# IMR and surefire lights



## Youfoundnemo (Dec 9, 2008)

...


----------



## Per Arne (Dec 9, 2008)

Hi,

If going rechargable, I think I would chose the protected 18650 Li-ion 3.7V - 2200mAh way, because of the longer runtime. I've also read somewhere here on CPF that the 18650 would maybe soon be in 2500mAh...

LeefGear has some nice tubes but I would recommend surefire bezel and tailcaps. LeefGear had some tailcaps but they are hard to find. Try www.lighthound.com.

PA


----------



## RyanA (Dec 9, 2008)

Seconded, the IMRs are more useful in situations where you need more current (for example you need lots of volts with a high amp draw and don't care about runtime, all in a small package), but regular Li-ions have better capacity (lots of volts, with improved runtime in a small package with low current demands). No one battery is best. It's a bit of a balancing act between voltage, discharge rates and capacity.


----------



## Youfoundnemo (Dec 9, 2008)

...


----------



## ampdude (Dec 9, 2008)

I would go with the IMR's. They use a safe chemistry, unlike the black label lithium ions. So you don't have to worry about them bursting 1300F flame in any particular direction. And the IMR's are more versatile, in case you want to use a high drain setup as well. And they don't need a protection circuit, which makes them thinner and more reliable. The little bit of extra runtime on a low drain setup the lithium ions may have is just not worth it for me. If I want more runtime, I'll use primaries! Way better than lithium ions. IMR is the way to go.


----------



## Youfoundnemo (Dec 10, 2008)

...


----------



## conan1911 (Dec 10, 2008)

I cant pretend to know all the other items you are speaking of but when it comes to SureFire....you get the point. 

First, the 660 is not at all like a 6P the only thing that is the same is the fact that it uses two batteries and the same lamp. That would be like putting a Mustang engine in a Festiva and saying it is the same thing. They serve very different purposes.

Second, using Lithium-Ion batteries with a the P60 will blow it. See it all the time. 

Third, years ago we did have an adapter to make a Classic series weaponlight rechargeable. (A13) Of course this means using the SureFire B65. The reason we quit showing this was rechargeable isnt reliable from a tactical standpoint. Example, if a LE officer has a 660 in his/her trunk and isnt diligent to insure it is constantly charged they may go into a situation ill prepared. BTW, we do still have a few left. 

I hope this helps. 


[email protected]


----------



## signal 13 (Dec 10, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> years ago we did have an adapter to make a Classic series weaponlight rechargeable. (A13) Of course this means using the SureFire B65. The reason we quit showing this was rechargeable isnt reliable from a tactical standpoint. Example, if a LE officer has a 660 in his/her trunk and isnt diligent to insure it is constantly charged they may go into a situation ill prepared.
> 
> [email protected]


 
Good advice...this is exactly why I chose to use the Malkoff M60 in my SF M95 weaponlight on my rifle instead of using LiIons w/ the M30.


----------



## Youfoundnemo (Dec 10, 2008)

...


----------



## nzgunnie (Dec 10, 2008)

I'd suggest you stick with the P90, it will be plenty bright enough, but being SF it is designed to be used in the Z32 bezel, and will run just fine one either the AWRCR123s or the IMRs.

If you want something brighter you could of course go to the P91 or EO-9 on two IMRs.

Are you sure about the 3P thing? My 660 body (L60) is longer than a single CR123, but shorter than a 17500.


----------



## mdocod (Dec 11, 2008)

Hi Youfoundnemo,

As for the cells/lamps you should use... 

IMR16340 all the way and here's why:

1. No PCB to break under recoil pressure.
2. Safer chemistry than either CR123 primary or regular LiCo (black label AW and most other li-ion) cells.
3. Better performance under high drain rates.
4. Very Very low self-discharge with no PCB to increase self discharge rate (they have a parasitic drain that shows up as more significant self-discharge in smaller cell sizes).
5. Good cycle life and overall reliability, same cell chemistry used in power tools which translates to "durability."

Sounds like all of the things you would WANT in a rechargeable weapon-light eh? How many years till surefire catches up? Oh wait.... they are too busy rolling around in the piles of money from CR123 sales to notice.... hehe (please understand that I am joking, I own and enjoy SF lights, (that have ben converted to li-ion))....

