Width (bezel): 64.0mm 
*Eagletac MX25L2 Turbo (SBT-70)*:Weight: 698.6g (with battery pack: 974.1g), Length: 292mm, Width (bezel): 91.3mm
*Niwalker BK-FA01 (XM-L2)*: Weight: 682.3g (864g with 4x18650), Length: 209mm, Width (bezel): 80.0mm, Width (tailcap): 50.3mm
*Olight SR95S-UT (SBT-70):* Weight: 1,208g (with battery pack), Length: 323mm, Width (bezel): 87mm
*Olight SR95-UT (SBT-90):* Weight: 1,221g (with battery pack), Length: 323mm, Width (bezel): 87mm
*Skilhunt K30-GT (SBT-90):* Weight: 635.9g (773g with 3x18650), Length: 199m, Width (bezel): 76.0mm

As you can see, weight has increased on the TN32, without appreciable changes in the dimensions (compared to the TN31).














As before, overall anodizing is a glossy black. Quality seems very good as always, there were no chips or damage on my sample. Labels were sharp and bright white against the black background. Knurling is fairly aggressive on the handle, helping with grip. 

One difference I noticed - screw threads are no longer anodized for head lock-out. I suspect this change has to do with the new brass heatsink module in the head (see discussion below). Threads are standard triangular cut, but seem of good quality.

The control ring feels much like before, with detents for the various defined modes (and cut-out indentations on the ring itself, to help with grip). The main external change to the light is the base of the head – rather than regular black anodized aluminum, there is now a smooth, shiny, chrome-plated brass heatsink. Labels for the control ring indicator arrow are now on this chrome-plated area, as shown below. 














As before, the six constant output modes are not individually labeled, but there is a graded output bar pictogram over the first couple of levels (i.e., shows the direction to turn to raise or lower the output). Scroll down to my User Interface and Standby Drain sections for a discussion of how the light works.

While the chrome-plating provides a bit of bling, the real difference to the light is the brass underneath. Encasing the emitter and circuit housing, this should provide for much better thermal transfer (allowing for higher drive levels, and thus higher maximum output). It likely also explains the much greater weight of the TN32 over the TN31.  Note that Thrunite also reports use of copper in the circuit design as well now (for improved heat transfer).

As an aside, the TN31 was a very popular build for modders here, who could provide a custom light engine with improved heatsinking. The TN32 may thus be seen as an attempt to turn a mass-produced light into something of a "hot-rod" model by default. :devil:

Let's look at the carrier:






















As before, there is a metal battery carrier that holds 3x 18650 cells. While the carrier has been updated slightly, it still looks and functions much as it did before. The three cells are in series (i.e., 3s1p). The positive contact plates remain slightly raised, so all types of 18650 cells should work fine (i.e., true flat-tops, wide and small button-tops). Longer cells may be a bit tight, but my protected 3100mAh cells all fit. The carrier can be inserted either orientation into the handle. Note that particularly wide cells may be a tight fit into the handle. 






There is a double set of springs in the base, in addition to the spring in the head. The double-set of springs in the tail is a tip-off that something interesting is going on with the tail-switch and the battery carrier. 

The light can tailstand stably, and the tailcap cut-outs facilitate access to the switch (style of the cut-outs has been updated somewhat). Switch is the same sort of forward clicky switch as before. But as with the TN31, the switch is a little more complicated than typical. Here is a pic of the switch internals, from my original TN31 review:






As you can see, there is a circuit along with the forward clicky switch (TN31 shown above, but TN32 should look comparable). As you can imagine, the full current of this heavily-driven light on Max would wreak havoc with a traditional clicky switch in no time. The purpose of the circuit is to provide an assist to the switch, cushioning the load on it. The dual springs in the tail are how it draws power from the battery carrier, irrespective of the head. Scroll down to my Standby Drain section for more info about what this means in terms of current drain.














The new XM-L2 emitter was well-centered at the base of a very large and deep reflector on my TN32. The reflector looks even deeper than the original TN31. : ooo: Smooth finish as before, this should provide outstanding throw (given the higher drive level on max on the TN32). There is a good quality anti-glare coating on the lens. The light also has a scalloped stainless steel aluminum bezel ring, as before. 

Scroll down for beamshots. :wave:

*User Interface*

Turn the light off/on by the tailcap clicky – press for momentary, press and release (i.e., click) for constant on. 

Change output modes by turning the control ring in the head. Arranged clockwise (i.e., turning from left-to-right with flashlight held in front of you), the modes are level 1 (moonlight) > level 2 > level 3 > level 4 > level 5 > level 6 (max) > standby > tactical strobe. 

No light is produced on standby, but a small current will be drawn to allow the circuit to respond to a ring turn (see below). 

*Video*: 

For more information on the overall build and user interface of the final shipping BK-FA-series, please see my video overview:



Videos were recorded in 720p, but YouTube typically defaults to 360p. Once the video is running, you can click on the configuration settings icon and select the higher 480p to 720p options. You can also run full-screen. 

As with all my videos, I recommend you have annotations turned on. I commonly update the commentary with additional information or clarifications before publicly releasing the video.

*PWM/Strobe*

There is no sign of PWM on any level – I believe the light is current-controlled. 






As before, strobe is an oscillating frequency strobe, switching between 6.4Hz and 14.7Hz on my sample. Each frequency lasts for about 2/3 of a sec. Here is a blow-up of each strobe frequency individually:










There is a bit of a ramp-up to the peak strobe output, but it is not something you could see in practice. Strobe is quite blazingly fast to the eye.

*Standby Drain*

There are actually two types of current drain you need to consider here.

Due to the electronic ring control in the head, the TN32 will be drawing a small current when in the "standby" detent with the tailcap switch is clicked on. 
I have measured this current as 90uA ion my TN32. Since the cells are arranged in series, for 2600mAh 18650s that that would translate into 3.3 years before the cells would be fully drained. This is quite reasonable for a standby circuit current. And in any case, this current can easily be cut by turning the light off at the tailcap switch. 

But due to the switch assist design, there is a secondary circuit in the tailcap that has its own standby drain when a battery carrier is connected. You don't often see physical clicky switches in these sorts of high-powered lights, likely due to their inability to handle the typical current flows. In this case, the physical forward clicky is connected to its own circuit that presumably provides some sort of assist to the switch, modifying the load on it. This means that whenever the battery carrier is loaded with cells and in contact to the tailswitch, a miniscule current will be drawn. I have not measured it at the circuit leads, but I know HKJ reported 20-50uA for the TN31 switch. I presume it is somewhat comparable here, and similarly not a concern (i.e., would take up to a decade to fully drain 18650 cells). Note that to break this current, you would need to actually remove the carrier from the handle.

