# Flood or Throw - what's more important to you?



## mccririck (Nov 27, 2012)

What do you feel you need the most? One thing that annoys me a bit about the current flashlight market is the sheer number of throw lights. I find a good flood much more usefull. I have some focusable flashlights and only really start using the throw focus when the battery is running down and flood is too dim.


----------



## TouchOfRed (Nov 27, 2012)

Depends on what you are doing really. 
If its up close work, i rather have a pure flood. If its hunting or fishing or such, i rather have a throw, but with some flood to.


----------



## TEEJ (Nov 27, 2012)

To be fair, it like asking if acceleration or braking is more important in a car.

I USE flood the most, BUT, the floody lights I use HAVE SOME THROW.

I DO use some throw oriented lights though, for some applications...so, I have more than one light. Some with more flood, and some with more throw.


----------



## mccririck (Nov 27, 2012)

TEEJ said:


> To be fair, it like asking if acceleration or braking is more important in a car.
> 
> I USE flood the most, BUT, the floody lights I use HAVE SOME THROW.
> 
> I DO use some throw oriented lights though, for some applications...so, I have more than one light. Some with more flood, and some with more throw.



Of course, but dont you find it annoying that most lights are orientated towards tactical throw?


----------



## reppans (Nov 27, 2012)

Floody for me - an XML in a small head with a big hotspot and bright spill is the best beam for me so far. I find I NEED to do things at an arm's length and see up to 10 yards or so. Distance viewing tends to be optional for me... nice to have/see/know, but not really necessary. For the same reason, I Iike a good selection of sub and low lumens over massive high lumens. I don't like mules though... feels like I always need to kick the mode up a higher level than necessary to see the details of my subject, which is in the middle of my beam, of course.

An XML running low lumens is not the most efficient combination however.


----------



## TEEJ (Nov 27, 2012)

Well, I don't really get annoyed by what's out there that I don't need. I see a solar powered flashlight, and it just makes me laugh at the juxtaposition.

There is a history to WHY so many lights ARE throw oriented....and its simply because of a combination of historically not having enough light to see anything UNLESS the beam was concentrated, and perceived "brightness".

People perceive a glaring hot spot as brighter than the same light spread out over a larger area...so the throw light is "brighter". This is why a 131 lumen maglight is reported by most observers as brighter than a 750 lumen SC600...the hot spot.

This is why some people post that its "Impossible to read with a 100 lumen light due to the harsh glare"...and so forth.

If the 100 lumens were spread over the entire page, instead of concentrated on 2 square inches of it...it would be very easy to read by.

It takes more power to make more lumens though....so, eventually, all lights hit a point of diminishing return on throw vs flood...a light that floods out to say 600 meters is producing a massive amount of lumens, and needs to have a lot of cell capacity and associated weight and size, etc.

If you don't want to CARRY as heavy a light to see 600 meters off, you compromise, and produce fewer lumens, but concentrate the beam enough to see things at that range...just less of what's out there at a time.

So daylight is the ideal, and the flood is an attempt to recreate that...but we ALL have a limit on what we can carry around to produce it.


----------



## reppans (Nov 27, 2012)

mccririck said:


> Of course, but dont you find it annoying that most lights are orientated towards tactical throw?



Tactical, throw and bright sells a lot more lights than practical, flood, and dim.... I'm quite certain.


----------



## Launch Mini (Nov 27, 2012)

Throw up to about 50 feet in town. That's all I need.
At the cabin, that same light will throw 120 feet down my driveway ( not ambient lighting). Just checking for bear or cougar before I venture down the driveway at night.
Don't like too tight a beam for the 50 feet & shorter, as then I have to sweep for my needs.


----------



## think2x (Nov 27, 2012)

The majority of my flashlight use is up close so I voted flood. I rarely need a light for distance.


----------



## twl (Nov 27, 2012)

I like floody lights, but they really need to have some decent throw along with it. 
I like at least 150 yards throw, and my Malkoff Wildcats will do that just fine. 

However, the narrow throwy beams have their places. If I want to have 150 yards throw, and want to have some decent battery run time too, then having 900 lumens flooding way out there isn't the best way to do it. A nice little 250 lumen narrow thrower will give a lot more run time, and still let me see as far as I like to see, but just smaller areas at a time.

If I don't have battery power considerations to deal with at all, then I'll get out a big floody light with over a thousand lumens and let 'er rip!


