# SureFire M3LT Review (Pics, Indoor & Outdoor Comparo Beamshots, Runtimes)



## turboBB

*SUREFIRE M3LT (MC-E | 3 x CR123 / 2 x 17500)*
This is my first review of a Surefire light, the M3LT which also happens to be one of their newest releases. It was gifted to me as a combo Anniversary/Father’s day present from my family. 






*RELEVANT SPECS*
*- *Lumens Outputs (Runtime) - HIGH: 400 (1.7hrs) LOW: 70 (8.5hrs)
- Weight (w/primaries) - 10.9 oz (309g)
- Length - 8.7" (22.1 cm)
- Bezel Diameter - 2.5" (6.4 cm)
- Power source - 3 x 123A Lithium



*PACKAGING*




The light comes in a foam -lined box that is encased in an outer shell box. Aside from the requisite manual, registration card and battery warning sheet, the only additional accessory included with the light is a lanyard and they also threw in a logo sticker. Of course the light comes pre-installed with Surefire batteries (as with all Surefire lights and in this case, three of them).


*SIZE COMPARISON TO OTHER LIGHTS*
Compared to other turboheads.

L to R: Surefire M3LT | Lumapower VX Ultra w/TF Kit | Jetbeam RRT-1 | Dereelight DBS V3





Compared to other Surefire's.
L to R: M3LT | U2A | E2DL | Z2 | G2Z





And here it is next to a M1X (3-cell configuration). The two lights are similar in overall size and its use of the MC-E. Where it really differs is in the head:











*DESIGN / FEATURES*
Despite sharing the same model name as the M3 line, the M3LT is not a simple LED reincarnation of its incan brethrens (a la G2 LED vs. G2) but rather a completely new design sharing no parts w/the M3 or M3T. It has the same recessed slotted elements as can be found on their newer lights (A2L, LX2, AZ2, etc.) and comes with a completely new head labeled, KX9T.





I find this interesting as it may indicate that they will eventually offer it for sale independently.

The light uses a 4-die Cree MC-E LED but alas, it is hidden behind a Fresnel Lens (pronounced: FRAY-NELL and thanks to Bill for pointing this out) which sits behind a semi-frosted main lens (at least they appear to be two separate lens).





This is truly a sight to behold when illuminated or not:








You can see this beam pattern of the Fresnel Lens as projected through a paper laid on top (left) 







The pattern is also visible when projected close to an object (right), but quickly melds into nice smooth hotspot once you pull the light a few inches away from the object.


Per the main purpose behind a Fresnel Lens, the goal is to achieve better throw of oblique light using a lens in a more compact form vs. a reflector or traditional spherical lens. This is quite different than the TIR optic used to date in their lights (e.g. E2DL):





I’d have to believe the intent was to reduce the overall depth of the head as much space has already been allotted to five fins in the throat area. The head alone measures 2.67” from the tip of the semi-crenulated bezel to where the base meets the battery tube. The imbalance of the head to throat area gives the light an awkward look which to me bears an unflattering resemblance to a certain toilet plunger. While to me it ultimately doesn’t looks as sleek as the M3 or M3T, in the few days of ownership, the style has grown on me and I’ve come to really like the design a lot.

Incidentally, the fins must work pretty well given the quoted 400 lumens OTF on high for 1.7 hours (until the output drops below 50 lumens).*** This is now twice the stated output of their next highest rated LED lights (ED2L, LX2) in their lineup while maintaining very reasonable runtimes. I’m really digging the direction they are headed.

*EDIT 7/12 - Runtime testing without use of fan seems to back up that the fins are quite functional.


The MC-E and Fresnel Lens combine to produce a really nice large hotspot w/very little spill which can be viewed in the beamshots to follow. It in essence produces a beam very similar to the E2DL but with even less spill. While this may not appeal to everyone, ultimately with fixed focus lights it boils down to horses for courses (what is your usage?).

I don’t know the primary demographic Surefire had in mind as the intended consumers for this light but given the form factor, I envisioned it to be used as a medium to long-distance search/spotlight with the focus being solely in the hotspot while still being a reasonable size. It provides the perfect balance between a pencil sized beam and a flood (and thus reduces the distractions to one's peripheral vision when used as such).

Removing the head and peering behind it, you will find that Surefire has installed a proprietary system to mount the LED, there will be no simple way of swapping it out like in the lights that use the P60 formats. There also did not seem to be a way to twist this module loose.




There was ample grease applied to the inner threads of the head.

The negative and positive contacts are both via springs with a wire soldered to each:







I've always found it interesting that on non-P60 formats, Surefire has chosen to go with some type of plastic resin as the base of their LED modules. This would seem counterintuitive in terms of heatsinking, _however_, I wonder if perhaps this was intentional as heat always seeks to "transfer" to a colder source and having a huge metal heatsink sitting within the head of the LED would only draw the heat there and ultimately trap it within the head whereas they may have designed a better thermal path for the heat to escape away from the head via the cooling fins. Of course this is all conjecture on my part and until the head is disassembled, we would not have any insight into the thermal design of the light (given the newness of the light, I'd be loathe to disassemble it just yet so I will not be entertaining any suggestions for such... ). 

Continuing away from the head to the battery tube, you will find the standard laser etchings (model, patent #'s, etc.) and amongst them is Surefire’s new logo which seems to have been well received by the CPF community if initial responses are any indication:










I quite like the edginess to it vs. the more rounded profile of the old logo but I can’t really say I have a preference for one over the other. To me, they both look great and evoke feelings of quality, reliability and performance. Given the newness of this logo, there is inconsistency in it use as the manual and the box that came w/the light still had the old logo (likewise the included sticker).

The anodizing is flawless as can be seen in these close ups:








The battery tube is thinner than the head and tailcap a la Z2 and I've always been quite fond of this style over the standard 6P. Like the Z2, being designated a CombatLight, it features a CombatGrip wherein there are three rubber spacer rings (one flared) around the tube that one can move around to customize a more secure grip or for use with the Rogers/Surefire Technique. 






I am neither a LEO nor in the military and don’t have a fighting bone in my body to speak of so will defer to those more knowledgeable about this. Interestingly enough, the instructions for the Rogers/Surefire Technique were not included with my light. I wonder if the omission was intentional given the girth of the light and potentially the impracticality of using it in such manner.

The great news though is that it can accomodate two 17500's (that's a AW peaking out the top):





Rounding out the light is the Lock-Out TailCap (LOTC) of which on mine was strangely missing the corresponding indent found on the body to allow alignment in the momentary-on position (M-OP). Here’s a pic comparing it to my Z2:





I can’t imagine that this was intentional and the instructions seem to imply that there is such a position under the Battery Replacement section (emphasis are mine): “_Replace tailcap and rotate clockwise to *the momentary-on position*. Depress tailcap pushbutton switch to test._”. This would seem to indicate that there should be a known/visible M-OP. I will contact Surefire about this and post back when I hear from them. Ultimately, it’s not a big deal since one would just need to tighten the LOTC until low comes on and then unscrew it about 1/8th of a turn.

EDIT: I've found that Surefire's website imprinted on the LOTC acts nicely as the corresponding "indent" for one to align to M-OP with.

In spite of the new design, the light does retain the same thread on the body so that it can accept C, G, P, Z LOTCs (although you’ll lose High mode as explained in UI section) as well as M series heads (except M2 which is actually C series compatible in spite of the M designation, for more on M-series compatible heads, check this excellent thread out). To emphasize this point, here it is with a Z41 LOTC and TSL TX3 head (M body compatible): 






While the M3LT’s LOTC will thread on to the Z2, it doesn’t engage even when fully tightened due to the increased thread depth.

After meeting with Monocrom, we swapped the heads between the M6 and M3LT. While the M3LT head will screw on fully to the M6 body w/no gap (L), it only functions in Low. The M6 head will NOT screw on fully to the M3LT body and leaves a gap exposing some thread and the O-Ring, it will not light up like this (R).








*UI*
The UI is very simple in that there are only two modes that can be accessed through one successive press of the pushbutton on the LOTC in the M-OP; depress lightly for Low and continue depressing further for High. The LOTC can be twisted a little past the M-OP to be locked in Low and further twisted to be locked in High.