With that said, if the flashlight and switch you are using are specified for use with a P61, then it is safe to say that the switch should be able to handle up to 2.5 amps. With that in mind, most of your options are going to be the same or less than that anyways.

As for the bulbs:

When in a "3P" configuration, I would suggest the HO-4 to get a little more runtime. should be close to 17 minutes. You might also try a Wolf-Eyes 3.7V D26, I hear they are really good performers overall. 

When in a "6P" configuration with 2 IMR16340s, any of the 9V style lamps are worth a look, decide based on how much output you want to trade for runtime. I'd say pick up an ES-9 and an EO-9 to use as your LOLA and HOLA lamps. (~39 minutes and ~15 minutes respectively), try those options out and see how you like them. If it's still not bright enough try a P91 or LFs up and coming 500 lumen D26 for use with IMR cells. (they should be similar)... The P91 will only run for about 10 minutes so keep that in mind.

Eric


----------



## ampdude (Dec 11, 2008)

mdocod said:


> 5. Good cycle life and overall reliability, same cell chemistry used in power tools which translates to "durability."



That was one of the last questions I had on these batteries. Are these based on the A123 cells used in some power tools? If that's the case, then I assume there are no worries for cold weather use like there are with lithium ion cells..


----------



## naked2 (Dec 11, 2008)

mdocod said:


> You might also try a Wolf-Eyes 3.7V D26, I hear they are really good performers overall.


Lighthound has the Wolf-Eyes 100 Lumen 3.7 volt Turbo Bulb on sale right now for $2.99. :thumbsup:

Input "cpf" into the "apply coupon" box in your cart for 2% off. After you enter that code, enter this one also: "twitter", for another 7% off (yes, the "Hound" lets you "stack" coupons!), for a total of 9% off your entire order (that's $2.72 for the WE lamp!). The twitter code is only good until tomorrow though.

The Hound also now has both AW's IMR 16340s and IMR 18650s in stock. Each are a dollar more than AW sells them for at CPFMP, but with the current discount, IMR16340= $6.36 and IMR18650= $9.56. Plus if you spend at least $75, domestic shipping is free!

I think I should post this at CPFMP "good deals" as well!


----------



## naked2 (Dec 11, 2008)

Bummer, I just checked the Hound, the IMR18650s are out of stock. But they still do have the 16340s and the lamps.


----------



## mdocod (Dec 11, 2008)

ampdude said:


> That was one of the last questions I had on these batteries. Are these based on the A123 cells used in some power tools? If that's the case, then I assume there are no worries for cold weather use like there are with lithium ion cells..



A123 is a nano-lithium phosphate chemistry, nominal 3.2V and around 50% the energy density as compared with Lithium Cobalt (regular li-ion). nano-lithium-phosphate can tolerate insane abuse, but at the sacrifice of that energy density.

IMR cells from AW are based on a lithium manganese oxide chemistry that has about 20-30% less energy density than Lithium Cobalt. It is a safe chemistry that can handle some serious loads, but isn't quite as abuse tolerant as the nano-phosphate cells...

Eric


----------



## mdocod (Dec 11, 2008)

naked2 said:


> Lighthound has the Wolf-Eyes 100 Lumen 3.7 volt Turbo Bulb on sale right now for $2.99. :thumbsup:
> 
> Input "cpf" into the "apply coupon" box in your cart for 2% off. After you enter that code, enter this one also: "twitter", for another 7% off (yes, the "Hound" lets you "stack" coupons!), for a total of 9% off your entire order (that's $2.72 for the WE lamp!). The twitter code is only good until tomorrow though.
> 
> ...



The lamp you have linked to is a 36mm mini-turbo lamp that will not fit a surefire. It is designed to be loaded into the Wolf-Eyes 42mm turbo-bezel (found on 6 and 9 series mini-turbo configurations). 

Good effort, but sorry 

Eric


----------



## ampdude (Dec 11, 2008)

mdocod said:


> A123 is a nano-lithium phosphate chemistry, nominal 3.2V and around 50% the energy density as compared with Lithium Cobalt (regular li-ion). nano-lithium-phosphate can tolerate insane abuse, but at the sacrifice of that energy density.
> 
> IMR cells from AW are based on a lithium manganese oxide chemistry that has about 20-30% less energy density than Lithium Cobalt. It is a safe chemistry that can handle some serious loads, but isn't quite as abuse tolerant as the nano-phosphate cells...
> 
> Eric



Thank you for that reply Eric, that was exactly the information I was hunting for. I am more confident in the IMR chemistry than lithium ion, double bonus that it no longer has a PCB to fail, but I would like to see some more serious abuse testing done at -0F before I place my faith in them as high as I do in Surefire lithium primaries.