----------



## scout24 (Nov 27, 2012)

I didn't vote, I need the proper tool for the job. Indoors, up close, flood rules as long as the light is bright enough. Sundrop 3s at night in my house is lovely, but not bright enough at times during the day. A concentrated beam of lower output can be enough at night, even if more wouldn't hurt. E1e at 15 lumens reaches 30 yards at night, and is enough for up-close tasks during the day. Malkoff Hound Dog is a lot more of a good thing at night, Wildcat is portable hand-held stadium lighting good for an entire football field.  Such is the joy and curse of flashaholism, knowing and enjoying all that's available and not being happy with one "off the shelf" choice!


----------



## mccririck (Nov 28, 2012)

I'm not really a fan of spill, unless the hotspot is big.


----------



## sonofspectrum (Nov 28, 2012)

I used to be obsessed with throw until I bought a triple xml light. It still has a hell of a lot of throw but the wall of light it puts out is just so impressive. Ive currently changing the emitter in my eagletac T20c2 mk1. This was very throw orientated with a very tight hot spot, it now throws further but has loads of spill and is a much more usefull torch.


----------



## sonofspectrum (Nov 28, 2012)

Should have said that its changed from an XP-G R5 to an XML


----------



## Blitzwing (Nov 28, 2012)

Most of my flashlight use is for hunting vermin, rifle mounted - so I voted throw.


----------



## Outdoorsman5 (Nov 28, 2012)

Both are important, but I use floody lights the most. I prefer my edc lights & general use lights to be floody, and tend to use them the most. I still love throwy lights though, and like to carry a throwy light with me when I go running or hiking in the dark....in addition to a floody light. 

My favorite edc floody light is a Quark QPA with a neutral XML head on it running on a rechargeable Li-ion 14500 for 400 lumens on max all the way down to 0.3 lumens on moonlight mode. 

My favorite small throwy edc light is a Quark Turbo QB2A head on a single AA body running on a Li-ion 14500. This head has the new XP-G2 LED in it and is an outstanding small throwy light. Selfbuilt did a review of this light (in the 2XAA configuration,) and said it was the best throwy light in its class that he's seen to date. On max output (300 lumens - according to selfbuilt) I got 43 minutes runtime and 2:40 on high. I used an AW brand 14500. If you are a fan of single AA lights then you should try this set up.


----------



## FPSRelic (Nov 28, 2012)

I voted throw. I find throwier lights are much more efficient at lower levels for general use around the house. My LX2 at 15 lumens pretty much covers 90% of what I do. I should point out however, that I don't like those aspheric lights that project a big space invader shape and are pure throw.There nees to be some spill to the light too.


----------



## FPSRelic (Nov 28, 2012)

reppans said:


> Tactical, throw and bright sells a lot more lights than practical, flood, and dim.... I'm quite certain.



And I would argue that high lumens and runtime in a small light sells a lot more than throw. If it means jamming an XM-L emitter into a single cell light and saying that it does 500 lumens, well, they'll do it.


----------



## Echo63 (Nov 28, 2012)

Most of my lights are Flood oriented.
i don't mind a throwy light, providing it has a nice bright spill.

That said, I do have some dedicated throwers, but they don't seem to get much use


----------



## eh4 (Nov 28, 2012)

I'd extend the analogy of gears, with high gear for throw and low gear for flood, and brightness levels as the throttle of course.
I prefer flood/floody lights for most of my use but it's incredibly frustrating to burn up batteries and deal with the glare, and feel like I'm the center of attention in an arc around me when all I needed was to check something a ways away.

I think this is why I've developed such a Grudge against Lenser lights, for squatting on the zoom optic patent while putting out otherwise blah... If only other companies could be licensed to use their optic. The fact that it isn't happening makes me think that Lenser wants too much to let anyone play with their ball.

HDS struck a good balance, big soft edged ball of throw with nice spill. I like my floody ZL better as a task light but the HDS works fine for me as an all purpose light.


----------



## Glock 22 (Nov 28, 2012)

Most of my lights are Flood, but I use both.


----------



## Yourfun2 (Nov 28, 2012)

To me having throw with no spill is like going out in the woods without a wide angle lens on my camera. I like my XML Foursevens for flood. Though I do enjoy a concentrated beam, especially when I'm in a crowd. You really need to have 3 flashlight available at all times.


----------



## SimulatedZero (Nov 28, 2012)

For me, throw is mandatory. I live in a rural area and it's nice to be able to see something farther than ten feet in front of me. And honestly, I have found 12,000 CD to be seriously wanting when you're trying to identify the animal on the other side of the glowing eyes. Usually I don't carry things much more concentrated than that. That and I also depend on throw for my job. Though, I have found that the TK22 is a nice compromise.