There is a lot more thread on this light as opposed to a Z2:





EDIT: Upon further inspection, it only appears to have maybe 1mm more of thread, it's the combination of the longer LOTC as well as the space aft the threads that has increased.

The gap with the LOTC in M-OP is roughly 3mm (left) and increases to a full 7mm before it can be locked out:








This contributes to a lot more depth one can create for the feel of the pushbutton. For instance, there is a 1 ½ rotation gap one can loosen the LOTC from the M-OP and still retain both modes. By 2 full rotations loose from M-OP one can manage to lock out just the high mode and full lock out is achieved by 2 ¾ rotations. However, this also makes it a PITA to change batteries and gives your forearms quite a workout as it takes nearly 6 ½ full rotations before the LOTC can be removed from the M-OP!

While this UI has its merits, I’m not a huge fan of it. I may have to consider modding this in the future as I don‘t plan on entering the “Mr. Popeye Forearms“ or “America‘s Got Big Thumbs“ contests anytime soon. But what of the Z59 you say? Well you could install it but then you’d lose the high mode. From what I’ve read, the LOTCs in these 2-staged lights have a resistor in one of the stages to help trigger the low or high mode. However, I’m not certain why it then defaults to low mode when used with a Z41 (or a clicky from my U2A). I would’ve expected it to default to high mode. I’m sure one of you knows the answer to this and can reply in the thread after which I will reference the answer here. 

Here you can see the telltale signs of a PCB board within the LOTC, again, I have no idea what the circutry does nor why the light defaults to low vs. high:




Anybody care to hazard a guess?


*5M INDOOR BEAMSHOTS*
All shots taken on stock Canon S3 IS @ f/2.7 using Sunlight WB as this was the most neutral I could get across all lights. Control shot taken @ 1/5" and all others @ 1/6".

*CONTROL SHOT*





*Surefire M3LT (H | L)*








*Jetbeam M1X (OP) (H)*





*Surefire E2DL (200L) (H | L)*








*Surefire Z2 (OP) w/Dereelight XR-E WH R2 (H | L)*








*Lumapower VX Ultra w/TF Kit (SM) (H | L)*








*Jetbeam RRT-1 (SM) (H | L)*








*Dereelight DBS V3 (SM) w/nailbender's 3S SST-50(C) @ 2.5A (H | L)*








*Solarforce SS L2M (OP) w/supasizefries 3S SST-50(W) @ 2.5A (H | L)*








*Surefire KL4 Head (OP) w/SSC P4 on VitalGear FB1 (H) | Surefire U2A (OP) w/SSC P4 (H)*








*Against a smooth wall on H (M3LT | M1X) - 1/40", f/3.5*









*1M INDOOR BEAMSHOTS COMPARO BETWEEN M3LT & M1X*
All shots taken on stock Canon S3 IS @ f/2.7 using Sunlight WB. Control shot taken @ 1/4" and all others @ 1/50".

*CONTROL SHOT*





*M1X | M3LT*








*M1X | M3LT*






*OUTDOOR BEAMSHOTS*
EDIT: 7/5
[DRAMA] Ladies and gents, while most of you were out partying or watching the fireworks or simply gathering w/family and friends over a BBQ, Monocrom and yours truly braved the 94 degree heat and dealt with sweltering as well as all sorts of stinging insects at Columbus Park in order to bring you these beamshots!
[/DRAMA] 

OK, in all seriousness, here are the long awaited outdoor beamshots. Given time constraints, these were the best we could come up with for now and we only took High modes (since that's what these lights were intended for no?).

I think the pics speak for themselves so I'm not even going to put any narratives beyond the fact that the camera was in fact level and the ground not being level is some strange optical illusion. Don't believe me?, look at the bulding to the left and note that the windows are near perpendicular to the edge of the photo.

Lights used* (all batteries either freshly charged or brand new):




*RRT-1 used in second outdoor comparo shots in 7/12 Edit further below. 

All shots on Canon Powershot S3 IS and locked in M mode (f/2.7, 3.2 sec) & Sunlight WB. Distance to trees approx. 30 yards. First three sets of beamshots are of the M3LT vs. a direct interest as voiced on this thread. The rest are paired w/similar lights.

M3LT | M6








M3LT (L) - M6 (R) | M6 (L) - M3LT (R)








M3LT | M1X








M4 | 6P








Z2 | E2DL








DBS V2 | VX Ultra








E2D





*EDIT 7/12: Additonal Outdoor Beamshots w/some Comparo's*
All shots on Canon Powershot S3 IS and locked in M mode (f/2.7, 1.6 sec [1/20 sec for Control shot]) & Sunlight WB. Distance to trees approx. 10 yards. 

I couldn't find a good spot where I could do a side-by-side comparo so I did Top/Bottom instead and replicated by reversing position of lights. This is to give you a perspective of each so as not to give the bottom light an advantage due to it being just a bit closer as a result of the lower angle.

The patio umbrella and the side of the house should give you a better idea of the spill for each light's individual beamshots.

Control Shot:





M3LT Hi | M3LT Lo








M1X Hi | RRT-1 Hi








E2DL Hi | Z2 (NEOFAB D1000)








M3LT Top / M1X Bot | M3LT Bot / M1X Top








M3LT Top / RRT-1 Bot | M3LT Bot / RRT-1 Top








M3LT Top / E2DL Bot | M3LT Bot / E2DL Top








M1X Top / RRT-1 Bot | M1X Bot / RRT-1 Top








*RUNTIME (High)*
I'm not a big fan of primaries so I started off this test with a fresh set of 2 x AW protected 17500's which fits the same profile of 3 x 123A batteries. In spite of having roughly 71% of the capacity of a primary, it was only able to produce 42% of the stated runtime. However, the caveat is that these batteries have not even gone through one cycle yet so I will run additional tests in the weeks to come and will post updated runtimes as well as conducting tests on primaries.

Test Data (conducted w/fan on):









X axis = Time (min) / Y axis = Relative light output

As you can see the runtime for primaries lives up to and actually surpasses Surefire's claim of 1.7hrs (102min) before output drops below 50 lumens (12.5%), in which case, using the relative output above and the initial stabilized brightness at about 150, 12.5% of that would put it at 18.75 which is around the 120 min. mark or so. So there you have it ladies and gents, not only are they conservative with their output ratings but now runtime as well!

*EDIT 6/26: RUNTIME w/actual Lux readings @ 1M (High)*
Given the major disappointments around the non-regulation shown by this light, I decided to amend my testing procedures to standardize the readings of actual Lux values on my Extech HD450. Previously I had the light right against the reader w/a tissue over it to act as a filter to prevent OL (overload) readings. However, given the extreme proximity of the light, any slight change was a bit exaggerated whereas the readings out at 1M were more subtle in that regard. 

Test Data (conducted w/fan on):




X = Time in min / Y = Actual Lux (k) readings @ 1m

I decided that the v difference between three fresh SF123A's @ 3.26v each for a total of 9.78 vs. that of the three LiFePO4's @ 3.37v each for a total of 10.11v was negligible so decided to proceed with the test. Again, these batteries are so new that they are each below 5 cycles so I expect these numbers to improve slightly in the future. I had purchased the AW LiFeP04's in anticipation of using it in this light, however after this test and seeing that it offers absolutely no benefits over the 2 x AW17500's despite the increased v, they'll be finding duty in my other lights.

To put the Lux readings into perspective, I took a reading of my 200 Lumens E2DL w/2 x LiFePO4's @ 3.37v @ 1M as well and it was 10K Lux, contrast that with the 29K Lux reading of the M3LT at the start and one can likely deduce that the M3LT is really putting out more than the stated 400 lumens (of course it can be argued that the E2DL might also be putting out more than 200L which would make the M3LT's output all the more impressive).

I conducted another runtime w/primaries, this time using 3 Energizer Photo Lithium's @ 3.26V each. The results are pretty similar with the Surefire's.

*EDIT 6/27:*
Per Bill's suggestion re: 10 min regualtion in reply #101, (as well as the inference from others starting from page 3 on of this review), I ran the light in 4 intervals of roughly 10 min or so with a break of usually no longer than 5 minutes in between (I intentionally input a 0 so you can see the straight drop to designate breaks).