----------



## Youfoundnemo (Dec 11, 2008)

...


----------



## mdocod (Dec 11, 2008)

ampdude said:


> Thank you for that reply Eric, that was exactly the information I was hunting for. I am more confident in the IMR chemistry than lithium ion, double bonus that it no longer has a PCB to fail, but I would like to see some more serious abuse testing done at -0F before I place my faith in them as high as I do in Surefire lithium primaries.



these are all technically li-ion chemistry cells. To distinguish between them, we name the primary cathode material in the cells. In your comparison here, the proper way to say this is technically "I am more confident in the LiMn chemistry than LiCo."

I'll give an example of why: "I have more more confidence in ford than I have in gasoline cars"

Eric


----------



## Youfoundnemo (Dec 11, 2008)

...


----------



## ampdude (Dec 11, 2008)

Youfoundnemo said:


> LOL nice with the ford analogy....but Id have to say that you trust is ill represented :twothumbsGET A CHEVY:



:thumbsup:


----------



## naked2 (Dec 11, 2008)

mdocod said:


> The lamp you have linked to is a 36mm mini-turbo lamp that will not fit a surefire. It is designed to be loaded into the Wolf-Eyes 42mm turbo-bezel (found on 6 and 9 series mini-turbo configurations).
> 
> Good effort, but sorry
> 
> Eric


Still a good deal, maybe it will help someone, just not someone looking for a SF compatible LA.


----------



## mdocod (Dec 11, 2008)

Youfoundnemo said:


> I think Ill wait for those IMR lamp assemblys !!! 500 lumens from something half the size of the M6...THATS impressive,....
> 
> -------
> 
> ... what do you think the runtime will be for the IMR lamps, also why is it that they will be so drastically brighter than the regular li ion assemblys



Keep in mind that LumensFactory is talking about bulb lumens at a specific voltage (different battery configurations and resistance introduced by other configuration choices will change the true behavior of the system and total lumen output). Technically speaking, a SureFire P91, when driven to ~7.6V on a fresh set of large LiCo cells, is actually pushing close to 500 bulb lumens. I'm guessing that a 500 lumen LF bulb will be a ~7.2V ~3A bulb that will certainly be quite impressive... But it's not going to be quite as bright as an M6 with MN21, which is actually somewhere around 800 bulb lumen on fresh CR123, even brighter on a pair of 18650 size LiMn cells in my experience. 

The runtime of most of these configurations is fairly easy to figure out if you know what the power consumption of the lamp is going to be, as these LiMn chemistry cells maintain pretty consistent true capacity across a wide range of loads. Into light loads, the IMR16340s deliver very close to their 550mAH label capacity, and it diminishes to around 425mAH capacity (give or take IIRC) when pushed really hard. 

The whole point of running a LiMn cell, is mostly to be able to achieve output in small packages. Configurations that would calculate out to less than 30 minutes of runtime on a LiCo cell, should be considered prime candidates for LiMn options. So most of the configurations we look at as breaking new ground with these cells are in the 6-20 minutes runtime range depending. 

The higher brightness of the "IMR" lamps coming from LF is simple, they are just designing larger, lower resistance filament that draws more juice. More juice = more light. It's a higher wattage bulb. 

Eric


----------



## lebox97 (Dec 11, 2008)

isn't the FM1794 bulb running about 500 bulbs lumens on 2 fresh IMR16340 cells?
:naughty: (I have one in a SF C2 that is amazing!)


----------



## ampdude (Dec 11, 2008)

I've been hearing about this bulb, I'm curious, how much current does it draw and what are the voltage specs?


----------



## mdocod (Dec 11, 2008)

lebox97 said:


> isn't the FM1794 bulb running about 500 bulbs lumens on 2 fresh IMR16340 cells?
> :naughty: (I have one in a SF C2 that is amazing!)