----------



## Southpaw1925 (Nov 28, 2012)

I vote flood that reaches about 50 yards is good enough for me. I like to see more at a time and my immediate surrounding is completely illuminated.


----------



## TEEJ (Nov 28, 2012)

SimulatedZero said:


> For me, throw is mandatory. I live in a rural area and it's nice to be able to see something *farther than ten feet in front of me*. And honestly, I have found 12,000 CD to be seriously wanting when you're trying to identify the animal on the other side of the glowing eyes. Usually I don't carry things much more concentrated than that. That and I also depend on throw for my job. Though, I have found that the TK22 is a nice compromise.




10' ?

LOL

Even an SC600 throws a good 50-60 meters, even though its a floody flooder of a light.

The XT11 throws a floody beam ~ 150 meters, and so forth...and a floody TK70 throws a wall of light ~ 400 meters or so. So, if seeing everything including the glow-eyed critter and its buddies with their backs to you out to 50 - 400 meters works, than a floody light could work.




If the critter is deep inside cover, and you need to thread the beam through a long tunnel of leaves, etc...to get to it....THEN a throw pattern, like an aspheric for example, can light up the target in line-of-sight w/o making too much glare off the foliage on the way, etc. This is the type of scenario my throw lights come out to play for at least.


----------



## markr6 (Nov 28, 2012)

I'm finding more and more that I want flood. My LD12 and LD22 have a decent spill but are mainly narrow beams. My wife and I have been on the hunt for a new home and I now realize indoor, close-up activities such as inspecting a house is great for floody lights. The LD12 is fine, but I'm sure something with more flood would be better.

This got me thinking - since I don't have any dedicated floody lights (except the H502 headlamp), I decided to try some d-c-fix on the LD22. I really like the effect, but feel like I'm "cheating myself" out of lumens. Technically I am, but subjectively, what are your thoughts on making one or more of your torches floody with diffuser film instead of getting another light (SC52 for example)?


----------



## Drewcof (Nov 28, 2012)

Mostly flood, but need the occasional throw - carrying one light is preferred most of the time so I voted both, even if the light is a bit less effective than a dedicated flood/throw.


----------



## lightsandknives (Nov 28, 2012)

Most of the time, I'll take flood. Since most of my flashlight needs are up relatively close, flood is a better option. I have a few dedicated throwers, and I hardly ever use them. But, when I go to impress someone (which is hard to do with a flashlight), I always go for throw, since like someone else said, it's about the hotspot.


----------



## Verndog (Nov 28, 2012)

Flood...the useable light.


----------



## cruzer (Nov 28, 2012)

i voted flood because it seems to be more useful for most tasks but throw lights are just really cool to have and show people


----------



## LGT (Nov 28, 2012)

Totally depends on what I'm using the light for. I will often carry and use both while checkig out wires on utility poles where a truck can't get to. But overall, I prefer throw because even a throwy light will illuminate your immediate surroundings while walking through the woods, and then provide a good spot to a pole top 70 feet up.


----------



## makapuu (Nov 28, 2012)

Actually you can have both without it being focusable.
I have the Nitecore TM15 and the Thrunite TN30, both can easily throw well past 300 feet.
They are also flooding the area out at the same time.


----------



## SimulatedZero (Nov 28, 2012)

TEEJ said:


> 10' ?
> 
> LOL
> 
> ...



Quite obviously I was being sarcastic, I'll be sure to annotate that next time. There are lots of open fields here and a lot of open space in general. In my *experience * from having used both throwy and floody lights, more throw just tends to work better for me. It is an opinion based off of my experience and nothing more. Also, perhaps I am not as perceptive to light as others, but I doubt the XT11 gets 150m of throw. In my experience, anything less than 15,000cd is good to approximately 100m. Now, I do enjoy a good floody light for up close work, it makes things easier on the eyes. However, most of my uses are not up close.


----------



## TEEJ (Nov 28, 2012)

SimulatedZero said:


> Quite obviously I was being sarcastic, I'll be sure to annotate that next time. There are lots of open fields here and a lot of open space in general. In my *experience * from having used both throwy and floody lights, more throw just tends to work better for me. It is an opinion based off of my experience and nothing more. Also, perhaps I am not as perceptive to light as others, but I doubt the XT11 gets 150m of throw. In my experience, anything less than 15,000cd is good to approximately 100m. Now, I do enjoy a good floody light for up close work, it makes things easier on the eyes. However, most of my uses are not up close.