Based on this, one can expect roughly 34 min of regulated runtime and 42 min total until complete shut off:




X = Time in sec / Y = Actual Lux (k) readings @ 1m

As you can see, when compared with the original straight run (black), the gains are subtle at best and I'm not certain if your eyes would pick up the added benefit anyway.

While I too would have loved to have the max lumens regulated for the full runtime stated for H, I'm of the same mind as Rocketman in that we are not the intended primary demographic that Surefire caters to (per his reply in #105).

If my life depended on a piece of illumination equipment, I'd definitely prefer to have it gradually dim over time to give me ample heads up that I need to change the batteries rather than have it die on me of all suddenly leaving me in potential pitch dark or even worse, imminent danger.


*EDIT 6/28:*
I conducted an abbreviated run on Low and stopped the test after 109 min as I didn't have time to go full 8.5 hrs. I may revisit this test in the future but for now, it's pretty near table-flat regulation. The graph looks very jaggedy due to the revised scale (only 5.4K - 5.8K) since looking at a flatline is rather uninteresting. I initially had the fan on but since it really didn't get all that warm I shut it off:





*EDIT 7/12: M3LT vs. M1X comparo runtime (with and without fan)*

I've never been fond of conducting runtime tests with the fan on. Why? When manufacturers produced these lights, especially ones of this size, I can't imagine they assumed that it'll always be used in cool climates or w/the owner holding their hands around the head/fins in order to act as a heat sink, otherwise, there should be disclaimers advocating use in this manner.

As an illumination tool, lights should be made and tested to survive reasonable use and with that in mind, I can envision a reasonable use where one simply lays the light on a flat surface in order to illuminate an area for an extended duration regardless of the temperature. I realize there are certain lights that instruct users to not run on H for prolonged periods of time but there is no such mention of this in the M3LT's or M1X's instructions. Besides, given SureFire's reputation for reliability and ruggedness, I don't think this is out of the realms of standard use for a Combat Light.

In this case, this brings out an interesting graph in terms of regulation:




*Runtime until output drops below 50% of initial captured lux. X = Time in min / Y = Actual Lux (k) readings @ 1m 

As you can see, the M3LT declines for a bit starting around 9 minutes, however, it then sort of flattens out after some decline and towards the tail end, it actually looks like it's trying to boost before finally declining rapidly. I stopped the test when the output dropped to less than 50% of original output.

I overlaid this new runtime on the old one but couldn't get the exact position I used last so was not able to capture the same exact output but they are pretty close. What is not shown here due to me filtering out data by the minute (I capture in seconds) is that the light actually flickers a bit after it heats up. Overall, you lose on average 4K lux but gain roughly 7 minutes before output drops to less than 50%.

The M1X is fairly even keeled in this regard, averaging 1K and 1 min more. However, what is not shown here is that the M1X actually got hotter than 132F approx. 25 min in to the run and I had to use a fan and it skewed the output as it started increasing output as the light cooled off. On the second run (which is the data shown above), I used a fan momentarily as the light hit >130F towards the very end of the run.

The M3LT by contrast never got warmer than 127F, guess those copious amount of fins are more than just design details.

*EDIT 4/15/11: CURRENT DRAW*
I measured the draw on H @ 2.1A (w/the 2x17500's slightly depleted to around 3.95V). Interestingly, it looks like the resistance from the meter has triggered the light to go into H mode so I've confirmed the electronics that governs H/L is in the head and not in the LOTC. Will conduct additional testing using an actual resistor when I acquire one.


*CONCLUSION*
This is the first foray into both high output and multi-die LEDs (edit: it's not actually the first use of multi-die LED per this reply) for Surefire and I really liked the results. A search of the forums will yield many spirited debates on the cost to performance factor of any brand of lights so I will obviously not go into that here. Suffice to say that when I first joined CPF, I was an unenlightened newb and just couldn’t understand what all the hype around owning a Surefire light was about. I even made my wife cancel what was supposed to be a surprise gift in the form of a U2 citing that cost to lumens factor ratio. Now two and half years, five Surefire lights and an enlightended status later, I understand why many continue to choose to spend their hard earned dollars on these quality lights. They may not always be the brightest but that has never been the ultimate goal for Surefire.

While my career does not require that I entrust my life to the equipment I use, I take great comfort and satisfaction that should I ever need to do so, my Surefire light will not fail me and while I haven’t had to invoke Surefire’s warranty thus far, the many posts I have read citing their positive track record assures me that they stand solidly behind their products.

Kudos to Surefire on this release, now let’s see some more!

Cheers,
Tim

*BONUS: EYE CANDY*























































































































*OWNERSHIP UPDATE 4/15/2011*
Given the sentimental value this light holds, it has lived most of its life as a shelf-queen. Upon showing the light during the holidays last December, I noticed that it had developed what looked to be an oil smudge under the lens. I contacted SF and they mentioned it was a result of the inner lens pressing up on the outer lens and that it was a perfectly normal condition but issued me a RMA so I could send it in for repairs. I also sent a L1 that had a particularly green tint along with it.

Upon receiving the lights back, the L1 (which was brand new) had a small scratch in the bezel and a ding in the tailcap along with excessive threadlocker exposed. However, the beam was now a very nice white color and they shipped out a replacement tailcap.

As for the M3LT, I noticed that all the engravings were worn (before/after shots):























Excessive threadlock around the bezel:





Scuffed up o-ring w/excessive threadlock behind lens:









Additional oil smudges and a dent where the former one was repaired:









Without going into full details, I basically expressed my dissatisfaction w/the repairs and that I received the light back in a condition that was worse than when it went in. I was issued another RMA but have been sitting on the fence about sending it back again (given I have to pay for shipping/insurance) especially with no guarantees of the outcome. Will post updates should I finally do so.

While the service has left something to be desired, the M3LT hasn't. It is a great light and certainly one that will remain in my collection.


*3/29/2012 UPDATE


*
Thanks to a supportive member's assistance (I'll let him chime in if he so desires), I finally sent my M3LT back to SureFire and they replaced it with a brand new one (400lms).

Everything is as I recalled except that the laser etching seems "brighter" and a silver-ish color:


 

 

 




 

 














 



Also, now that I've got my "lightbox" set up, I decided to grab some measurements.

*MEASURED PERFORMANCE*
Looking back at the replies in my original non-review thread; bigchelis (#26 - "Definitely way more then 400 OTF lumens and how the heck did they get that intense hotspot



) and mega_lumens (#39 - "The TIR is on roid-rage, that "low" looks like the high of E2DL!!! ") were pretty spot on with these comments becuase using my PVC LMD I measured...

*HIGH 669lux (@ 31 seconds) | 579lux (after 1 min)*


 

 
(on 2 x AW17500 w/ambient temp @74F [23.3C]) 

The M3LT will start off just under 700 and then continually decline to 669 @ 31 seconds and then drop to 579 after roughly 1 minute or so and stay in that neighborhood for a while which corresponds with the runtime curve I captured.

*Low 126lux
*

 


R: Calibrating sensor positon w/G10v2 on Med ahead of measurements

However, I did detect PWM on the camera in both H & L modes. I haven't built my cable yet so can't take exact measurements but it's definitely not noticeable in real life use.

*RUNTIME (LOW)
**

*
I finally graphed the entire runtime on low and got just about exactly 6hrs before the low voltage protection kicked in on one of the AW's. Based on the runtime and the capacity, I'm estimating the current draw to be around 200mA on low.

With that said, on primaries, the claimed 8.5hrs should be totally realistic. The jagged run is due to PWM (again not noticeable in real world use and I'm sensitive to PWM).


*LONG TERM CONCLUSIONS*
Now that I know the relative output of the M3LT, it's no wonder I continue to be impressed by it even when compared against the newer and brighter XM-L lights.

The tint is yet another thing I really like but I've had a hard time capturing it precisely using my new tint measuring method. However, a good educated guess based on the pics I took puts it between 6K-7K range. While cool, the color is not bluish at all but rather a creamy white w/a hint of some magenta in there.