Estimating on paper, somewhere between 500 and 750 bulb lumen fresh off charger, depending on MANY factors.... Keep in mind that the 1794 is a purpose built bulb with a very low target bulb life, and designed to really get punished by the cells in most configuration it is intended to be used with. The result is a ton of lumens for the power consumption and very white output. Bulb life at 7V is rated 10 hours. Akin to running a P91/MN11/MN16 on a pair of big li-ion cells, the bulb life drops to or below ~10 hours, but the output is very impressive (450+ bulb lumen). Most of the LF bulbs are more conservative than the 1794, or overdriving a P91 type setup. LF usually aims for ~3300K and 20-30hr bulb life. 

Eric


----------



## ampdude (Dec 11, 2008)

Now I'm intrigued..


----------



## lctorana (Dec 11, 2008)

I have been thinking that the forthcoming LF IMR-9 will be very similar to the Surefire P91.

_(Not that I have ever seen a P91, and in all likelihood never will)_


----------



## Youfoundnemo (Dec 11, 2008)

...


----------



## mdocod (Dec 11, 2008)

Youfoundnemo said:


> So in true flashaholic fassion....what lamp assembly will be brightest (and for the shortest amount of time) and or throw the best...700 lumens of light right in front of me isnt all that usefull but 200 lumens 300yards out would be super, is that even possible?



beam characteristics are heavily dependent on reflector size/shape/texturing. When you are stuck within a 26mm standard size reflector, increasing wattage will generally cause the beam to get wider and wider. I've heard that the 1794 does have some punch in the throw department, but is still a "wide" beam as far as flashlights are concerned. To get something that reaches out to 300 yards, you're better off moving up to a bigger reflector. I would personally suggest a KT2 slapped on a 2 cell SF body and a pair of IMR16340s, try the MN15, see if it works, if it isn't enough, move up to an HO-M3T or EO-M3T (as they are known for being relatively throw oriented lamps). 



> I know that 3 cell light would be brighter than the 2 cell but how much? 100-200 lumens, more/less?



Depends on what bulb you decide to run, you can make a 2 cell brighter than a 3 cell if you choose the right bulbs to compare, the question is so broad sweeping it's impossible to answer without an essay. 



> I heard you can run the WA 1185 in 3 cell, will there be any P60 to G4 addapters?



No G4 adapters for D26 style reflectors. Such a setup could be run in an M3T style light with an FM bi-pin to MN adapter. This setup is probably the brightest option of any 2-3 cell size light but does require that large turbohead to make it happen. (could be done with a KT1/2 on a regular 3 cell "C" compatible SF as well). 



> Ok i think Ill stop with the questions...for now =]



for now................................................ ehhe



> I spoke to a surefire representative (lol) and they knew.....nothing I asked how many amps the 660 tailcap (non XM) could stand up to, he asked how many cells I was running and then told me that it would handle 2700...MAH!!! ugh gotta love the unedgucated (like my self) so I still dont know how many Amps the switch will stand up to.... but I will find out and post it here =]



wait..... we are expecting the consumer relations department to understand the products in question at a large company? fat chance right, hehe....


Eric


----------



## ampdude (Dec 12, 2008)

lctorana said:


> I have been thinking that the forthcoming LF IMR-9 will be very similar to the Surefire P91.
> 
> _(Not that I have ever seen a P91, and in all likelihood never will)_



I'm sure it will be a brighter lamp than the P91.

The EO-9 draws about 1.9-2.0A, the P91 about 2.5-2.6A. This is pure speculation, but I'm guessing the IMR-9 will probably be a 3.0-4.0A lamp assembly.

If that's the case runtime will be very short on IMR16340's, but much better on IMR18500 and IMR18650 batteries.


----------



## mdocod (Dec 12, 2008)

ampdude said:


> I'm sure it will be a brighter lamp than the P91.
> 
> The EO-9 draws about 1.9-2.0A, the P91 about 2.5-2.6A. This is pure speculation, but I'm guessing the IMR-9 will probably be a 3.0-4.0A lamp assembly.
> 
> If that's the case runtime will be very short on IMR16340's, but much better on IMR18500 and IMR18650 batteries.