Damn, I thought two smilies was enough...sigh.

We need to do this over a few beers so we can tell we're smiling I guess.

I did mention an example of throw working better as a pattern too.



:buddies:


----------



## SimulatedZero (Nov 29, 2012)

TEEJ said:


> Damn, I thought two smilies was enough...sigh.
> 
> We need to do this over a few beers so we can tell we're smiling I guess.
> 
> ...



Ok, fair enough. I guess I'm just used to a little more hostility. I wasn't going to mention this, but I bought a TK22 because I wanted something more floody at work. Flood makes it so much easier to search rooms and the like. Now I suppose it's only fair that I mention it. 
Touché good sir, touché. :touche:


P.S. TK41, still the king 
:buddies:


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (Nov 29, 2012)

Flood, I think, is more generally useful than throw.

Of course the vast majority of lights on the market are not pure flood or pure throw, so I think most of us have something that falls in the middle.


----------



## violatorjf (Nov 29, 2012)

I use flood just about every day. I hardly ever have a need for considerable throw (100+ft) in my day-to-day activities. As a collector/flashaholic though...gotta have some unnecessary throw on hand.


----------



## Cataract (Nov 29, 2012)

I voted throw.

I need a light with a tight hotspot (~10-15 degrees) for work so I can see between layers of tubing and cables. I need a good thrower for hiking as I don't want to find out after walking 100 meters in rocky terrain that I can't go through there. But at home, I do appreciate a wide hotspot for walking around in the dark and I love my pure flood H502D for close-up stuff, but definitely wouldn't use that to walk around the woods, ever (unless it's the only working light I have.)

In all honesty, I'm not sure flood and throw are well defined and I think there might be a need to revisit that. I have some quark 123's that are called flooders, but they have a hotspot that's only twice as wide as other lights that are called throwers. They might not throw 200 meters, but definitely light 500 times farther than a mule and blind me like h*ll when I try to see between stainless stell racks. Where's the real line between throw and flood? I think we need to define a scale rather than just use 2 different terms. Just throwing that out there... (HA! a pun!...)


----------



## jellydonut (Nov 29, 2012)

Throw, because that's what's actually hard to achieve in a light. If you want floodlight, just put some sort of plastic spacer or film on the lens to defocus the light. Or, worst case, just hold your thumb over half the lens.

Getting a throwy light to flood is easy. Getting a floodlight to reach out past the tip of your nose is impossible. I prefer having both capabilities.


----------



## Pretbek (Nov 29, 2012)

Cataract said:


> (HA! a pun!...)



LOL!
Nicely put, that made me laugh out loud.


----------



## yliu (Nov 29, 2012)

I voted for flood, because it's the most useful for me (EDC role).


----------



## Maxbelg (Nov 30, 2012)

I didn't vote because it depends on the usage. I like the option of having both flood and throw in one light. I have a modified Kroma and a Surefire A2L which meet these criteria. I'd like to see more lights with both flood and throw!!!


----------



## jamesmtl514 (Nov 30, 2012)

Most of my lights are throw oriented. They are fun to play with, nice for outdoors.
My EDC is a mule and i love it. It's perfect for 99% of the tasks i need it for.


----------



## flame2000 (Nov 30, 2012)

I voted flood. I guess the term "Wall of Light" means big floody beam!


----------



## JohnnyLunar (Nov 30, 2012)

I voted *throw*, because it is more _important_ to me, even though flood is often more _useful_ to me. Here is what I mean - 

When you really need a bright light to see something RIGHT NOW - whether it is 5 feet away, or 100 feet away, a throwy light will do it (with the possible downside of too much light on a flat reflective surface up close). In the same situation, a floody light will help you see what is right in front of you, but may not reach out to where you really need it. I'd rather have too much light up close, than not enough light at distance. So, if I had to have 1 single type of light for all purposes, it would probably be something like my Surefire E2DL. Plenty of bright white light in a very tight spot when you need it at a distance, and a low-level version of the same beam when you don't. As much as I love my high-CRI Malkoff M61, and my high-CRI Nailbender XML, they don't hold a candle to the available reach of a Surefire TIR optic putting out less than half the lumens.

Most _useful_ in 75% of my applications - flood.
Most _important_ when I need 1 single light that can "do it all" - throw.