Either way, these drains are not at all a concern. 

*Beamshots:*

And now, what you have all been waiting for.  All lights are on their standard battery, or AW protected 18650 2200mAh for the multi-18650 lights. Lights are about ~0.75 meter from a white wall (with the camera ~1.25 meters back from the wall). Automatic white balance on the camera, to minimize tint differences. 





























































Obviously, it's hard to tell much at such ridiculously close distances.  The most obvious observation is that the TN32 certainly has a very focused hotspot, with high intensity. To tell more, we are going to have to go out to further distances ... 

Unfortunately, we are still in a middle of a deep freeze here in my part of Canada, with several feet of snow on the ground. As such, outdoor shots would be meaningless (think of snow as equal parts ground-level diffuser and a massive reflector to get the general idea of why outdoor beamshots won't work). 

So for now, you will have to make do with some indoor shots in my basement. For your reference, the back of the couch is about 7 feet away (~2.3m) from the opening of the light, and the far wall is about 18 feet away (~5.9m). Below I am showing a couple of exposures, to allow you to better compare hotspot and spill. 

Let's see how the TN32 compares to a original TN31, and my more recent 1xXM-L2 throw champ, the Niwalker BK-FA01.






















I've done a lot of exposures above so that you can directly compare. The TN32 is clearly the new throw king in this class, with a more focused and brighter hotspot at these distances. This will translate into great total throw distance.

Oh, and you can also tell that the TN32 is brighter overall than the other lights. I can easily say that this is the most heavily driven XM-L2 light I've seen (in stock form). :wave:

*UPDATE May 17, 2014*: Weather conditions have finally improved enough to start taking outdoor beamshots around here. To start, here is a comparison of the TN35 to the TN32 (XM-L2) and Eagletac SX25L3. 

As always, these are done in the style of my earlier 100-yard round-up review. Please see that thread for a discussion of the topography (i.e. the road dips in the distance, to better show you the corona in the mid-ground). 



















Please note that the color balance of the MT-G2 shots are a little off, as I had automatic white balancing on (i.e., they are not consistent to the adjustment used for the cool white emitters).

The TN32 has an impressive amount of overall output and throw, for a single XM-L2-equipped light. oo: You can see the greater output compared to the stock Fenix TK61 (as well as compared to the Thrunite Catapult V5, although it is closer). Definitely a top stock XM-L2 light. :thumbsup:

In terms of the TN35 comparison, the MT-G2 emitter does indeed provide much more of a "wall of light" effect, thanks to the larger emitter. But the deep reflector of the TN32/TN35 build still allows the TN35 to reach out to a good distance (i.e., as compared to the SX25L3, which is obviously struggling at that same distance). 

*Testing Method:* 

All my output numbers are relative for my home-made light box setup, as described on my flashlightreviews.ca website. You can directly compare all my relative output values from different reviews - i.e. an output value of "10" in one graph is the same as "10" in another. All runtimes are done under a cooling fan, except for any extended run Lo/Min modes (i.e. >12 hours) which are done without cooling.

I have devised a method for converting my lightbox relative output values (ROV) to estimated Lumens. See my How to convert Selfbuilt's Lightbox values to Lumens thread for more info. 

*Throw/Output Summary Chart:*

My summary tables are reported in a manner consistent with the ANSI FL-1 standard for flashlight testing. Please see http://www.flashlightreviews.ca/FL1.htm for a discussion, and a description of all the terms used in these tables. Effective July 2012, I have updated all my Peak Intensity/Beam Distance measures with a NIST-certified Extech EA31 lightmeter (orange highlights).






Output has indeed increased from the TN31 – I would estimate it as ~1650 lumens in my setup. And as the beamshots suggested, the TN32 out-throws every other single XM-L2 light I've tested. :bow: It even rivals lights built around the SBT-90 emitter. 

My directly measured ANSI FL-1 Peak Intensity of 191,000cd may seem a little low considering the 240,000cd spec, but it's not as far off as you might imagine. First off, it's really more appropriate to compare throwers by ANSI FL-1 Beam Distance. In that sense, the difference between the 980m spec and my 874m is only 11% lower. Given all the variation in circuits, emitters, and precise focusing of the reflector, that difference isn't so unreasonable.

Something else to keep in mind is _when_ exactly you need to measure. The ANSI FL-1 standards of Peak Intensity and Peak Distance are based on the highest measure taken during 30secs to 2mins post-activation. Here is a breakdown of what I directly measured on my NIST-certified light meter, working back from a 10m distance, taken at 15 sec intervals (shown as min:sec below). Batteries are three Redilast 2600mAh (Sanyo cells), charged to ~4.21V to start.

0:15 - 194,000cd
0:30 - 191,000cd
0:45 - 188,500cd
1:00 - 188,000cd 
1:15 - 174,500cd
1:30 - 175,000cd
1:45 - 174,500cd
2:00 – 174,000cd

As you can tell, output (as indicated by throw) drops somewhat over the first minute, but then drops to a more consistent level once step-down occurs between 1:00 and 1:15 mins post-activation (see below for more info). I didn't measure directly at initial activation, but I presume that would have been pretty close to ~200,000cd on my sample. But by the ANSI FL-1 standard, throw for my sample is 191,000cd.

Here is a breakdown of the estimated lumen values for both the TN31 and TN32 in my testing:






As you can see, the reported output and throw specs from Thrunite seem remarkably consistent with my testing. I suspect Thrunite did indeed get these tested in a properly-calibrated integrating sphere. :thumbsup:

Step-down occurs on L6 after 70 secs of runtime. 

As with the TN31, the lowest output of my sample is slightly lower than 0.6 lumens in my testing. I would estimate around 0.2 lumens in fact.

*Output/Runtime Graphs:*

Let's start with a comparison of the top four output modes:






Nothing very surprising – you get excellent flat regulation on all levels. :thumbsup:

Note that all my runtimes are done under a cooling fan. It is therefore reasonable to consider what would happen with no cooling (although I suggest the cramped corner of my office is not representational of the wider world). For this test, I attached a thermal probe to the middle of the chrome-plate heatsink base for concurrent measures. 