The P91 is already ~500 bulb lumen when driven to ~7.5V/2.7A, but has a lower life and lower power consumption than a production bulb from LF would to achieve the same output. If I had to take a stab at it, the new IMR D26 lamp will be rated 7.2V, ~3.0A (+/-0.2A), 3350K, 20hr 500 lumen. It will potencially achieve slightly better output than a P91 can when driven really good and hard by a pair of IMR18650s.... This is based on the assumption that a P91 probably wouldn't tolerate a pair of IMR18650s long enough to really compare the 2 setups fairly. 

Eric


----------



## lctorana (Dec 12, 2008)

And on 2xIMR16340, in a 6P, say, the two would be fairly comparable, by the sound of it.


----------



## naked2 (Dec 12, 2008)

A G3 can use a P91 with 3x CR123A or 2x 17500 due to it's Pyrex lens. Why is it not recommended to use IMR LAs in Nitrolon lights? Why couldn't a LF IMR-9 and 2x IMR16340s be used in a G2 body/twisty tailcap, with a G3 head?


----------



## lctorana (Dec 12, 2008)

Evidently the P91 must be right on the limit, and the LF IMR-9 will be over it.


----------



## naked2 (Dec 12, 2008)

lctorana said:


> Evidently the P91 must be right on the limit, and the LF IMR-9 will be over it.


G3 and P91 are both made/recommended by SF (obviously). But we all know SF doesn't sell anything "right on the limit"!

I'll bet the IMR-9 will work in a Nitrolon light/Pyrex lens/twisty tail, but *I'm* not gonna be the first to try it, but I'm sure *someone *will! :devil:


----------



## mdocod (Dec 12, 2008)

naked2 said:


> A G3 can use a P91 with 3x CR123A or 2x 17500 due to it's Pyrex lens. Why is it not recommended to use IMR LAs in Nitrolon lights? Why couldn't a LF IMR-9 and 2x IMR16340s be used in a G2 body/twisty tailcap, with a G3 head?



The P91 can not be used with 17500s.... (I'm going to take a guess, that 700 of my 5000+ posts on this forum have been used to repeat this)

if you used a G3 head, and not the G2 head, I'd be willing to guess that the IMR-9 might be ok in the G2 on the IMR cells. Since the runtime would only be around 10 minutes, and it would usually only be used in short bursts, I don't think heat would be a major problem unless it were left on for a full discharge. 

Same applies for the FM1794 as it's right in that same power class.


----------



## naked2 (Dec 12, 2008)

mdocod said:


> The P91 can not be used with 17500s.... (I'm going to take a guess, that 700 of my 5000+ posts on this forum have been used to repeat this)


 I stand corrected, but I haven't read one of the 700!  Can you make it 701 and spare me the search?

Thanks Eric!

Tony


----------



## mdocod (Dec 12, 2008)

hehe... actually... I did a quick and dirty search and think I have over-estimated the number of times.... 

It's closer to 100 

Eric

PS: it's no big deal, if I didn't say it, someone else probably would have.


----------



## naked2 (Dec 12, 2008)

But_ why _can't the P91 be used with 2x 17500?


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Dec 12, 2008)

naked2 said:


> But_ why _can't the P91 be used with 2x 17500?



What comes to mind is the 2 1/2C draw from the cells, and 17500's are usually ratated at 1 1/2C discharge. The other factor is unreliable start up, as the initial voltage spike pulls extremely high current/voltage from the cells, triggering the cells low discharge protection circuit, particularly when the cells have lost some of their capacity. Unprotected 17500's fare much better, but are considered to be unsafe, particularly in high discharge situations.

Bill


----------



## naked2 (Dec 12, 2008)

Thanks Bill.
So if and when AW releases IMR17500s, would a P91 work with them? Or a IMR-9?


----------



## mdocod (Dec 12, 2008)

naked2 said:


> But_ why _can't the P91 be used with 2x 17500?



read this thread:

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/214083&highlight=17500

read posts 16, 18, and 42


----------



## mdocod (Dec 12, 2008)

Bullzeyebill said:


> What comes to mind is the 2 1/2C draw from the cells, and 17500's are usually ratated at 1 1/2C discharge. The other factor is unreliable start up, as the initial voltage spike pulls extremely high current/voltage from the cells, triggering the cells low discharge protection circuit, particularly when the cells have lost some of their capacity. Unprotected 17500's fare much better, but are considered to be unsafe, particularly in high discharge situations.
> 
> Bill



It's a current spike, not voltage spike. There is a surface charge on any cell that causes the initial "on" to be slightly higher in voltage but the issue with protection shutting off the circuit has to do with circuit resistance. Cold filaments have low resistance, so when a bulb that draws ~2.5A running is first turned on, it will pull a "spike" of about 5-10 amps momentarily. The PCb on a 17500 will trip before the current spike settles. the low-volt protection rarely has any effect in this scenario unless the batteries are nearly drained. The PCB has a totally separate limiter for preventing excessive discharge rates and short circuits.