----------



## mbw_151 (Nov 30, 2012)

It's kind of ironic that I voted for throw, but that's the way I buy most lights. Then come the task of adding a diffuser or diffusion lens. Most of the time I use a light I want a flood beam, but there are definitely exceptions. I want a really tight spot for dealing with fog in my boat. With flood in fog all you get with is glare. I have a couple of Malkoff M60 modules that have a really tight beam. I have many lights with M61 modules (more spill) and a few of these have diffusion lenses. I also have a couple of M60WF modules that are great indoors in small to medium size spaces, not warehouses. My most flexible lights are HDS with Surefire F04 diffusers. The best of both worlds, and output levels too. And don't forget headlamps, they have to be pure flood Zebra style.


----------



## WmArnold1 (Nov 30, 2012)

I vote flood for 99.44% of my EDC use - and my SC600 works exceptionally well within a 15 yard radius. Walking around at night is kind of the limit, because the nearby flood handicaps how well I can process things outside of my 15 yard bubble-of-light.

Fwiw, the SC600 pumps around 37% of its lumens into the 10-degree hot-spot and spills the remaining 63% into a 80-degree cone.


----------



## P_A_S_1 (Dec 2, 2012)

Overall I find that for me a light with a good amount of spill/flood is preferable in that it meets my needs better. A lot of my usage is close up and the brighter spill is worth the decreased throw. Its is a compromise though, when I need throw it's not there, but with about 75% of my light being used within 10-50 feet lights with flood work better for me.


----------



## Thunderflash (Dec 2, 2012)

Weekends when I work as a bouncer I need throw to isolate the troublemakers but most of the flashlights in my collection are triples. Love flood when I am outdoors.


----------



## TEEJ (Dec 2, 2012)

jellydonut said:


> Throw, because that's what's actually hard to achieve in a light. If you want floodlight, just put some sort of plastic spacer or film on the lens to defocus the light. Or, worst case, just hold your thumb over half the lens.
> 
> Getting a throwy light to flood is easy. Getting a floodlight to reach out past the tip of your nose is impossible. I prefer having both capabilities.



What?

I hear you on the ease of MAKING the light, but as far as USING it as a tool...its like arguing if hammers are better than wrenches because its harder to make a hammer. 

Getting a flood to reach out past the end of your nose is actually quite easy, not "impossible"...I have floods that can reach out ~ 400-500 meters...which is more than some throw lights can reach. (IE: Not impossible, already exists)

So, of COURSE you prefer having both...sometime you need a wrench and sometimes you need a hammer....no matter how hard it is to make one.



I agree 100% with Cataract's post above about needing a new term or delineation of what exactly flood or throw ARE...as there are "throw lights" that can throw 200 m and "flood lights" that can throw 400 m, and so forth.

For automotive lighting, there are a few terms like "Pencil Beam", "Eurobeam" "Driving Beam", Flood Beam or Fog, etc...that are also undefined to the masses...but we generally understand that the pencil beam is shaped like a pencil, and that the Driving beam is more like the high beams on steroids, and the fog pattern is fan shaped, etc.

Something along those lines might help to characterize the TYPE of beam pattern. A basic cut point set might say if its less than Xº its a pencil beam, less than Yº but more than Xº its a spot beam, and so forth.

You would then have a basic picture of what type of beam was being thrown. You could then extrapolate the area covered by the beam angle...so you'd know roughly how proportionally dissipated the beam would be by distance.

For example, this would be analogous to knowing a fan shape pattern is good for seeing best close-up w/o needing to be sweeping the light around to things, and whatever lumens you had to work with would be spread out or concentrated proportionally.

Currently, we have cd (Lux at 1 m) numbers that tell us the max range for the hottest part of the hot spot...but NOT the diameter of the hot spot at that range....and Lumens, that tell us the OVERALL output of the beam...but, NOT what we see at any given distance or diameter.




For myself, I'd really like a more detailed description...but fear it would be too complicated to delineate...so the above is feasible, the below would be awaiting breakthroughs.

Beam angle for the hot spot, corona and spill would be a starting point....especially if there was a way to break down the lumens devoted to each.


----------



## SimulatedZero (Dec 2, 2012)

TEEJ said:


> Currently, we have cd (Lux at 1 m) numbers that tell us the max range for the hottest part of the hot spot...but NOT the diameter of the hot spot at that range....and Lumens, that tell us the OVERALL output of the beam...but, NOT what we see at any given distance or diameter.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Others have disagreed with me on this in the past, but I think that there is a way to determine that when given certain values. I'm sure you can find some of my old posts about it. I believe that you can use a Candela to Lumen ratio to determine the general beam pattern. If I had more resources and time I would do more extensive testing, but what little testing I have done has so far served to give validity to that hypothesis.