Last but not least, I LOVE the beam profile generated by the gorgeous Fresnel lens:



I know it's not for everyone but given my primary usage for it (around my property w/out wanting to shine into my neighbor's house), it suits me perfectly. 

I must confess that I wasn't too fond of the 2-stage LOTC but it has certainly grown on me. The problem remains that I must use an overhand grip if I want easy access to both levels. This is where the imbalance caused by the meaty oversized turbo head causes some slight handling issues (as I don't have particularly large hands) but the combat ring really helps offset it.

I know a lot has been said about the lack of regulation but for me personally, it's a non-issue as I haven't had a need to run a light continually at a set output. I'm not sure how many situations in real-life would warrant such usage so it'd be interesting to hear some examples. During an power outage, I've relied mostly on lanterns around the house and then the occasional blast here and there w/my flashlights so again, not an issue for me but I know it's a dealbreaker for some.

On a semi-related note, it's been nearly two years since the M3LT was first launched and AW continues to be the only brand offering 17500-sized batteries. Not that there is anything wrong w/the AW's just that in this time, 18650's have increased up to 3100mAh and it would've been nice to have had higher capacity 17500 batteries by now given I don't plan on boring the tube. Perhaps the higher capacity cells might help to keep the light in "regulation" longer but of couse I won't know until such cells make it to the market.

Although this is a replacement, aside from the oil smudge w/the original, I haven't had any issues whatsoever. And while it did take a 2nd try to correct things, at least in the end it was resolved satisfactorily and I couldn't be happier with both the M3LT and SureFire's customer service. While it's not the exact same one gifted to me, it's now at least in the condition as when I first received the original and the M3LT will continue to remain one of my favorite lights above and beyond sentimental reasons.


----------



## 276

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (in progress but with pics)*

Very nice review, i look forward to the beamshots to come.


----------



## DimeRazorback

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (in progress but with pics)*

Nice review I also look forward to the beamshots.

Just so you know, my Z2-S doesn't have the indent in the tailcap either, so I think it is safe to assume that they have removed that feature... I'm not sure why :thinking:


----------



## iso9009

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (in progress but with pics)*

Thanks for the nice review:goodjob:


----------



## Bucky

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (in progress but with pics)*

I don't care what some people say, that is one of the coolest looking lights ever made--slight ano mismatch notwithstanding.


----------



## turboBB

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (in progress but with pics)*



DimeRazorback said:


> Nice review I also look forward to the beamshots.
> 
> Just so you know, my Z2-S doesn't have the indent in the tailcap either, so I think it is safe to assume that they have removed that feature... I'm not sure why :thinking:


 
I just discovered something interesting, the web address imprinted on the edge of the tailcap www.surefire.com seems to correspond nicely with the indent on the body so I can reference it as the corresponding indent.

Can you please check if that's the case on your Z2-S as well?

Thx!,
Tim


----------



## alantch

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (in progress but with pics)*

Did you notice on the (+) spring side of the head the presence of screws or any indication to suggest that the head can be opened up to access the LE and LED? I noticed you do not have pics of the head from this side.

Nice work done on the review and fantastic pictures! Can't wait for the beamshots.


----------



## ma_sha1

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (in progress but with pics)*

This picture seems to indicate that the outside lens is flat, 
not Fresnel lens.

Could you un-screw the bezel to see? There are some TIR lens 
that had frenel finish, but it's on the front surface of the TIR.







See this: (From an early post of Size15s)
I am guessing the frosted front lens on M3LT make it harder to tell, especially with the reflection from the Fresnel TIR.


----------



## Stainz

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (in progress but with pics)*

Wow! But - at what a cost? You can buy a trio of E2DL's for that - brighter, too... seriously, who has the smackers for that? An E1b, E2D L, then an Olight M21... and batteries... and I have equaled that amount. Our toys are getting pricey.

Still, what a nice looking light! Great review - thank you very much!

Stainz


----------



## Stainz

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (in progress but with pics)*

Wow - that wasn't my post! I simply complained about the price - and thanked the reviewer for his great review. Neat light - but out of my price range!

Stainz


----------



## easilyled

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (in progress but with pics)*



Stainz said:


> Wow! But - at what a cost? You can buy a trio of E2DL's for that - brighter, too... seriously, who has the smackers for that? An E1b, E2D L, then an Olight M21... and batteries... and I have equaled that amount. Our toys are getting pricey.
> 
> Still, what a nice looking light! Great review - thank you very much!
> 
> Stainz



Was this your post?

There are obviously still glitches in the system. I found what you said by quoting it.

I believe that what is visible in post #9 is actually a comment that Lumafist made in a Sales Thread on B/S/T in relation to some stuff he bought from Hammer_Train.


----------



## JohnnyLED

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (in progress but with pics)*

I received my M3LT today... Of all days, on the longest days of the year. I cant wait for the sunset. Then I can play with the new toy.


----------



## stldnder

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (in progress but with pics)*

I picked up my M3LT today as well. Come on, night!!


----------



## turboBB

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (in progress but with pics)*

Edited to add one pic of the light as well as a paragraph about the head and some accompanying pics (Edit timestamped: 6/21, 9:03PM).

alantech / ma_sha1, answers to your questions in that new paragraph. I'm pretty certain there are two lenses, the flat "cover" lens and a Fresnel behind it. Mayhaps its not a true Fresnel but at least Fresnel-ish then.

JohnnyLED / stldnder, congrats! Would welcome your opinions of your lights once you've had a chance to play with it.

Cheers,
Tim


----------



## Kestrel

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (in progress but with pics)*



JohnnyLED said:


> I received my M3LT today... Of all days, on the longest days of the year. I cant wait for the sunset.


LOL, excellent point - June 21, midsummers day, how ironic. I was wondering who might bring this up on CPF today. :huh:


----------



## alantch

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (in progress but with pics)*

turboBB, thanks for the pics and description of the head. Any chance of opening up the front bezel for all to see the wonderful engineering that goes into the head? Just j/k . Very nice light there.


----------



## JohnnyLED

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (in progress but with pics)*

I just tried to take some beamshots from my various SureFire lights...Ive have a few.. and they are not quite working out. My Sony Cybershot is just not taking the pics I want. I cant seem to get it to work. At least, how I want. I am impressed with the M3LT vs. E1B(110 Lumen), M60(malkoff) 6PD host, M61 (malkoff) 6PD host, E2DL. LX2. No Comparison... I need a better camera, but I would rather buy another surefire.


I'll try and mount the M3LT to my AR tomorrow. It might work, probably not, but I'm going to try. Ill post pics of that.


----------



## turboBB

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (in progress but with pics)*

Hey guys, I just added the initial runtime as well as a bunch of new material and pics. To make it easier to find them if you've already read through the review, just watch for the Red timestamps.

@JohhnyLED, "I need a better camera, but I would rather buy another surefire." <--- LOL spoken like a true Surefire addict!


----------



## Bullzeyebill

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (in progress but with pics)*

Nice runtime graph presented, but results are very disappointing. Not sure the problem, but your 17500's are probably not performing well, and it is not just because it is their first run. What was the off charger voltage of the 17500's? Also, what is the current measurement on high at the tailcap area? The regulated runtime should last longer than about 37 minutes? Could you scrounge up some fresh US made CR123's, for the benefit of the CPF community? Just to be clear, I am not criticizing your work here, and am pleased that you took the time to do this review. Thanks,

Bill


----------



## turboBB

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (in progress but with pics)*

@Bill

It'd be impossible for me to take amp readings on high for two reasons: firstly my DMM doesn't seem to do amp readings on flashlights for some reason (even in 10A setting), it is an old cheapo one I bought from RadioShack many years ago. In the same vein as JohnnyLED; I need a better DMM but I would rather buy another Surefire!  Secondly, and more importantly, it wouldn't be possible to do this for High given the board in the LOTC, I would have to find some way to rig the LOTC in-line and engage it in High (not even sure that's physically possible).

As for runtimes on primaries, yes, I have a fresh set of 3 Surefires lying around that I will be conducting further testing with.

I am sorely tempted to try this light on 3 x LiFePO4 but am afraid of killing the light due to excessive voltage so I'm not even going to try.

More updates to come, stay tuned...

