# 16340 = CR123A?



## godlight (Nov 5, 2009)

Are 16340 Batteries the same as CR123A?


----------



## CaseyS (Nov 5, 2009)

16340 usually refers to RCR123a's, rechargeable CR123a's. They have a higher voltage and lower capacity than primary CR123a's.


----------



## mdocod (Nov 5, 2009)

Hello godlight,

The designation "16340" has only to do with cell size, and does not define anything about the chemistry of the cell. 

CR123 is one of many designations specific to a lithium manganese dioxide primary cell that happens to be 16340 in size. 

16mm x 34mm x "0"
the "0" designates that it is a cylindrical shape. 

A cell sold as a "16340" should never be considered a direct replacement for a CR123. Some devices will be compatible and others will not, depends on the specific type of 16340 and the device they are to be used in.

-Eric


----------



## CaseyS (Nov 5, 2009)

mdocod said:


> The designation "16340" has only to do with cell size, and does not define anything about the chemistry of the cell.
> 
> -Eric


 
I haven't seen a CPF'er use the term 16340 to refer to anything other than a 3.7v rechargeable. I've also never seen a dealer advertise a battery as a 16340 that was anything but a 3.7v rechargeable. I'm sure there are exceptions, but I don't think it's correct to say that you can't infer anything from a reference to 16340 except the size of the battery.


----------



## mdocod (Nov 6, 2009)

While that assumption could be made in most cases, I think it's important that we separate size designations from chemistry specific designations when considering cell labeling... Safety first eh?

I've seen "16340" cells that are actually a LiFeP04 cell, or a LiMn cell, or a buck regulated LiCo cell, or a standard LiCo cell. The terms "16340" and "RCR123" and many others get tossed around for all of them. In the data-sheets for any cell of that size, regardless of designation, it is likely that the manufacture will refer to the cell size in a chart as a "16340" in some manner or another. 

Same goes for the terms "14500" and "AA." Combined, 10+ possible chemistry types could be assumed. Used as an either or, 5+ for each designation would not be unrealistic. In this case, both the designation "AA" and "14500" are not chemistry specific, like the term "CR123," but the point is that many of the terms used to describe cells are very open ended unless further defined. 

-Eric


----------



## 45/70 (Nov 6, 2009)

I think mdocod is probably correct. At the same time, I can't help but think that _sensible_ (no, this does not include all) manufacturers, dealers and what not, refer to Li-Ion and 3.6-3.7 Volt lithium primary cells by their dimensional name (eg. 14500) to help prevent confusion that could cause accident or injury when someone puts the wrong chemistry cell into the wrong charger, 2 14500 unprotected (or otherwise) LiCo's into a stock Mini-Mag, or whatever.

I have seen cell chemistry other than Li-Ion, or 3.6-3.7 Volt primary lithium, referred to by the numerical dimensional designation. The R/C world, and bulk battery cell distributors, for example, sometimes refer to nickel based cells by their numerical designation. These people are knowledgeable (hopefully) enough with the different chemistries, to build packs and such without risking personal injury to themselves, or their customers.

I can't say I've ever seen the numerical designation used for alkaline AA, C, or D cells, nor the AA, C, or D designation printed on semi consumer 3.7 Volt lithium cells, like Saft, for example, at the consumer level. I would hope this doesn't change. There are some dealers and the like, that do call 3.7 Volt Li-Ion cells "C" or "D". I find this to be a bad practice, even if it is technically correct. The cells themselves, have the numerical designation.

Just a reminder, and mdocod, I know you already know this, 


mdocod said:


> I've seen "16340" cells that are actually a LiFeP04 cell, or a LiMn cell, or a buck regulated LiCo cell, or a standard LiCo cell.


all these cells *are* *Li*thium *Ion* cells.

Dave


----------



## Heavy_D (Aug 24, 2013)

I would be careful with the 16340 if using a bulb vs. LED.

Had a Pelican M6 2320 (original M6) with Xeon bulb. The bulb burned with these batteries. In the Pelican 2320, the bulb is not replaceable and I had to get a new flashlight.

The voltage from 2x 16340 = 7.4v where the combined voltage from 2x CR123A = 6.0v. A significant difference for a bulb.

The LED of the new Pelican M6 2390 can handle the 7.4v. LED are more sensitive to current change, not voltage change.


----------



## Blindguy (Feb 26, 2014)

godlight said:


> Are 16340 Batteries the same as CR123A?


Interesting thread but I don't think anyone answered his question.
OK, size wise they are the same. Physical size.

Can someone answer _my _question of what is the difference of power and/or capacity?

In other words, what would be the best scenario to buy a 16340 vs. a CR123A? 
This assumes the flashlight is capable of handling the 16340.