Note for this run I converted my relative output measures to estimated lumens, to allow you to better compare output changes over time (left y-axis above). The right y-axis is the surface temperature in degrees centigrade (celcius), for the non-cooled run. It is hard to put those numbers in context since I don't usually measure temp, but subjectively I can tell you the light gets quite hot.

As you can see, the lack of cooling caused a small drop in output over time - but nothing you could ever see visually. This did result in marginally longer runtime, of course.

As always, take my lumen estimates with a grain of salt - they are based on a calibration of my lightbox to ceiling bounce values of other heavy output lights of known calibrated lumens. But they do seem consistent with Thrunite specs.

Let's see how the TN32 stacks up against the original TN31, and "thrower" style XM-L2 lights.










The TN32's L6 mode is brighter than the old TN31 – in fact, the old TN31 L6 is comparable to the new TN32 L5, and the TN31 L5 is comparable to the new TN32 L4 (as you saw in the output table summary). The new TN32 definitely runs for longer than the old TN31, at comparable output.

It's a bit hard to compare the TN32 to most of the other lights, since they are typically 2x18650. But the TN32 certainly seem to be an efficiency champ, with incredibly long relative runtimes. :thumbsup:

Let's see how it does against the larger 3x/4x18650 lights:














As you would expect, at the highest level, the 1xXM-L2 TN32 can't really compete with the multi-emitter lights (for either output or runtime). But it surprisingly holds its own quite well at the lower levels, even against some of the 4x18650 lights. Overall efficiency is thus again quite impressive for this class.

*Potential Issues*

Due to the electronic control ring in the head, the light has a stand-by current when in "Stand By" mode. But this current is very low (90uA), and will not be problem for regular use. You can break this current by clicking the tailswitch off.

There is a second standby current due a circuit in the tail to assist the physical switch. The tail circuit draws its power directly from the battery carrier, irrespective to the state of the head (i.e., the purpose of those dual springs in the tail). The current draw is miniscule, and has been measured by others in the low uA range (i.e., would take many years to fully drain the cells). The only way to break it is to remove the battery carrier from the handle, however.

You can no longer lock the light out at the head (to prevent accidental activation)

Only 3x 318650 Li-ion cells may be used in the light (i.e., doesn't support multiple CR123A primary cells)

Light uses a battery carrier, and very long or wide cells may be a bit tight. But all cells I tested worked in the carrier, including protected flat-top cells.

*Preliminary Observations*

The TN32 is a worthy upgrade to the TN31. Building on the considerable success of that earlier model, Thrunite has increased both output and throw, making the TN32 the furthest throwing 1xXM-L2 in my collection at the moment (in stock form). :bow:

Physically, the main difference from the TN31 is the new brass heatsink for the circuit housing (which you can see by its chrome-plate experior). This obviously allows Thrunite to drive the TN32's XM-L2 emitter to higher levels. The impressively deep reflector on the TN31 seems to be even slightly longer now. 

As before, output/runtime performance was excellent for the TN32, with its the current-control circuitry providing outstanding runtimes at all levels tested. Stabilization was quite good as before, with perfectly flat regulation on all levels (after a minor step-down on max). :thumbsup: As with the TN31, the TN32 drops to a low moonlight level once the batteries reach the end of their runs.

I was always a fan of the control ring interface on this model, and I'm glad to see Thrunite has left that unchanged (except for increasing most of the output levels, of course). The ring has clear and firm detents, and the output levels are well spaced. 

The battery carrier has had a few minor updates, but is largely unchanged. Same for the physical clicky switch for on/off. It is rare to see an actual physical clicky switch on these sorts of high-powered lights – the TN-series models accomplish this by a bit of boost-assist circuitry. The standby current draw remains tiny. 

The TN31 quickly became a popular substrate for modders, who swapped out its guts and improved thermal conductivity. By incorporating a brass heatsink right into the new TN32 design, Thrunte is basically giving you a partial custom redesign of its own model. For those looking for maximum throw and output from a single XM-L2 emitter – in a stock form light – I think the TN32 is the answer for now. :wave:

----

TN32 provided by Thrunite for review.


----------



## Ryp (Mar 2, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*

Thanks for the review! Will you be reviewing the TK61?


----------



## blackFFM (Mar 2, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*

Is is really copper or brass under the chrome plating?


----------



## Capolini (Mar 2, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*

Thanks SB,,,,,,,,Great review as always! This is one of my best stock lights and the best stock light in terms of throw!!

The first one had a slight glitch! Emitter fried after 5 uses,,,,,,,,,,so far the replacement works well! :thumbsup:


----------



## selfbuilt (Mar 2, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*



Ryp said:


> Thanks for the review! Will you be reviewing the TK61?


I haven't heard anything about it yet.



blackFFM said:


> Is is really copper or brass under the chrome plating?


Ooops, sorry about that - yes, the heatsink is indeed brass (fixed in the review). The addition of copper is in the circuit itself.


----------



## BWX (Mar 2, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*

Wow!








Nice review too.


----------



## RemcoM (Mar 3, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*

So, now i know not to buy the TN32, because, where is the promised 240000 kcd?

Only 190000 kcd?

I really hate it, that many times flashlights cannot reach their specifications of cd, and throw.

May i ask, WHY IS THAT???

When i read and see that the TN32 gives 240000 kcd, and almost 1000 meters of throw, then i WANT real 240000 kcd, and REAL 1000 meters of ansi, 0,25 cd limit.

And not a light that have much less than that.

Please explain.


----------



## selfbuilt (Mar 3, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*



RemcoM said:


> May i ask, WHY IS THAT???


Because the spec is just a single number (presumably an average), with no indication of the natural variation between samples.

As I mentioned in the review, there is going to be variation between circuits, emitters, and the precise focusing of the reflector between individual samples (which, collectively, could be substantial). Moreover, as lights get increasingly "throwy" with large reflectors, it stands to reason that variation on the last point will increase significantly. The reason for this is that the tolerances for building a light don't change - but a tiny micrometer difference in the precise focusing of the reflector could be detectable in a heavy thrower, whereas it is isn't for a typical light with a small reflector. The problem is that we are never given any indication of what the expected level of typical variation is for any class of light - the ANSI FL-1 standard doesn't require one (but it sure would be nice if it did). 