Cheers,
Tim


----------



## JohnnyLED

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (6/22: Now with initial runtime and more updates)*

Here are two beam shots that are sort of acceptable. I hope this will help some folks. I put in brand new SF batteries in the LX2. The M3LT is straight out of the box. I need camera and light tripod beam shot combo picture taker. I know some smart member here could do it! The spill and brightness of the M3LT really impresses me against the LX2. My Neighbors are probably looking for the UFO that lit up the room. BTW its not me its my crazy Japanese camera, that keeps messing with shot clarity. I cannot complain since the M3LT shot seems the most in focus. All shots were taken from the same fence post.

E1B (110 lumen) (Do not ask why this looks like such a nice beam shot.... Ask my cyber shot)



6P w/Malkoff M60



6P w/ Malkoff M61



E2DL full power (on neighbor's house)



LX2 full power (on neighbor's house)



M3LT full power (on neighbor's house)


----------



## txgp17

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (6/22: Now with initial runtime and more updates)*

Excellent.


----------



## Bullzeyebill

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (in progress but with pics)*



turboBB said:


> @Bill
> 
> It'd be impossible for me to take amp readings on high for two reasons: firstly my DMM doesn't seem to do amp readings on flashlights for some reason (even in 10A setting), it is an old cheapo one I bought from RadioShack many years ago. In the same vein as JohnnyLED; I need a better DMM but I would rather buy another Surefire!  Secondly, and more importantly, it wouldn't be possible to do this for High given the board in the LOTC, I would have to find some way to rig the LOTC in-line and engage it in High (not even sure that's physically possible).
> 
> As for runtimes on primaries, yes, I have a fresh set of 3 Surefires lying around that I will be conducting further testing with.
> 
> I am sorely tempted to try this light on 3 x LiFePO4 but am afraid of killing the light due to excessive voltage so I'm not even going to try.
> 
> More updates to come, stay tuned...
> 
> Cheers,
> Tim



Tim, a DMM from Harbor Freight would suffice, at a small price. I also invested in a lightmeter, cause I knew I would be playing around with all of my lights and wanted some good comparative info. 

If you remove the tailcap and touched the - probe of the DMM to the back of the battery and the + to the rim of the battery body you would get the current reading of the M3LT on high only. Does not have to be 100% accurate but would give a general idea of current from the cells. I have always tried to impress on CPF'ers that instead of buying your next light, buy a DMM, not an expensive one, but a DMM that works. And, as a plus, pick up a luxmeter, for lux readings, and bounce with luxmeter for some comparative info on the output of the lights that you own. With these two tools you will be a changed CPF'er, and will really have fun with your hobby. For what it is worth.

Bill


----------



## iapyx

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (6/22: Now with initial runtime and more updates)*



JohnnyLED said:


> LX2 full power (on neighbor's house)



Are you sure the LX2 was set on high mode? It looks so dim compared to the E2DL.

The M3LT looks a bit blue-ish, is that a correct observation or is it due to your Cybershot?


----------



## Meganoggin

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (6/22: Now with initial runtime and more updates)*

Great photography! - I love looking at Surefire optics :thumbsup:


----------



## JohnnyLED

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (6/22: Now with initial runtime and more updates)*



iapyx said:


> Are you sure the LX2 was set on high mode? It looks so dim compared to the E2DL.
> 
> The M3LT looks a bit blue-ish, is that a correct observation or is it due to your Cybershot?



I would say its from the camera. The LX2 was in high mode. Its not the best camera, and I'm not the best photographer. Im not noticing a bluish tint on the M3LT.


----------



## monkeyboy

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (6/22: Now with initial runtime and more updates)*

AAAA!!!! database error deleted my entire post! I'll make this one shorter

Thanks for the beamshots Johnny LED

@ Turbo BB,
I think the discrepancy in runtime is due to the li-ion holding higher power output on average over the cr123 primaries. Also judging by the runtime graph, the light is designed to dim down towards the end. I would guess that it's using a boost circuit with LED dice in 4s configuration. So there is probably a tail of dimming light with the cr123 primaries built in to the advertised runtime. Only way to find out is to repeat the test with cr123's 

BTW 2 x 17500 li-ion hold 60% energy (Wh) of 3 x cr123 primaries. 7.4v 1.1Ah vs 9V 1.5Ah.

EDIT:
@ JohnnyLED

The brighness of those pictures do not look right. e.g. E2DL shouldn't be brighter than the LX2 or M3LT for that matter. Aperture and shutter speed are the same but what about ISO? maybe you left it on auto ISO? that would explain why some images look blurry; your camera could be using crazy high ISO and lots of noise reduction. You are using a tripod aren't you?


----------



## JohnnyLED

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (6/22: Now with initial runtime and more updates)*

I do not know what ISO stands for, but it was on auto shoot. Ill play with the camera and see what I can do tonight. No tripod.


----------



## easilyled

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (6/22: Now with initial runtime and more updates)*



JohnnyLED said:


> I do not know what ISO stands for, but it was on auto shoot. Ill play with the camera and see what I can do tonight. No tripod.



There are plenty of explanations about ISO available on the net. 

Think of it like the grain in an image. The lower the ISO, the finer the grain on the picture.

However the salient message is to keep the 3 variables ISO, shutter-speed and aperture-size the same throughout comparative beam-shots.

You can't do that by letting the camera choose these for you in auto-mode. 

You have to adjust the settings yourself manually and fix them throughout the comparisons.

If this is something that your camera does not allow you to do because its automated on one or more of these 3 above-mentioned variables, then the value of the beam-shots is unfortunately questionable at best.


----------



## Kestrel

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (6/22: Now with initial runtime and more updates)*



monkeyboy said:


> BTW 2 x 17500 li-ion hold 60% energy (Wh) of 3 x cr123 primaries. 7.4v 1.1Ah vs 9V 1.5Ah.


Sorry for the OT, but 3xCR123 will be only ~7.5v under load, so the comparison between the two configurations will be at least somewhat better at ~70-75%. :shrug:


JohnnyLED said:


> I do not know what ISO stands for, but it was on auto shoot. Ill play with the camera and see what I can do tonight.


My workaround for my point&shoot is that prior to every beamshot I give the camera button a half-press while viewing a Malkoff M60 beam to 'standardize' the exposure setting (& holding it @ the half-press while I change lights) prior to taking each beamshot. Kinda clunky but it works. :shrug:

Edit: Thanks very much for all the great info & detail, one thing tho is that a couple of your pics are sized too large. Sorry to trouble you,


----------



## was.lost.but.now.found

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (6/22: Now with initial runtime and more updates)*



Kestrel said:


> My workaround for my point&shoot is that prior to every beamshot I give the camera button a half-press while viewing a Malkoff M60 beam to 'standardize' the exposure setting (& holding it @ the half-press while I change lights) prior to taking each beamshot. Kinda clunky but it works. :shrug:


 
That's a novel approach I had not heard of before, however, keep it mind you still need to follow up after the fact (if allowable by the camera) and confirm that the settings were in fact the same for each picture. Even under identical circumstances, auto settings on cameras can and will choose different ISO, shutter speed, etc. even with nearly identical subjects and lighting.


----------



## Kestrel

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (6/22: Now with initial runtime and more updates)*



was.lost.but.now.found said:


> Even under identical circumstances, auto settings on cameras can and will choose different ISO, shutter speed, etc. even with nearly identical subjects and lighting.


Good point and I try to turn off as much 'auto' as I can prior to doing these. Sorry to the OP for taking this a little OT but I just wanted to post the suggestion for the OP, it's most definitely not perfect but way better than letting the camera auto-adjust for exposure as was noted.

Example ROP beamshots (& comparing it to the stock Mag 2D bulb) done this way here. Again, I'm sure it's not perfect but should at least get in the ballpark.


----------



## monkeyboy

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (6/22: Now with initial runtime and more updates)*



JohnnyLED said:


> I do not know what ISO stands for, but it was on auto shoot. Ill play with the camera and see what I can do tonight. No tripod.