----------



## WmArnold1 (Dec 2, 2012)

TEEJ said:


> ...
> For myself, I'd really like a more detailed description...but fear it would be too complicated to delineate...so the above is feasible, the below would be awaiting breakthroughs.
> 
> Beam angle for the hot spot, corona and spill would be a starting point....especially if there was a way to break down the lumens devoted to each.



I second TEEJ's motion re: considering cone-angles for hot-spot & spill in lieu of "throw". Further, for reflector lights anyway, it's reasonably easy to determine the percentage of Lumens going between spot and spill. My benchmark for the SC600 follows:


----------



## kaichu dento (Dec 2, 2012)

Place me firmly in the field of uses who prefers a good amount of flood, but feels that a general purpose light still needs to be center-weighted to couple some throw with the area of coverage for a practical and balanced beam pattern.


----------



## Timothybil (Dec 2, 2012)

I guess I fall into the mixed category, although the two throwers I have both have very nice spill as well, so the question is kind of moot. I have a couple of 100-300 lm lights (SL EMS & LF 3-mode Seraph 6) that I think of as blended. They have a nice hot spot that will throw for a 100 or so meters, and a large bright-enough spill as well. I also have a couple of 400 m throwers - SL SuperTac XL & RayoVac 4-c lantern - that have very small but VERY bright hotspots but also a very nice spill.


----------



## tipup09 (Dec 2, 2012)

For me if its a handheld light its throw, if its a headlamp then its flood


----------



## Dr. Strangelove (Dec 5, 2012)

Great Taste! Less Filling!

Oh, sorry, that was an old debate that was never completely settled...


----------



## TEEJ (Dec 5, 2012)

I find it amusing that so many posts say they need THROW because they want to see 100' to 100 yards away, etc...but almost all my flood lights easily exceed that range. IE: My flooders seem to have more range than their throwers.

The entire thread is still like asking if hammers or wrenches are preferable though.

It will always come down to whether we need to turn a bolt or drive a nail.


----------



## TEEJ (Dec 5, 2012)

WmArnold1 said:


> I second TEEJ's motion re: considering cone-angles for hot-spot & spill in lieu of "throw". Further, for reflector lights anyway, it's reasonably easy to determine the percentage of Lumens going between spot and spill. My benchmark for the SC600 follows:




I like this.


----------



## BillSWPA (Dec 5, 2012)

JohnnyLunar said:


> I voted *throw*, because it is more _important_ to me, even though flood is often more _useful_ to me. Here is what I mean -
> 
> When you really need a bright light to see something RIGHT NOW - whether it is 5 feet away, or 100 feet away, a throwy light will do it (with the possible downside of too much light on a flat reflective surface up close). In the same situation, a floody light will help you see what is right in front of you, but may not reach out to where you really need it. I'd rather have too much light up close, than not enough light at distance. So, if I had to have 1 single type of light for all purposes, it would probably be something like my Surefire E2DL. Plenty of bright white light in a very tight spot when you need it at a distance, and a low-level version of the same beam when you don't. As much as I love my high-CRI Malkoff M61, and my high-CRI Nailbender XML, they don't hold a candle to the available reach of a Surefire TIR optic putting out less than half the lumens.
> 
> ...



This is my opinion as well.

If I have a light with good throw and need to see something that is not currently lit, I can simply move the light. If I have a light with good flood and need to see something at a distance, I am out of luck.

A big complaint with the LED lights from 8-10 years ago is that they were all flood and no throw.


----------



## Changchung (Dec 5, 2012)

Floody for me...


Sent from my phone with camera with flash and internet on it...


----------



## recDNA (Dec 5, 2012)

I've been looking for a great thrower with flip up diffuser for flood or a great flood to throw adjustable flashlight for years. No dice on either count.


----------



## yoyoman (Dec 5, 2012)

Throw is what you need to impress your friends. A very small (10180) flood that's in your pocket is what you need to walk in the dark.


----------



## eg1977 (Dec 5, 2012)

I voted for flood


----------



## cal..45 (Dec 9, 2012)

Right now I carry two lights with me. A Sunwayman V11R - or alternatively - a Thrunite A1 (both lighs do an absolute marvelous job as flooders and are perfect bicycle lamps - especially when run with 14500's) and for a little more throw I carry a Jetbeam BC10 always set to high. Realistic spoken, this is everything I need in 99% of all situation. The 1 precent where is still need more throw is either for pure fun (I have a Dereelight DBS for that) or a rather unlikely event such as a massive zombie outbreak or something similar 


cheers


----------



## Lite-Bright (Dec 12, 2012)

I vote _FLOOD_
Not only do I want to see what I am looking for or at, but peripheral is important to me. I hate having any sort of tunnel vision.
I feel my Quark AA2 Tactical does a good job of both flood and throw but flooding out an area with light comes before distance for me.