----------



## Youfoundnemo (Dec 13, 2008)

...


----------



## Paul5M (Dec 13, 2008)

It's the current


----------



## nzgunnie (Dec 13, 2008)

I hope AW brings out 17500 IMRs. I have several 3 cell length surefires, and having the ability to run a really bright LA (brighter than the EO-9 which is the highest current draw LA I can use at the moment) would be great. I know I can run these hight current draw lamps in IMR 16340s, but the extra run time afforded by a 17500 size cell would start to move the LAs into the useful territory, rather than the fun 'gee that's bright' territory!


----------



## Youfoundnemo (Dec 13, 2008)

...


----------



## nzgunnie (Dec 13, 2008)

Youfoundnemo said:


> I guess it all depends on what your doing with the light, for weapon mounted lights short runtimes arent a bad thing, they actually make me feel like Im getting as much light as possible out of the setup, Im sure Im not the only one on the forums that feels this way



I have a 3 cell weapon light as well as a two cell one, so the IMR17500s would be more useful.


----------



## Youfoundnemo (Dec 13, 2008)

...


----------



## mdocod (Dec 13, 2008)

Youfoundnemo said:


> Mdocod you truely amaze me with your level of intelligence and knowledge, are a EE or something of that nature? Also could you please explain to me what it is that frys switches? Im prettysure its the amperage but the guy at surefire said it was voltage that fryed switches and not to go above 12v? wats the truth?



Hi, actually... I'm just the pizza delivery "guy." No formal education beyond high school. Pretty silly eh? I do that on the weekends and would like to someday make my passion for flashlights a solid source of income through the building of flashlights and flashlight related products... I'm hoping to get a CNC mill and a lathe setup within the next year or 2 so I can start putting some of my ideas to the aluminum rod 

I don't know a ton about switches but I'll share what I do:

There are several ways a switch can fail. Both voltage and current can play a factor in it. Switching higher voltages requires that special attention in switch design be paid to either keep arcing to a minimum (as arcing oxidizes the contact surfaces and increase resistance), or the use of materials that can handle repeated arcing without serious oxidation issues... hehe... The contact point within a switch, depending on the design, is usually fairly small and may not have a lot of pressure between the 2 contact surfaces, this can create a point of resistance, in this case, high current is more apt to cause a failure. Then of course there is just plain mechanical failure from poor design..


----------



## nzgunnie (Dec 13, 2008)

Youfoundnemo said:


> Have you seen a [email protected] 85? With 3 cells you could run the [email protected] 85 bulb and produce somewhere around 900 lumens!!! Can I ask what tailswitch you are using, the older type with the flag switch or the new one with the push button?
> 
> I have the 2 cell light and am seriously considering getting a battery tube extender so I can run the WA 1185 bulb....well I dream about it anyway



I have a mag 85.

To use with my weapon lights I'd need to get a Bi pin SF MN holder to run an 1185, then also need the turbo head... too hard! 

I'd rather run an MN11 on two IMR17500s. Currently I use 2 x AW17500s to run an EO-M3.

I know I could use 2xIMR16340s to run a P91 in my 660 light, but I'd rather take the hit on brightness to get more useful run time from a P90 and two AWCR123s in this set up.

I'm using an older UM07 on my weapon lights (it has the tape switch hard wired in, rather than the plug in version).


----------



## Youfoundnemo (Dec 13, 2008)

...


----------



## nzgunnie (Dec 14, 2008)

My 3 cell light is an M961, basically an 'M3'. This would need an MN10/11 style holder for the 1185, the P60 LA type wouldn't fit.