That explains it. f2.8 1/4s is probably the maximum exposure in auto mode. The camera then adjusts the ISO. Its hard to hold the camera steady at 1/4s which also explains the blur. I'm not familiar with you're camera but if it has a manual mode, select that and shoot with the same aperture(f number), shutter speed(seconds) and sensitivity(ISO) for each picture. If you don't have a tripod, rest the camera on something and use the timer so you don't shake the camera when you press the button.

edit: I just read the stuff above. yeah try that if there is no maunal mode


----------



## was.lost.but.now.found

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (6/22: Now with initial runtime and more updates)*



Kestrel said:


> Good point and I try to turn off as much 'auto' as I can prior to doing these. Sorry to the OP for taking this a little OT but I just wanted to post the suggestion for the OP, it's most definitely not perfect but way better than letting the camera auto-adjust for exposure as was noted.
> 
> Example ROP beamshots done this way here. Again, I'm sure it's not perfect but should at least get in the ballpark.


 
Yes sorry, I was not trying to take away from your idea which is quite good for someone who has that as their only option. I was just trying to make sure, for someone that may not have know, that it's not perfect.


----------



## JNewell

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (6/22: Now with initial runtime and more updates)*

I'd love to see a comparison between the M3LT and the MD3. Among other things, I'm guessing the optic on the M3LT will give greater throw but a narrower spill beam than the MD3, which has a very broad and bright beam. But only SxS will tell...


----------



## Calvin Hobbes

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (6/22: Now with initial runtime and more updates)*

Great review! Look forward to clarification on the outside beamshots.


----------



## turboBB

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (6/22 9PM NYT: Pics, Indoor Beamshots)*

Some new material added along w/indoor beamshots and just basic cleanup to make it more readable.

@Bill, I actually have an Extech light meter which is how I conduct my runtime tests. Would love a Fluke 287 w/logging capability but that'll run around 6 Benjamin's but if you can recommend me a good cheap DMM that'll take current readings in mA, that'll suffice for now. Appreciate the recommendation. 

Cheers,
Tim


----------



## Force Attuned

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (6/22 9PM NYT: Pics, Indoor Beamshots)*

This is the light I have been waiting for...looking forward to the outdoor beam shots.

Thanks for the great review Turbo!


----------



## Bullzeyebill

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (6/22 11PM NYT: Pics, Indoor Beamshots)*

If you have the Extech 403125 with reading for lux and fc, you have a decent meter. I got mine from one of our own after my Meterman LM631 was zapped by leaking AAA's (now use Nimh AAA's). My Extech is the spitting image of my LM631.

I use my Extech for bounce in a room that I can monitor for sameness, for consistant readings, and compare my lights, and their lux readings for output approximations. 

For a DMM, I have used, successfully, a very reasonably priced Cen-Tech from Harbor Freight, P37772. For voltage reading I have compared it to a know reliable voltage source that gives a lab measured 5.0001 voltage reading at 72 degrees F. My DMM measures 5.00 connected to this device, at same temp. Not sure about accuracy of current measurements, but my Cen-Tech has has served me well, comparatively speaking when testing my lights.

Bill

Bill


----------



## turboBB

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (6/22 11PM NYT: Pics, Indoor Beamshots)*

Thx Bill.

I forgot to mention that my light meter is a Extech HD450 and the DMM is a Micronta 22-167. If I set the DMM current to read AC 32-320mA (DC and 10A won't even register), I get 260ish on the meter (but the light will flicker very fast). I have to assume this is the Low reading.

As mentioned about the LOTC in the UI section (check the latest update showing circuitry in the LOTC), this light defaults to Low. If I take the tailcap from the Z2 and thread it all the way in, it'll default to Low. Likewise using a U2A tailcap. Any ideas?

Tim

EDIT: Thx for all the comments guys, I'm waiting to do the outdoor beamshots as I'm hoping to meet up w/Monocrom to test the light against his M6.


----------



## DimeRazorback

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (6/22 11PM NYT: Pics, Indoor Beamshots)*

That looks like one good thrower of a light!

Can't wait to get my hands on one! :devil:


----------



## ninemm

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (6/22 11PM NYT: Pics, Indoor Beamshots)*

You said it Dime!! I think I might replace my M1X with this baby. 

*To the OP, how would you compare in words the M1X to the M3LT?*

Edit: Also to the OP, thanks so much for the awesome review and pics!!! :thumbsup:


----------



## turboBB

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (6/22 11PM NYT: Pics, Indoor Beamshots)*

I've now added the runtime for primaries using fresh set of SF123A. It surpassed Surefire's claims.



ninemm said:


> *To the OP, how would you compare in words the M1X to the M3LT?*
> 
> Edit: Also to the OP, thanks so much for the awesome review and pics!!! :thumbsup:


 
Thx for the kind words. As I've stated in my review, w/fixed focus lights, it boils down to usage and which beam pattern you find useful. I like both lights and in spite of the similarities, each fulfills a different usage for me.

This will become clearer with the outdoor beamshots so let me hold my thoughts on this until after that's done.

Cheers,
Tim


----------



## easilyled

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (6/22 11PM NYT: Pics, Indoor Beamshots)*



turboBB said:


> I've now added the runtime for primaries using fresh set of SF123A. It surpassed Surefire's claims.
> Cheers,
> Tim



Thanks for the info. 

The runtime graph shows how regulation is impossible with 3 primaries (on the high level) even though this is the cell that is advocated
for use with this light.

I would have thought that for military purposes, regulation would be desirable and therefore it would be preferable to use 2 17500s, 
despite the fact that these are not promoted for use in the Sales Threads on the Market-Place.


----------



## neoseikan

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (6/22 11PM NYT: Pics, Indoor Beamshots)*



easilyled said:


> Sorry but based on these runtime graphs, I will not be rushing out to buy one of these lights. I'll stick with my JB M1X, which, if I recall shows much better regulation and runtime.



But I think this one is more beautiful, especially in the battery tube.
I like the tube design of Surefire new lights.


----------



## Size15's

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

Perhaps SureFire considered the more traditional output/runtime curve was more practical. A flashlight with a fuel gauge such as the UB3T could operate with table flat regulation because the user can check how much juice is left...


----------



## easilyled

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



Size15's said:


> Perhaps SureFire considered the more traditional output/runtime curve was more practical. A flashlight with a fuel gauge such as the UB3T could operate with table flat regulation because the user can check how much juice is left...



You mean unregulated?

Its the first time I've ever thought that unregulated was considered to be desirable.

Why bother with all the regulated lights that are normally so much more expensive when you can get a really expensive unregulated light.


----------



## DM51

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

Very good review, with some excellent photos - thanks! Looking forward to some Outdoor beamshots...

Moving to the Reviews section.


----------



## Tempest UK

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



easilyled said:


> Why bother with all the regulated lights that are normally so much more expensive when you can get a really expensive unregulated light.



It's worth considering who might be using the M3LT and what their requirements/desires will be when it comes to their choice of light.


----------



## easilyled

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



Tempest UK said:


> It's worth considering who might be using the M3LT and what their requirements/desires will be when it comes to their choice of light.



I can't help finding it disingenuous that when it comes to LEDlenser lights, for example, there have been 100s of threads citing their non-regulation (and the fact that this is not stated in their advertising blurb) as their biggest weakness.

Yet, here we find exactly the same thing with this light!

So in what type of circumstances is it a big advantage to buy a light advertised at 400 OTF lumens 
only to find that this applies for no more than the first few minutes after which it progressively loses output?

Why isn't there a disclaimer of this nature on the packaging in order to avoid misleading the buyer?

Sure you can argue that there is more warning of batteries cutting out with non-regulation but this sounds to me like an excuse, since its the only advantage in the millions of cheap unregulated lights available.

I believe that most CPFers consider that having consistent output far outweighs this.


----------



## Size15's

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

Are we certain that the output curve isn't controlled like the ICON lights do?


----------



## easilyled

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



Size15's said:


> Are we certain that the output curve isn't controlled like the ICON lights do?



Well, I'm basing my reaction on what I see in the runtime graph in this thread.

I have no idea what is claimed for the ICON lights, but I see nothing in the advertising for this light that states that the 400 OTF lumens is only for a very short duration after which will ensue consistent dimming output.


----------



## turboBB

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



easilyled said:


> I have no idea what is claimed for the ICON lights, but I see nothing in the advertising for this light that states that the 400 OTF lumens is only for a very short duration after which will ensue consistent dimming output.