My sample is ~20% below "average" spec for Beam Intensity, and ~11% below "average" spec for Beam Distance. Personally, I consider Beam Distance a better measure to compare ultimate throw between lights, since it standardized for a specific light-level-on-target (and is linearly scalable, if you want to choose a different intensity). But either way, the _only_ question is what should you expect as a typical variation range for these measures between samples. For that, you would have to get a lot of measures from different samples, all tested under consistent ANSI FL-1 standard conditions with calibrated light meters. 

You can thus consider my results here as adding a single data point to that ultimate compilation. In the meantime, without hard data on the natural variation of samples, it's hard to know what to typically expect. My personal impression - from having tested a lot of lights - is that the deviation of my one TN32 sample from spec is actually within a reasonable variation range for really heavy throwers. But we can't know that sure until a more extensive data set is compiled. :shrug:

As an aside, subjectively, I think you would have a hard time telling the difference between my sample and one that was perfectly on spec (i.e., a 20% difference in the raw lux in the spot of two lights at a specific distance is going to be very hard to see). I realize that conclusion may surprise a lot of people, but the evidence is quite clear - our relative sensory perceptions are all very skewed. For a non-point-source of light (such as a hotspot at a distance), modern psychometric research points to a cube-root power relationship for human intensity perception. That means that a ~20% true difference in lux at a given distance would _seem_ like a ~7% difference to a human oberserver. Practically, it is next to impossible to consistently spot that kind of difference.

Please understand that I am not trying to "defend" any manufacturer with the above comments. My main point is that we do not know what the natural variation between samples is, without more data being compiled (although my intuitive sense from personal experience is that this sample is not necesarily unreasonable for expected variation). The secondary point above is that the obective measures that ANSI FL-1 beam testing provide do not match actual relative human perception in use for output or intesity. These two points are very different things, and I am simply expounding further on both so that people can a better idea of what to reasonably expect from any given light.



RemcoM said:


> Please explain.



Since I don't want this to become a protracted discussion on statistical principles and psychometric perceptual norms, here are some links for further reading on those topics:

Stats primer with an overview on variation, among other things. Although written from a psych stats perspective, the concepts are generally applicable.

Stevens' Power Law for the relationships between perceived intensity of sensory stimuli.


----------



## Ernst from Germany (Mar 3, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*

Thank You for the Review.I am an owner of the Thrunite TN 32 since last Fryday.Your Review says to me ,that my choice is right.190000kcd instead off 240000kcd is no problem for me.
This torch ist very good and I hope for some Beamshots from your beam route.
Best Greeting from Hannover


----------



## selfbuilt (Mar 3, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*



Ernst from Germany said:


> Thank You for the Review.I am an owner of the Thrunite TN 32 since last Fryday.Your Review says to me ,that my choice is right.190000kcd instead off 240000kcd is no problem for me.
> This torch ist very good and I hope for some Beamshots from your beam route.


Yes, it is currently the highest throwing 1xXM-L2 light in my collection. It's pretty impressive to see the change from the TN31 (i.e., ~45% more ANSI FL-1 output on my sample, with ~70% more ANSI FL-1 Peak Intensity). 

I do plan to update this review come spring, when I can take some outdoor beamshots at my usual location. Should give a good indication of the throw difference from the TN31.


----------



## hikingman (Mar 3, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*

It is too bad there isn't some "standardized" test created for so-called throwers at, say, 50 to 300 yards which would show the differences between lights of just the hotspot and corona areas of the beam (and evenness of intensity of that area). The emphasis instead is on something rather silly - moonlight intensity way beyond our effective eyesight range, probably even with most common binoculars. The "targets" are going to be small out there at 600 to 1,000 yards and dimly lit.

And spill beam differences are also important, sometimes in ways one doesn't think of. For example, fog or damp air, which is common where I live, adds light scatter which interferes with the effectiveness of the hotspot. So a thrower with "tight" hot spot and less spill "functions" better in my local air.

Another useful aspect of the TN32, just as with the TN31, is an Olight SR91 Diffuser will slip over the front and produce some very effective wide area lighting. Makes my TN31 quite versatile.

Dave


----------



## selfbuilt (Mar 4, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*



hikingman said:


> It is too bad there isn't some "standardized" test created for so-called throwers at, say, 50 to 300 yards which would show the differences between lights of just the hotspot and corona areas of the beam (and evenness of intensity of that area).


Yes, that would be very helpful - but practically difficult to arrange. It is certainly true that trying to understand a beam from just two measures (i.e., overall output and peak center beam intensity) is like trying to understand what an elephant looks like by simply taking its weight and staring at a pimple on its behind with a telescope.  Those measurest tell you nothing about the overall shape of the beam, and how it changes over its light cone - which is really what most of us would like to know.

This is why I do standardized beamshots, but even they are also only so useful. Since the dynamic range of a camera is limited, you have to take a lot of exposures at different settings - and even then, it doesn't match all the adaptations that go on inside our visual and nervous systems. 

So, in my case, I like to do my one set of outdoor shots at a standardized location and setting (since there are bushes on the side of the road to help show off spill, as well as the target at 100 yards). But even the much-decried indoor "white wall shots" are actually valuable for _relative_ comparison purposes. Since I keep them standard across reviews, if you find a set of mine for a light that you have, you can get a pretty a good indication of how some other light I tested compares, in _relative_ terms. Of course, if you don't have any of the lights for comparison purposes, they are somewhat limited in the info they impart.

I've long thought some sort of standardized measurement of beam intensity across the whole beam arc (at a high number of angles) would be interesting ... but time-consuming to do, and likely having its own comparison biases.



> The emphasis instead is on something rather silly - moonlight intensity way beyond our effective eyesight range, probably even with most common binoculars. The "targets" are going to be small out there at 600 to 1,000 yards and dimly lit.


Agreed, the _absolute _distance to 0.25 lux (aka "moonlight") is indeed useless for heavy throwers - as our ability to discrimate things decreases rapidly with distance. But the principle of a "beam distance" calculation to a specified lux is valuable as a relative comparison aid. And since the converstion takes into account the inverse square relationship of how light decays with distance, the _relative_ deam distance differences between lights are linearly scalable. 

So for example, if one light has ANSI FL-1 beam distance that is 50% further than another light, then that means it also has a 50% further distance to some other arbitrary lux intensity (that may be more meaningful in practice). To use the example from this review, if you felt 25 lux on target was a good level to see something, my TN32 "throws" a beam of that intensity 87.4m, and the reference spec is 98.0m (i.e., 1/10 as far a beam of 0.25 lux, thanks to that inverse square law).