----------



## Kaban (Dec 12, 2012)

what's a good flood flashlight that's hand held? Something with a nice large head like the surefire m6?


----------



## jellydonut (Dec 13, 2012)

Kaban said:


> what's a good flood flashlight that's hand held? Something with a nice large head like the surefire m6?



There's large and there's large. In the case of the Surefire M6, the head is large in order to accomodate a large reflector (or, in the M6LT's case, an optic). This reflector, or optic, is designed to focus the light as well as possible, which is why it is so large in the first place. These lights are designed to provide excellent throw.

If, however, a light has a large head and the head is filled with different LEDs, it's a flood monster. You can see some M6 conversions that have 6 or 7 LEDs with each their tiny optic.

If you want flood, you might as well buy a smaller light with a powerful LED - easier to carry.


----------



## jinx626 (Dec 13, 2012)

I prefer throw. You can always find ways to diffuse it but you cannot make a floody throw.


----------



## naiter (Dec 14, 2012)

jinx626 said:


> I prefer throw. You can always find ways to diffuse it but you cannot make a floody throw.


you are right, BUT
I have taken a glass sphere and placed it in front of a floody light to make an aspherical super tight die shaped throw. 
It is on a sword/cane handle claw. if it weren't a replica, and i was an old man needing a cane, i'd rig an functional attachment for my light. kinda like carrying a diffuser. 
--I actually use business cards often as a diffuser(saw it here) but if some one doesn't actually diffiser their throwy light its just the same as me not carrying a
cane w/ claw sphere.
im sure someone here has an aspherical reverse-diffuser attachement... now i kinda want to make one!


----------



## Lightman2 (Dec 23, 2012)

With a throw light I can easily move the beam to and fro to get coverage but I cannot run out back and forth to get distance so throw is always preferred. The longer the throw the less distance I have to be to see what I am looking at such as that bump in the back yard. Last thing I want to have is an encounter with a person at night stumbling upon them almost because my light did not pick them out. Street signs, etc etc throw is it for me. I have emailed Zebra and told them that if they made an SC51 with a tighter reflector so it throws more they would sell a pile of them. Coverage is nice but I think it is overrated. My brother brought a Zebra that had the XML led in it and I as not a all impressed with its throw (knowing it is more spill than throw due to led design). I can almost make a prediction without seeing the lights that the XML lights will catch many people out who read the lumen rating and think if they buy the light it will allow them to see further. Most people rate lights on distance they can see things not how wide they can see things. If you like distance throwers then stay away from smaller battery powered XML led lights.


----------



## Launch Mini (Dec 24, 2012)

naiter said:


> you are right, BUT
> I have taken a glass sphere and placed it in front of a floody light to make an aspherical super tight die shaped throw.
> It is on a sword/cane handle claw. if it weren't a replica, and i was an old man needing a cane, i'd rig an functional attachment for my light. kinda like carrying a diffuser.
> --I actually use business cards often as a diffuser(saw it here) but if some one doesn't actually diffiser their throwy light its just the same as me not carrying a
> ...



Try a jewellers Loupe, they work fantastic as a method to get killer throw from a floody light. I've put one in front of a XML SPY at full power ( 3.000) and it is wicked


----------



## naiter (Dec 24, 2012)

Launch Mini said:


> Try a jewellers Loupe, they work fantastic as a method to get killer throw from a floody light. I've put one in front of a XML SPY at full power ( 3.000) and it is wicked


great idea!! THX


----------



## TEEJ (Dec 24, 2012)

I did this ~ last year on the ZL SC600...a loupe in front of it projects the die...instant aspheric.



An aspheric head is essentially the "reverse diffuser"


----------



## hiljentaa (Dec 24, 2012)

Definitely flood for me. I don't care much at all about throw. Perhaps that would be different if I lived in some vast open area, but I do not.


----------



## parnass (Dec 25, 2012)

Flood for indoor use.

Throw for outdoor use.


----------



## klmmicro (Dec 25, 2012)

For me, I find that a mix of both works best. I like to have flood as it is like peripheral vision. My mountain biking lamp has a nice mix and it allows me to focus in on technical, while also have a fair amount of flood. The flood allows me to see alternative paths that would otherwise go unnoticed. I do find that a nice throw allows me to use my torches on lower settings for longer run times.