 
However, to be fair, there is nothing in their advertising that states the 400OTF is regulated for the entire duration of the runtime either. The specs on the M3LT page state a "Tactical Runtime* of 1.7hrs" with the footnote being:

*Total runtime (at highest setting for multiple-output flashlights) until output drops below 50 lumens 

IMHO, the hype around regulation of certain lights were more a manifestation of the CPF community than anything Surefire ever touted.


----------



## GreySave

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

If the runtime graph for primaries is accurate then it is a deal breaker for me. I'd rather carry my much smaller E2DL or LX2 and have less output at steady regulation. If I need longer throw than that I can pull out my SL Super Tac and hit 400-600 feet.

While the rechargeable curve looks nicer I would be using this in the field, not around the house, so it would be on primaries.


----------



## JNewell

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



turboBB said:


> However, to be fair, there is nothing in their advertising that states the 400OTF is regulated for the entire duration of the runtime either. The specs on the M3LT page state a "Tactical Runtime* of 1.7hrs" with the footnote being:
> 
> *Total runtime (at highest setting for multiple-output flashlights) until output drops below 50 lumens
> 
> IMHO, the hype around regulation of certain lights were more a manifestation of the CPF community than anything Surefire ever touted.



That's actually a very strange bit of marketing, in my opinion. YMMV, but I wouldn't buy (or try to sell) a 400-lumen light with a runtime benchmarked at *50* lumens. 50% of maximum output, maybe, but not an output that is, IIRC, lower than a 6P.

I really wanted to like this light, but the MD3 I bought while waiting keeps looking better and better. The only thing I suspect it won't do better is pure throw, but that's not a deal-breaker for my needs.


----------



## was.lost.but.now.found

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



easilyled said:


> I can't help finding it disingenuous than when it comes to LEDlenser lights, for example, there have been 100s of threads citing their non-regulation (and the fact that this is not stated in their advertising blurb) as their biggest weakness.
> 
> Yet, here we find exactly the same thing with this light!
> 
> So in what type of circumstances is it a big advantage to buy a light advertised at 400 OTF lumens
> only to find that this applies for no more than the first few minutes after which it progressively loses output?
> 
> Why isn't there a disclaimer of this nature on the packaging in order to avoid misleading the buyer?
> 
> Sure you can argue that there is more warning of batteries cutting out with non-regulation but this sounds to me like an excuse, since its the only advantage in the millions of cheap unregulated lights available.
> 
> I believe that most CPFers consider that having consistent output far outweighs this.


 
I think I've seen Coast/LL runtimes that were better than this.:tinfoil:

For the general public's usage, it's not a completely bad idea to have some tapered decreasing output, toward the end of the run to indicate the batteries are due to be changed. However the distinction here is that this light seems to be loosing 10% total output every 5 minutes. The 50% drop mark that is well established amount the light community occurs at 50 minutes, which only half of the Surefire stated runtime.


----------



## Kestrel

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

That runtime graph on 3x CR123 does look interesting; as has been noted previously, we have gotten used to flatter regulation on other LED lights. I do like that 2x17500 graph though, this light will be perfect (IMO) on 2x18500 if the body has enough material for boring. :shrug:


----------



## Bullzeyebill

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

Sure would like to see the current draw from batteries. Must be pretty high to pull those cells down so fast. Yes, it does beg for some 18mm Li-Ions. 

Bill


----------



## Litbobber

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

Got the M3LT today from battery junction,its a very nice and well built light and bright
as hell.Monocrom said its ugly but its not infact a very unique looking light.Im very pleased
with it.

Thanks


----------



## jirik_cz

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

I would love to see some proper outdoor beamshots!

The runtime graph with 3xCR123 looks little bit disappointing. Seems like M3LT is very hard on batteries. 

But runtime graph of Olight M30 (by selfbuilt) shows, that regulation with 3xCR123 is really difficult at these power levels. Still the curve of the M30 looks little bit better.


----------



## Kestrel

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



jirik_cz said:


> But runtime graph of Olight M30 (by selfbuilt) shows, that regulation with 3xCR123 is really difficult at these power levels.


Wow, the shape of that 3xCR123 curve is rather similar in shape to the OP's 3xCR123 plot.
Very interesting, and makes me wonder if better regulation for this light might be obtained on *4*xCR123 like in the M30 - it's possible that SF might have designed the electronics in this TH to handle the voltage from their M4 as well. :thinking:


----------



## Tempest UK

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



easilyled said:


> I believe that most CPFers consider that having consistent output far outweighs this.



Perhaps so, but the M3LT wasn't tailored to the desires of CPFers.


----------



## iapyx

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



easilyled said:


> I believe that most CPFers consider that having consistent output far outweighs this.



Hopefully the UB3T will have a consistent output. We'll see.


----------



## easilyled

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



Tempest UK said:


> Perhaps so, but the M3LT wasn't tailored to the desires of CPFers.



Do you think the military benefit from/prefer a light without regulation?


----------



## SuperTrouper

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

One question I have after seeing the runtime graph there is; how bright is the light?

Surefire have historically underrated their lights in addition to stating the "tactical level runtime" so maybe it starts off at like 700 lumens and slowly comes down to more like 400 for a good period of that tactical runtime?

Until someone gets one in a sphere, we probably won't know.


----------



## iapyx

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



SuperTrouper said:


> One question I have after seeing the runtime graph there is; how bright is the light?
> 
> Surefire have historically underrated their lights in addition to stating the "tactical level runtime" so maybe it starts off at like 700 lumens and slowly comes down to more like 400 for a good period of that tactical runtime?
> 
> Until someone gets one in a sphere, we probably won't know.


 
+1 
exactly what was on my mind. I just forgot asking. 
@turboBB, do you have the equipment to measure the lumen output?


----------



## monkeyboy

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



turboBB said:


> From what I’ve read, the LOTCs in these 2-staged lights have a resistor in one of the stages to help trigger the low or high mode. However, I’m not certain why it then defaults to low mode when used with a Z41 (or a clicky from my U2A). I would’ve expected it to default to high mode. I’m sure one of you knows the answer to this and can reply in the thread after which I will reference the answer here.



Hmm... that would be odd if the High mode was the one that goes through the resistor. This spoils my plans to get one and attach it to an M6 body with 2 x 18650.

So if you just short the -ve battery contact to the tube with a piece of metal, do you only get low? 
Do we know for sure that it uses a resistor? Could it be a pressure sensitive head instead? What if you physically push down on the batteries while you do this?


----------



## Size15's

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

Given the new design of this longer two-stage push button pressure switch I suggest it premature to draw conclusions before CPFers have taken the light apart and determined how it operates. It's obviously doing something new since it operates on low without its dedicated TailCap.


----------



## turboBB

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



monkeyboy said:


> So if you just short the -ve battery contact to the tube with a piece of metal, do you only get low?
> Do we know for sure that it uses a resistor? Could it be a pressure sensitive head instead? What if you physically push down on the batteries while you do this?


 
Well, re: a resistor, that was just heresay on other 2-stage tailcaps but per my pic of the inside fo the LOTC, you can see there is a circuit board in there. It might be different for the M3LT but shorting the tube against the battery only yields low. Pushing the battery further into the tube does not change the level.

I tried to remove the tailcap but it seems the cover around the rubber button is held in pretty tight (glued?). Not going to risk damaging it but will try to see if I can take some resistance readings by wedging a thin metal to the contact points that are deep within the switch.

EDIT: @iapyx/S.Trouper, I don't have an IS so can't do OTF but here were the initial lux readings on high @ 5m:

VX Ultra w/TF Kit (1 x AW18650) - 1391
M3LT (2 x AW17500) - 1189
E2DL (2 x Tenergy LiFePO4) - 390 

Cheers,
Tim


----------



## I came to the light...

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

Thanks for the review TurboBB, I'm looking forward to more beamshots. Based on your lux readings the M3LT should throw further than the M1X, in addition to its larger spot; can you confirm that this is the case? 

Regarding runtime, are we sure that it isn't just cell fatigue? That is, would it stay closer to 400lm if it were used intermittently?