> Another useful aspect of the TN32, just as with the TN31, is an Olight SR91 Diffuser will slip over the front and produce some very effective wide area lighting. Makes my TN31 quite versatile.


Thanks for bringing that up. Yes, it is good that they have kept the head diameter the same, so those old diffusers will still fit.


----------



## gkbain (Mar 4, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*

Thanks for another excellent review. My Thrunite's are some of my favorites. I have owned a XM-L TN30 for some time now and am still amazed at the output. I have been toying with the idea of a TN31 for a thrower but after this review seems that it will be a TN32. Thrunite's are not cheep but seem to give a good bang for the buck when compared. I recently put a set of 3400 protected green Panasonic's in the TN30 and they worked fine and they are a large cell. Unless Thrunite has decreased the size of the carrier/handle on the TN32 I suspect they will also work.


----------



## selfbuilt (Mar 5, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*



gkbain said:


> I recently put a set of 3400 protected green Panasonic's in the TN30 and they worked fine and they are a large cell. Unless Thrunite has decreased the size of the carrier/handle on the TN32 I suspect they will also work.


Yes, my Eagletac 3400mAhs fit fine in the carrier too. Although the carrier has a few minor updates from the TN31 (e.g., the springs are little larger now), it is similarly accommodating.


----------



## Chenery88 (Mar 5, 2014)

Nice review...now if we could just get a balance of runtime vs lux....this running for two hours at full would be epic ...although I am guessing very hot!


----------



## Alex1234 (Mar 5, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*

I agree with Selfbuilt. You should not simply disregard a light that is slightly below spec. It would be impossible to tell which has more throw if you had one that was 190,000cd and one that was 240,000cd and shined them on a line of trees and i can prove it with these two beamshots. First shot is the tk61vn(modded) which a respected form member measured 622,000cd and the other is the tn31vn(modded) with the same member measured 497,000cd. i know these are modded lights but it still shows there is a 125,000cd difference between these to beamshots but they seam pretty close. you can see the difference but there fairly close. its just like horsepower in a car, you only need about 450 horsepower to go 200 mph but you need an additional 800 horsepower to get to 270mph because of air resistance. Throw in a flashlight works the same way the higher the cd the more you need to see the difference in throw.


----------



## gkbain (Mar 22, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*

Got my TN32 yesterday and tested last night. I have few lights in my collection, 13 I think, but nothing like this. I felt like Luke Skywalker with a very long light saber. The focus of the beam beats anything I have or have seen. This is my third Thrunite, and along with my TN30, my biggest lights. The TN30 is a great flood lights as the TN32 is spot. I live near a small airport and they have some strong lights, but not hand held. I really like my Thrunites and the TN32 is my favorite big light at the present. My only issue is explaining to my wife why I need more lights especially another big light. Thanks SB for helping me decide, again.


----------



## JulianP (Mar 23, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*

Thank you for the review. I've had the TN32 for a few weeks and it's awsome. My only wish is for Thrunite to make an optional tailcap which can be plugged into a charger. It's not a flashlight for daily use, but it might be needed every few weeks for search and rescue. I wouldn't want to venture out with batteries at 85% capacity. Conversely, charging the cells individually takes time.


----------



## selfbuilt (Mar 23, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*



JulianP said:


> My only wish is for Thrunite to make an optional tailcap which can be plugged into a charger. It's not a flashlight for daily use, but it might be needed every few weeks for search and rescue. I wouldn't want to venture out with batteries at 85% capacity. Conversely, charging the cells individually takes time.


True, in-light charging can be convenient. But since almost all such chargers are in-series, you really are much better off (i.e. safer) taking the cells out and charging individually. This is why I always recommend people charge their cells separately for regular use, and only rely on in-light charging sparingly.


----------



## Capolini (Mar 23, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*

*"SB"*,,,,,,,,,,What is your "Estimation" of cd output on level 6 once it starts Flat Regulation?

I see at 2:00 min. it is at 174Kcd. Does it drop anymore after that?

In addition,will the process[reset] start over again by going back to "standby" or a different mode and then back to Level 6? My guess would be yes! 

Thanks


----------



## selfbuilt (Mar 27, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*



Capolini said:


> *"SB"*,,,,,,,,,,What is your "Estimation" of cd output on level 6 once it starts Flat Regulation?
> 
> I see at 2:00 min. it is at 174Kcd. Does it drop anymore after that?
> 
> In addition,will the process[reset] start over again by going back to "standby" or a different mode and then back to Level 6? My guess would be yes!


As you will see in my output table, I estimate output drops from ~1650 lumens to ~1550 lumens after the step down at 70 secs. As the runtimes show, output regulation is very flat after stepdown. You can restart initial max output by power cycle of the light.


----------



## deSede (Apr 3, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*

Hi selfbuilt 

Tnx for your review.

i really love this light. It has pretty nice beam, like the Thrunite Catapult V3.

cheers


----------



## selfbuilt (Apr 3, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*



deSede said:


> i really love this light. It has pretty nice beam, like the Thrunite Catapult V3.


It's funny you should mention that, as I just posted a review of the new Catapult V5, which pretty much doubles the output and throw of the V3. Here is a quick comparison to the TN32.


































For more info, please see my V5 review


----------



## harrycolez (Apr 3, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*

Since there are neutral and cool U2 emitters available, would one be preferable for spotting something at a distance? Since im assuming there wont be the usual lumen loss with a neutral emitter.


----------



## selfbuilt (Apr 4, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*



harrycolez said:


> Since there are neutral and cool U2 emitters available, would one be preferable for spotting something at a distance? Since im assuming there wont be the usual lumen loss with a neutral emitter.


Typically, neutral white emitters are a lower output bin than cool white (e.g. T6 vs U2, commonly) - and as such, would have slightly lower output and throw (on average). Of course, depending on where two samples fell within their respective bins, the difference could be vanishingly small. Also, there are examples of U2-bin neutral white XM-L2s out there - which would produce the same general level of performance as U2-bin cool white emitters.

I encourage people to think of these things statistically - given all the variation within bin ranges, reflector placement, circuit responses, etc., there can be significant differences in throw between two samples of a light with the same characteristics. When it comes to neutral vs cool, you would expect the cool to have a slight edge _on average_ (although again, individual sample variation could minimize or even reverse that).