I was lucky to be able to build my 660 out of second hand parts I picked up cheap (except the A12(?) which was brand new - and hard to get!). The L60 and Z32 were cheap off ebay from a guy in Italy, it's been used and dinged a bit. The tail cap was from someone on the CPFMP here. I was also lucky with the M961, it was a user from Dafabricata, and was sold minus the tail cap so was pretty cheap too (about $105 I think).

Most of my SF lights are mint - and I hate to scuff them up, but my two weapon lights were well used when I got them, so I can use them without worrying about the odd ding or scratch.


----------



## Nite (Dec 30, 2008)

Per Arne said:


> Hi,
> 
> If going rechargable, I think I would chose the protected 18650 Li-ion 3.7V - 2200mAh way, because of the longer runtime. I've also read somewhere here on CPF that the 18650 would maybe soon be in 2500mAh...
> 
> ...



they also carry FiveMega Tubes now also!!

i want to subscribe to this thread, and replying is a great way to do it!


----------



## Nite (Dec 30, 2008)

Youfoundnemo said:


> I have a 660 (ill refer to it as a 6P because its essentially a 6P with a mount) or I can use the 660's front half as a 3P (with a custom tailcap of course) ok enough with back ground info, I know that I want to go rechargable but have not decided which way to go, IMR or black label (only AW cells) I really want your guys' oppinion as to which set up to go with LF EO-4 and the 3P set up or LF EO-9 with the 6P set up? I could also try to find a A19 extender (would deffinatly strech my budget) and get that extra cell for running a 12v lamp but I dont have enough knowledge of hotwires to figure it all out.



everything you need to know is in this guide. 

MDs Lithium-Ion > Incandescent guide + compatability/comparison chart

it should be a rule you have to read this b4 posting.


----------



## Youfoundnemo (Dec 30, 2008)

...


----------



## Nite (Dec 30, 2008)

dont get me wrong, im not trying to detract from the validity of your post.
Its of higher caliber than when I first started.

I just think thats how important HIS guide is.

everyone should read it.


----------



## recDNA (Feb 3, 2010)

mdocod said:


> A123 is a nano-lithium phosphate chemistry, nominal 3.2V and around 50% the energy density as compared with Lithium Cobalt (regular li-ion). nano-lithium-phosphate can tolerate insane abuse, but at the sacrifice of that energy density.
> 
> IMR cells from AW are based on a lithium manganese oxide chemistry that has about 20-30% less energy density than Lithium Cobalt. It is a safe chemistry that can handle some serious loads, but isn't quite as abuse tolerant as the nano-phosphate cells...
> 
> Eric


 
But are IMR cells safe in a hot car in summer or a cold car in winter?


----------



## mdocod (Feb 4, 2010)

recDNA said:


> But are IMR cells safe in a hot car in summer or a cold car in winter?



CR123s and lithium primary AA cells seem to be the best for long term storage in cars. However, an IMR cells should tolerate most hot/cold found in most places reasonably well provided the user isn't leaving it on the dash in the summer. For hot summer days, under the passenger seat is one of the best places. Out of direct sunlight is one of the most important things. 

Eric


----------



## naked2 (Feb 4, 2010)

And inside a battery case.


----------



## recDNA (Feb 4, 2010)

mdocod said:


> CR123s and lithium primary AA cells seem to be the best for long term storage in cars. However, an IMR cells should tolerate most hot/cold found in most places reasonably well provided the user isn't leaving it on the dash in the summer. For hot summer days, under the passenger seat is one of the best places. Out of direct sunlight is one of the most important things.
> 
> Eric


 

Thanks. At this time of year in New England worrying about direct sunlight strikes me as funny! Drops to teens or below most nights. I know the IMR voltage will drop from the cold but I wonder if it would ruin the battery?


----------



## ampdude (Feb 4, 2010)

recDNA said:


> But are IMR cells safe in a hot car in summer or a cold car in winter?



Well, I usually don't keep extra rechargeables in the car as backup. I keep primary lithium cells in there. But I can say the red IMR cells can't explode and vent flame like the black cells, because the chemistry doesn't contain any oxygen like the black lithium cobalt cells. And they don't have a protection circuit to fail like with the black cells. The red IMR cells don't need a protection circuit since the chemistry is considered pretty safe.


----------



## naked2 (Feb 5, 2010)

But you still want to watch out for overdischarge; it can kill even an IMR.


----------