----------



## Thr3Evo (Dec 25, 2012)

This is almost the same as the if you only had one light thread, so I'll answer similarly: I live on ten acres, with trees, pets/animals which need protected from other wild life, motorcycle/cars and quads that need maintained and a driveway that's almost a quarter of a mile long, I need an assortment of lights at my disposal.


----------



## spc smith (Dec 26, 2012)

cal..45 said:


> Right now I carry two lights with me. A Sunwayman V11R - or alternatively - a Thrunite A1 (both lighs do an absolute marvelous job as flooders and are perfect bicycle lamps - especially when run with 14500's) and for a little more throw I carry a Jetbeam BC10 always set to high. Realistic spoken, this is everything I need in 99% of all situation. The 1 precent where is still need more throw is either for pure fun (I have a Dereelight DBS for that) or a rather unlikely event such as a massive zombie outbreak or something similar  This is the reason I am not quite satisfied with the amount of "usable throw" of the Klarus XT11. Im opting at this point to find a new light, same size and battery configuration. Ive zeroed my sites on the MTE-MC G33. But keeping on subject, I prefer lights with a a defined flood and intense center beam for throw. .
> 
> 
> cheers


----------



## Ollie243 (Dec 26, 2012)

In my opinion flood fits my daily tasks better, last night I went to check on my dogs I took both my thrower 900 lumen very tight hotspot and my sunwayman v10r and actually ended up putting the thrower in my pocket as I found it nearly useless, when using it to see where I was going. 

I understand you have to use the right tool for the job and I would not take my sunwayman to pick out rabbits eyes at night at 100+ yards at night.

For my daily needs flood beats throw.


----------



## Stilt (Dec 27, 2012)

It depends on where I'm at and what I'm doing. Indoors, a simple walk down a path or use in the backyard I prefer flood. But if I'm trying to identify something at a distance then a thrower is a necessity. So I guess what type of light is needed for the moment would determine what's more important. Anyways, for whatever situation arises, I carry both types.


----------



## WmArnold1 (Dec 28, 2012)

Stilt said:


> It depends on where I'm at and what I'm doing. Indoors, a simple walk down a path or use in the backyard I prefer flood. But if I'm trying to identify something at a distance then a thrower is a necessity. So I guess what type of light is needed for the moment would determine what's more important. Anyways, for whatever situation arises, I carry both types.



Nicely said Stilt; I believe they will always be separate too.


----------



## kaninekl (Jan 1, 2013)

I vote throw and need some flood for walk in the night road.


----------



## kaichu dento (Jan 2, 2013)

I've really been noticing lately that I prefer my floodier beamed TC-R1 at very low levels and the punchier beam of my V10R Ti at higher levels, which has enough spill until I turn it way down, at which settings it just gives me a tiny spot of light.


----------



## Raiden (Jan 2, 2013)

At first it was all about the throw just to impress my co-workers. But now I prefer flood especially during work when it's dark. I dont really need to move my flashlight much to focus on a part that Im trying to look at with the flood.


----------



## wordwalker3 (Jan 2, 2013)

flood, my EDC lights are XML's Thrunite C1 or A1, my one XPG2 Eagletac D25A clicky Ti is backup or sunday EDC. My D25C Ti wil be an XML U2.


----------



## Al_D (Jan 3, 2013)

Throw:
You can easily turn a thrower into indirect lighting.

Obviously, my needs developed over personal and professional use has steered me to that bias.


----------



## TweakMDS (Jan 3, 2013)

I think many new flashlight users overestimate the need for throw. In daily activities, you rarely need all that much throw. I normally edc an EagleTac D25A Clicky XP-G and when I'm outdoors in the dark it already allows me to see freakishly far. 
Flood is much more important to me in normal situations, since I use my lights for inspection and navigation a lot. Throwing lights with a tiny hotspot are HORRIBLE for navigating in the dark since the hotspot blinds your peripheral vision. A pure flood light, or a light with a huge hotspot on low doesn't have have this effect that much.

When I'm outdoors at night (pitch black cloudy moonless nights) I prefer navigating with one pure flood light on medium-low (~10 - 30 lumens) and one throwier light at a slightly higher mode. That way I keep lighting my path with the flooder and the throwier light follows my vision.

For the purpose of this poll I voted flood.


----------



## PANGES (Jan 3, 2013)

I would imagine for my purposes (indoors and camping outdoors), flood is more important.


----------