----------



## HKJ (Feb 26, 2014)

Blindguy said:


> Can someone answer _my _question of what is the difference of power and/or capacity?



Read here: http://lygte-info.dk/info/CR123A and rechargeable substitutes UK.html


----------



## Blindguy (Feb 26, 2014)

HKJ said:


> Read here: http://lygte-info.dk/info/CR123A%20and%20rechargeable%20substitutes%20UK.html


Excellent, thank you.


----------



## Blindguy (Feb 26, 2014)

Blindguy said:


> Excellent, thank you.


Well, I learned something.

I'm not going to buy any RCR's or 16340's.

Seems like nothing can match a good CR123A. :thumbsup:


----------



## ven (Feb 26, 2014)

@ blindguy-IMR 16340 efest 3.7v 700mah and been spot on so far in my d25cvn v2 ti 
Early days but good up to now




So i leave my options open depending on light in question,as some cells perform better under certain requirements.......


----------



## Blindguy (Feb 26, 2014)

The d25cvn v2 ti is a good light. I know some of friends have that one.
Apparently you found a good battery. My comments came from just reading that web site of comparisons. Exceptions to every rule seems to apply here.


----------



## ven (Feb 26, 2014)

Blindguy said:


> The d25cvn v2 ti is a good light. I know some of friends have that one.
> Apparently you found a good battery. My comments came from just reading that web site of comparisons. Exceptions to every rule seems to apply here.



My point really is just not to rule out a specific cell,as some flashlight requirements vary to others thats all:thumbsup:

An example would be the 4sevens x3vn(vn is modified by vinh),this offers better performance on an IMR26650 over a protected cell,due to it being modified it can get 9.6A without any PCB board tripping giving 3300lm.Thats just 1 example.........and from a specific IMR Kinoko cell,others offer different performances...........quite a few variables again.Just food for thought or in better terms batteries for light :laughing: :thumbsup:


----------



## RetroTechie (Feb 26, 2014)

CaseyS said:


> I haven't seen a CPF'er use the term 16340 to refer to anything other than a 3.7v rechargeable. I've also never seen a dealer advertise a battery as a 16340 that was anything but a 3.7v rechargeable. I'm sure there are exceptions, but I don't think it's correct to say that you can't infer anything from a reference to 16340 except the size of the battery.


Not true... there's also LiFePO4​ cells in 16340 size, and I wouldn't know what *else* to call them than "16340". Have one myself, see examples mentioned from time to time on CPF, and they are used as substitute for CR123A's in devices that can't take 3.7V. And let's not get started about exotic crap like 3.7V cells with a 3.0V voltage regulator packed into the battery. 

Bottom line: "16340" is just that, a *size* designation. _You_ can conclude that refers to 3.7V cells only. But that's merely an assumption. Which _usually_ holds - but not always.


----------



## Viking (Feb 26, 2014)

ven said:


> My point really is just not to rule out a specific cell




I agree with that statement sir.

Besides the flashlight itself , it also depends of use in my opinion.
For instance , for my household light that I almost never use I prefer primary CR123A's.
But for my work light that I use many times daily , that would be quite expensive. Here I use rechargeables.

Same thing goes for my other devices. The battery choice depends on use , and the power consumption of the device it self in my opinion. Therefore I use both alkanlines and eneloops.


----------



## malocchio (Sep 1, 2018)

Ran into this thread and it's just what I'm looking for...I have a Nitecore 650 mAh protected rcr123a cell @ 3.7 volts, 2.4 watts . I realize not any old cr123 flashlight can utilize this cell , and from what I read here it is not a direct substitute for a 16340 protected cell ( right ? ).. So ....what is the smallest , brightest flashlight I can use this Nitecore cell in, and still get turbo more than just once ?


----------



## Random Dan (Sep 1, 2018)

malocchio said:


> Ran into this thread and it's just what I'm looking for...I have a Nitecore 650 mAh protected rcr123a cell @ 3.7 volts, 2.4 watts . I realize not any old cr123 flashlight can utilize this cell , and from what I read here it is not a direct substitute for a 16340 protected cell ( right ? ).. So ....what is the smallest , brightest flashlight I can use this Nitecore cell in, and still get turbo more than just once ?


Li-ion rcr123 is the same as 16340. You are correct that not all lights designed for lithium primary cr123 can take the additional voltage of li-ion.

Since there are so many options out there I think you would be best off starting a thread in the recommendations subforum and specifying some of your needed/wanted features to narrow down the field.

You can also check out a pretty comrehensive list of 1x16340 lights from Parametrek.


----------



## malocchio (Sep 1, 2018)

*​thank you Dan !*


----------