More importantly, the tint differences makes it really hard to compare beam patterns - our brains really don't see them the same way. So even if a cool and neutral white had exactly the same measured throw, one may look "better" than another (depending on the color of the object, and your personal preferences). Except in the cases of truly higher CRI neutral whites - where actual color rendition is slightyl higher - most of the time it really comes down to simple personal preference in tint.

So to boil that down - I recommend people just go with whatever tint they prefer, and not worry about the minor output variation.


----------



## InspectHerGadget (May 3, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*

The best beam shots are on this thread for the TN32.

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...3-comparison&p=4376236&viewfull=1#post4376236

It is a beast and has a throw like a laser by the looks. Impressively well made too.


----------



## selfbuilt (May 17, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*

Weather conditions have finally improved enough to start taking outdoor beamshots around here. To start, here is a comparison of the TN35 to the TN32 (XM-L2) and Eagletac SX25L3. 

As always, these are done in the style of my earlier 100-yard round-up review. Please see that thread for a discussion of the topography (i.e. the road dips in the distance, to better show you the corona in the mid-ground). 



















Please note that the color balance of the MT-G2 shots are a little off, as I had automatic white balancing on (i.e., they are not consistent to the adjustment used for the cool white emitters).

The TN32 has an impressive amount of overall output and throw, for a single XM-L2-equipped light. oo: You can see the greater output compared to the stock Fenix TK61 (as well as compared to the Thrunite Catapult V5, although it is closer). Definitely a top stock XM-L2 light. :thumbsup:

In terms of the TN35 comparison, the MT-G2 emitter does indeed provide much more of a "wall of light" effect, thanks to the larger emitter. But the deep reflector of the TN32/TN35 build still allows the TN35 to reach out to a good distance (i.e., as compared to the SX25L3, which is obviously struggling at that same distance).


----------



## Richwouldnt (May 30, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*

I just got mine and like it a lot. One thing I noted is that the battery holder that came with mine seems to be a bit short. Maximum length batteries I can install in it are only about 68.4mm with the springs fully compressed which means that most protected 18650 cells will not fit. So far Tenergy and Soshine protected cells fit and per info received Eagletac and AW protected cells should also fit. IMO the received battery holder is defective and I have emailed ThruNite about this problem. Waiting to hear from them.


----------



## Swedpat (Jun 5, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*

Today I received TN32 in neutral tint. The same nice box like with TN35. Same UI but the control ring is a bit more distinct than TN35. The hotspot is smaller and much more intense. It has a corona but not as wide as TN35. As usual with XM-L(2) emitters the spill is significantly cooler tinted than the hotspot, but hotspot tint is very similar.
Comparing side by side it's instantly obvious that the total output of TN32 is significantly lower than TN35; the smaller hotspot is brighter but everything else is much dimmer.
Because neutral white tint provides less output than cool white I understood that the neutral option would not have the claimed 1702lm as the cool white. 
Using ceiling bounce test I can see that the total output of my TN32 neutral is around 1300lm, which is very close to what I supposed. This should mean TN32 neutral still should provide close to 200kcd. 

While TN35 is a beast allround light TN32 is a beast thrower. I really like the design, beams and UI of these two lights and have hard to find any serious drawback. Great lights, now I just need to wait for autumn until I can try TN32 outdoors! 

*Regarding batteries:* I use Eagletac 3400s and they fit perfect in the holders.


----------



## Capolini (Jun 5, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*

*Swedepat said:

Great lights, now I just need to wait for autumn until I can try TN32 outdoors! 


_______________________________________________________________________

Capolini: Why is that? Why don't you use it in the summer?! 
*


----------



## Swedpat (Jun 6, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*



Capolini said:


> *Swedepat said:
> 
> Great lights, now I just need to wait for autumn until I can try TN32 outdoors!
> 
> ...



Bright summer nights near the polar circle...


----------



## Capolini (Jun 6, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*



Swedpat said:


> Bright summer nights near the polar circle...


 I never thought of that!!! Must be torture for a Flashaholic or a flashlight enthusiast! *:-(*


----------



## TEEJ (Jun 6, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*



Capolini said:


> I never thought of that!!! Must be torture for a Flashaholic or a flashlight enthusiast! *:-(*



Gaussian torture device.


----------



## Daniel Flashaholic (Jun 9, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*

This will be my next flashlight for long distances ...:thumbsup:


----------



## John7Boy (Jul 22, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*

Very Pleased with my Thrunite TN32, great throw, even out throwing my huge Fenix TK70 and the Thrunite is much easier to use. Great outdoors in Aussie bush checking out rabbits & foxes. Very intense central spot and in my opinion the best spot spill ratio for night wildlife observation.
Many thanks to Selfbuilt for your amazing reviews. A veritable one stop shop to the LED lighting world. I have no hesitation investing in your battery fund each time I buy another flashlight after detailed research for just what I want for each project.

My collection so far Olight S15 (1x14500 battery), Keygos Pro XML-T6 KE-5, Ultrafire C8 XML-U2, Nitecore Caveman EA8, Thrunite TN32, Fenix TK70, waiting for an HID 85W for a comparison experience with my Fenix TK70. 

Any glaring gaps in my budget LED experience from EDC to Fenix monster?


----------



## Swedpat (Jul 22, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*



Capolini said:


> I never thought of that!!! Must be torture for a Flashaholic or a flashlight enthusiast! *:-(*



Yes, it is! At this moment I have suffered more than two months of bright nights, but within a month it will start to be pretty dark again...
September and october are the best part of the year; when it's really dark nights and before the first snow has fallen. This coincides with the best time for astronomy which is one of my other strong interests.


----------



## joshjp (Aug 15, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*

I just ordered this, i will get it Tomarrow, I CANT WAIT....I also ordered the Olight SR52...


----------



## joshjp (Aug 16, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*

I just got it and WOW its built like a Tank, can anybody make it dark outside so i can try it out? LOL man ohhhhh man i cant wait till its night time, gotta wait about 8Hrs GRRR


----------



## joshjp (Aug 16, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*

Well I turned it on but when I do it flickers then turns on, is this normal? If not then its going back and no more Thrunite for me.


----------



## joshjp (Aug 16, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*


----------



## selfbuilt (Aug 16, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*



joshjp said:


> Well I turned it on but when I do it flickers then turns on, is this normal? If not then its going back and no more Thrunite for me.


No, there should not be any "flickering" when turning on. May be a contact issue - have you tried cleaning all the contact surfaces? Also, can you describe the type and state of the batteries you are using?


----------



## joshjp (Aug 16, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*



selfbuilt said:


> No, there should not be any "flickering" when turning on. May be a contact issue - have you tried cleaning all the contact surfaces? Also, can you describe the type and state of the batteries you are using?


What should i clean? The 2 springs? And with what?, also im using the Olight 3400MaH 18650's that are fully charged.


----------



## BWX (Aug 17, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*

Send it back.. It is defective by the looks of it.

Don't discount the brand because of it though, it happens from time to time. Probably less often with Thrunite than a lot of brands.


----------



## Swedpat (Aug 17, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*

There is nothing like that with my TN32, neither TN35. I wonder if it may be a contact problem in the switch, if some part in the switch isn't compleletely tightened?


----------



## joshjp (Aug 17, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*



BWX said:


> Send it back.. It is defective by the looks of it.
> 
> Don't discount the brand because of it though, it happens from time to time. Probably less often with Thrunite than a lot of brands.


This is my second problem with them in 2 weeks, i g9t the TN12 2014 and there was black dust speck were the LED was, ther QC sucks bad, but i might have to ssend it back, when i went outside last night with it i couldnt tell that it flickered, but i know it shouldnt flicker now and its a $179 flashlight so it should be perfect.


----------



## joshjp (Aug 17, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*



Swedpat said:


> There is nothing like that with my TN32, neither TN35. I wonder if it may be a contact problem in the switch, if some part in the switch isn't compleletely tightened?


well i guess i have realy bad luck, thats nothing new though, i wiĺl check if everything is tightend in the tail cap switch.


----------



## selfbuilt (Aug 17, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*



joshjp said:


> well i guess i have realy bad luck, thats nothing new though, i wiĺl check if everything is tightend in the tail cap switch.


Just watched your video - yes, it would seem that the problem is with the switch. Assuming the tailcap is well-tightened, I am afraid you are likely going to need to send that back. I haven't heard other reports of this problem (and Thrunite uses this switch assembly on a number of models), so it may just be that you got a dud.


----------



## joshjp (Aug 17, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*



selfbuilt said:


> Just watched your video - yes, it would seem that the problem is with the switch. Assuming the tailcap is well-tightened, I am afraid you are likely going to need to send that back. I haven't heard other reports of this problem (and Thrunite uses this switch assembly on a number of models), so it may just be that you got a dud.


Thanks for your feedback guys, im going to send it back, i will not get another one yet, as they need to smooth out ther QC, untill then i will enjoy my Olight SR52 when i get it on Monday. TY


----------



## BWX (Aug 18, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*

Funny, I got a TN12 2014, then recommended one to someone else, and they just got it, and it is also perfect. Luck of draw I guess.


----------



## North light (Oct 6, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*

I'm so pleased I purchaced this light when out scouting grounds for the hunting season coming up in November this light is perfect for my needs.The tn 32 gave me aprox 45 min of run time on high.


----------



## RBH (Oct 29, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*

If I'm shining a TN 31 and TN 32 at the same target 400 yards away, will I be blown away at how much more light is delivered by the TN 32 ?


----------



## selfbuilt (Oct 29, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*



RBH said:


> If I'm shining a TN 31 and TN 32 at the same target 400 yards away, will I be blown away at how much more light is delivered by the TN 32 ?


Well, doing the math - 400 yards is about 366 meters. At that distance, my TN31 would give you 0.84 lux on target, compared to 1.43 lux for my TN32. 

Assuming you were to able to clearly see that distance, you should be able to notice the ~70% increase in beam intensity on the TN32. Although I doubt anyone could ever be "blown away" by the absolute difference between 0.84 and 1.43 lux.


----------



## Capolini (Oct 29, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*



North light said:


> I'm so pleased I purchaced this light when out scouting grounds for the hunting season coming up in November this light is perfect for my needs.The tn 32 gave me aprox 45 min of run time on high.



What kind of batteries are you using? 2200mAh? 2600mAh? I have a feeling you using lower mAh cells. What was your voltage after 45 minutes?

I am using genuine Panasonic cells 3400mAh and I am getting One Hour[60 minutes] on High[level 6]. My voltage was 3.54V after an hour.


----------



## RBH (Nov 4, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*

I have a K40 and a first gen Stanley HID. Will the TN 32 out throw Stanley by any significant amount, or should I wait a while longer for a more advanced factory LED thrower. 



selfbuilt said:


> Well, doing the math - 400 yards is about 366 meters. At that distance, my TN31 would give you 0.84 lux on target, compared to 1.43 lux for my TN32.
> 
> Assuming you were to able to clearly see that distance, you should be able to notice the ~70% increase in beam intensity on the TN32. Although I doubt anyone could ever be "blown away" by the absolute difference between 0.84 and 1.43 lux.


----------



## selfbuilt (Nov 4, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*



RBH said:


> I have a K40 and a first gen Stanley HID. Will the TN 32 out throw Stanley by any significant amount, or should I wait a while longer for a more advanced factory LED thrower.


The TN32 will out-throw your K40 (it's pretty similar to the K50, to give you a comparison). Harder to compare to an HID, given their irregular hotspots. I suspect the TN32 would have a slight throw advantage to the entry level Stanley 35W (certainly be a lot cleaner beam).

But if you want something to significantly out-shine those lights, you may want to consider a custom mod with a dedomed emitter. Something the TK61vn or K50vn from Vinh Nguyen (V54) here at cpf. You can check the review list in my sig for direct links.


----------



## RBH (Nov 4, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*

Thanks, that TK61vn is unbelievable.



selfbuilt said:


> The TN32 will out-throw your K40 (it's pretty similar to the K50, to give you a comparison). Harder to compare to an HID, given their irregular hotspots. I suspect the TN32 would have a slight throw advantage to the entry level Stanley 35W (certainly be a lot cleaner beam).
> 
> But if you want something to significantly out-shine those lights, you may want to consider a custom mod with a dedomed emitter. Something the TK61vn or K50vn from Vinh Nguyen (V54) here at cpf. You can check the review list in my sig for direct links.


----------



## InspectHerGadget (Nov 22, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*

I've ordered one of these. I had a V3 Catapult on order then they decided they didn't have any and offered a refund. I decided to get myself a thrower, the TN32 to complement my Eagletac MX25L3 with the MT-G2 emitter. I love my Eagletac and it is perfect for night walks but looking forward to the laser like TN32. 

I like the ThruNite stuff. I have tried out the V3 and loved it but it is a Christmas present for my nephew (for putting on .243) so aside from testing it to make sure it all works, it is now packed away. I have the TN12 which is a great light and I also gave one as a present to my brother and he gets a lot of use out of it.

An interesting age we live in. It is unbelievable that not many years ago we thought a Maglite with D-cells was something special.


----------



## Bela16 (Nov 24, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*

Hi All!
I made some runtime graph for this light, one for TN32 normal, and another one with dedome. 
1. Factory say 240.000 cd, Mr. Selfbuilt measured 190.000cd, my measure is 147700 cd.... where is the difference? Here is the graph:



2. Dedome version looks like this:



232630 cd with single XM-L2 U2-1C led, it's not bad... but i expected more...

And here is both flashlight in one runtime graph:




The test was made with 3200 IMR batteries from Keeppower.


----------



## TEEJ (Nov 24, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*



Bela16 said:


> Hi All!
> I made some runtime graph for this light, one for TN32 normal, and another one with dedome.
> 1. Factory say 240.000 cd, Mr. Selfbuilt measured 190.000cd, my measure is 147700 cd.... where is the difference? Here is the graph:
> 
> ...



At what distance did you measure the lux?

If too close, the beam has not formed yet, and you'll get a false low for example.


----------



## Bela16 (Nov 24, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*

i measured it from two meters. i measured in ft-cd, i convert it in candela after and that was the results.


----------



## selfbuilt (Nov 24, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*



Bela16 said:


> i measured it from two meters. i measured in ft-cd, i convert it in candela after and that was the results.


Two meters is not enough. ANSI FL-1 standard requires 10 meters for a light this size, which is what I do all of my testing in. This likely explains most of the discrepancy with your result.

Light meters can also be highly variable (i.e., I've seen up ~40% difference between inexpensive meters). All of my measures are done on a NIST-certified, calibrated lux light meter.

Finally, there will also be some variation between samples. Also what kind of batteries used, how charged they, how long after activation (ANSI FL-1 requires 30 secs, which mine are done at), etc.


----------



## magnum70383 (Dec 31, 2014)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*

I want to get this light. Anybody know of a good deal? Please let me know!


----------



## odessadream (Jun 3, 2015)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*

Buy the Supbeam K50 V2 (from Acebeam). It comes from the same factory as the TN32. The K50 V2 has the same (or even better) thrower properties as the TN32 and it has an internal charger with magnetic connection at the tailcap.


----------



## odessadream (Jun 3, 2015)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*

To me the TK61 seems the best thrower in your comparison. Why don't you mention this !!!????




selfbuilt said:


> Weather conditions have finally improved enough to start taking outdoor beamshots around here. To start, here is a comparison of the TN35 to the TN32 (XM-L2) and Eagletac SX25L3.
> 
> As always, these are done in the style of my earlier 100-yard round-up review. Please see that thread for a discussion of the topography (i.e. the road dips in the distance, to better show you the corona in the mid-ground).
> 
> ...


----------



## InspectHerGadget (Jun 5, 2015)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*

The rechargeable lights are often quite expensive and most people on the forum seem to prefer to bring their own batteries and charger.

The TK61 is a four battery light and so is bigger and heavier than the TN32. 

I'm a bit of a fan of the TN32. It is just a lovely build quality. I wonder how they do it for the price. Everything is extra heavy duty. It isn't exactly light though. Even the front lens is a very thick piece of glass. It also has a very nice control ring which is dead easy to use. I think any light that can give decent illumination at close to 500m is good enough for most uses. I think the estimation of useful illumination being half of the rated distance is about right.


----------



## MDMcAtee (Dec 4, 2016)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*

I'm still rather new here, but in researching different lights I've come to the conclusion that this one will be the one I ask Santa (😉) to get me... 

I really appreciate everyone's input on it and Selfbuilts reviews, because it makes it easy to choose it from all of the great throwers available. 

This one will be my first long range thrower and I am looking forward to unwrapping it Christmas morning.. along with the NC EAS41 (2015).. 

Yes, lol, I think I am becoming a flashlight junkie


----------



## IlluminatedOne (Feb 9, 2017)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*

Been doing a little more testing with my TN32 as i always felt it was under performing compared to others that have been tested.
Using my DX lux meter have gotten a few results at different distances 

[email protected] = 120k [email protected]
[email protected] = 85k [email protected]
[email protected] = 128k [email protected]
[email protected] = 125k [email protected]

So a max of 128k for my light which fits pretty well with what i am seeing compared to my 24/28/35w ebay HID with 4300k bulb which in testing is around 96klux and i think more lumens than the TN32 as i often take both for a walk through the woods and the Ebay HID seems very close to it which i would not expect of a supposed 200k lux light.

I really do like the light and is certainly well made and nice to use especially the lower modes but does not quite meet the expectations i had for the light as a super thrower, but i will say its a nice light and i use it often when i am out walking through forests etc.

I also attached a pic of the driver as i did wonder if it maybe is not been driven as hard as others or maybe just older driver or something else, i know you can mod these for more output which i may end up doing at some point.





Would be nice to see some other peoples drivers to see if they are the same as mine, looking at another review (different site) of this light the driver they showed was different layout to mine (could be pre production board), maybe there are different drivers some better than others idk.

Either way i think at some point i will have a go at modding this light as i have a XM-L2 U4 Bin Led i could swap into it and also could dedome it for more lux and maybe a driver mod too turn it into the light i always wanted as it mostly used for fun .


----------



## Alex1234 (Feb 9, 2017)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*



IlluminatedOne said:


> Been doing a little more testing with my TN32 as i always felt it was under performing compared to others that have been tested.
> Using my DX lux meter have gotten a few results at different distances
> 
> [email protected] = 120k [email protected]
> ...



id just send it to vinh. He used to sell a modded version with xml2 PDT and was 500kcd and 1500 otf lumens


----------



## Scourie (Feb 13, 2017)

*Re: Thrunite TN32 (XM-L2, 3x18650) "Thrower" Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, VIDEO+*

The best bang for your buck would be a de-dome, that'll approx double the lux. The tint might turn a bit green though, and you'll lose a little bit of total output. The TN32's were driven hard from the factory.


----------