----------



## Fleetlord

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

I remember the old L2 was a two stage light with an unregulated high stage, maybe it's the same dealio with the M3LT? Electronics may be different, but same philosophy/execution?

Anyway, the light looked good, but that lack of steady regulation just kicked me off the train:thumbsdow. $450 saved


----------



## Size15's

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

It would be useful to see a runtime chart for the low mode.

I've often thought about whether the output would change differently over time of rather than a constant-on trial, the output was measured for a set period, for example 1 minute or perhaps 30sec and then switched off for a set period. Perhaps a mechanical rig can be constructed to automate the test?


----------



## turboBB

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

@ICTTL - I'll run a comprehensive comparo against the M1X (just need to borrow it from my friend).

Reading through this thread re: how 2-stage LOTC's work, if the LOTC did indeed have a resistor then I should be getting additional ouput levels using the TLS TX3 2-stage head but regardless of soft/hard press, low/high lock, the stages remain H/L. This seems to indicate there isn't a resistor in the LOTC.

What do you guys think?


----------



## turboBB

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



Size15's said:


> It would be useful to see a runtime chart for the low mode.
> 
> I've often thought about whether the output would change differently over time of rather than a constant-on trial, the output was measured for a set period, for example 1 minute or perhaps 30sec and then switched off for a set period. Perhaps a mechanical rig can be constructed to automate the test?


 
I'll conduct the L runtime shortly. As for automating it, lol, that'll be beyond my means but I do agree w/your assessment. Case in point, the SF123As that were initially run down to Ending v: 2.37/2.25/2.27 have now all bounced back to around 2.77v. This sort of highlights ICTTL's point re: cell fatigue. By only running the light intermittently, you theoretically might be able to get better runtime overall.

Regardless though, I think the main point is I don't believe Surefire was deceptive w/their specs in terms of runtime which was simply: 1.7hrs on high before output drops below 50 lumens. I don't recall ever seeing anything about that output being regulated.

Also, FWIW, I recall testing the M3LT against my SC30 (193L OTF) shortly after the SF123A runtime test (which by this point, I could no longer engage H) and the brightness was comparable if not slightly brighter! There was still a lot of usable light at the tail end of that runtime.

For the next run, I'll try to standardize the testing at 1M and capture the actual Lux values throughout the test.

Lastly, can anyone advise if it's possible to extrapolate a rough estimate of OTF Lumens from 1 or 5 meter Lux value?

Cheers,
Tim


----------



## Size15's

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

I think its a shame more people weren't listening to PK at his SureFire parties but it is interesting to see people figuring things out. It sometimes feels like CPFers like to make life difficult for themselves!


----------



## was.lost.but.now.found

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



Size15's said:


> I think its a shame more people weren't listening to PK at his SureFire parties but it is interesting to see people figuring things out. It sometimes feels like CPFers like to make life difficult for themselves!


 
Can you elaborate for those of us who have no idea what you are talking about?


----------



## Size15's

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



was.lost.but.now.found said:


> Can you elaborate for those of us who have no idea what you are talking about?


I'm not far off doing so but I think there is fun to be had by those wanting to explore this new model and work things out for themselves.
I don't want to spoil that


----------



## Fleetlord

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



Size15's said:


> I think its a shame more people weren't listening to PK at his SureFire parties but it is interesting to see people figuring things out. It sometimes feels like CPFers like to make life difficult for themselves!


 
It seems simple to me. 

I wanted a light that would put out 400Lumens on high stage with flat regulation for an hour. Then it can drop off down to 50 lumens over the remainder of the battery life. 

I didn't want to run the light for an hour straight, I just wanted to have 400Lumens "full power" available to me whenever I needed it...to a summation of one hour run time.

This is not what is happening. It's 400 Lumens for a few minutes, then downhill we go. Nothing revolutionary or wonderfully amazing about that...

What "surprise" is supposed to be discovered when our more advanced CPFer's dig into this light? A wormhole? Interdimensional transportation?

Trust me, I'm a Surefire fan and have mostly Surefire's in my collection, but I'm not seeing how the performance of this light is considered a "breakthough". I'm open minded and will take correction well if it's given to me, but as of now, I don't see "it".


----------



## easilyled

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



Fleetlord said:


> It seems simple to me.
> 
> I wanted a light that would put out 400Lumens on high stage with flat regulation for an hour. Then it can drop off down to 50 lumens over the remainder of the battery life.
> 
> I didn't want to run the light for an hour straight, I just wanted to have 400Lumens "full power" available to me whenever I needed it...to a summation of one hour run time.
> 
> This is not what is happening. It's 400 Lumens for a few minutes, then downhill we go. Nothing revolutionary or wonderfully amazing about that...
> 
> What "surprise" is supposed to be discovered when our more advanced CPFer's dig into this light? A wormhole? Interdimensional transportation?
> 
> Trust me, I'm a Surefire fan and have mostly Surefire's in my collection, but I'm not seeing how the performance of this light is considered a "breakthough". I'm open minded and will take correction well if it's given to me, but as of now, I don't see "it".



:thumbsup:

Indeed, The Emperor's New Clothes strikes yet again.


----------



## Size15's

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

I'm not talking about the output or regulation, I'm referring to the UI and its mechanical & electrical design. There is more to flashlights than output and table flat regulation. I was hoping there would be a chance to enjoy a tune rather than the normal vuvuzelas


----------



## Fleetlord

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



Size15's said:


> I'm not talking about the output or regulation, I'm referring to the UI and its mechanical & electrical design. There is more to flashlights than output and table flat regulation. I was hoping there would be a chance to enjoy a tune rather than the normal vuvuzelas


 
Ok. Criticism is not always noise. 

1. The UI is the same UI Surefire has been using in two stage LED lights for the last 6yrs. It maybe the first time it's been used on that size tube, but that isn't anything I would consider a marvel.

2. Mechanically, it's a M3 with a Turbo LED Head. Some slight changes to the tube shape and anodizing color, but it's an M3 that's been in production for the last decade. Now, the lens is different and seems to be a bit different from other designs Surefire has done, but at the end of the day, it's still an optic, just the second one they've put out in a turbo head (Darpa and this one). 

3. Electrically. Well, in Surefire's eyes it's only a 3 cell SF123 light. Surefire doesn't recognize aftermarket rechargeables so they didn't design anything with those in mind. 

So, what is different about the light electrically that is innovative AND progressive? They may be "wiring" things differently, but if the result of that puts us back in terms of regulation 5yrs how is that good? 

If they had gotten this light to run the full 1.7hrs at 400Lumens FLAT, I'd be impressed with their electrical design...or if the user had a choice of how their light could run..regulated or non-regulated, then I'd get it.
Right now, with an unregualted output? Not sure I'm seeing the beauty of this electrial design.

If somebody told me, "Hey, Surefire can't make a 3 cell light run for one hour with a flat regulation curve because of power or technological limitations", I could accept that. I haven't hear that yet, so I'm continuing to question why this light was put out to market with the regulation curve similar to that of an incandescent. 



As I said before, I'm a Surefire guy. I love them. Maybe I wanted this light to be something that just isn't currently possible with existing technology..


----------



## Kestrel

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



Size15's said:


> I was hoping there would be a chance to enjoy a tune rather than the normal vuvuzelas


:thumbsup: for the most artfully constructed objection of the week.


----------



## easilyled

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



Size15's said:


> I was hoping there would be a chance to enjoy a tune rather than the normal vuvuzelas



Its the vuvuzelas that cheer on indiscriminately enjoying the weaker teams as much as the stronger ones.


----------



## turboBB

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

Hey guys, :help: this is driving me nuts... :hairpull: (and I don't have much to pull out to begin with... lol).

OK, so I've completely bypassed the tube and LOTC and rigged the head to run directly off of 2 AW's. It defaults to low and no sequence of on/off will get it into high.

A different test with the head off and LOTC in M-OP, I put the 2 AW's in and then alligatored - lead to the tube and touched my meter's + lead to the + on battery to which I get no reading. Lightly depressing it to simulate L, I get full 8.4v further depressing the switch causes no change in v reading. WTHeck is going on here? :shrug:

If the tailcap contained a resistor then the head should default to H w/out the LOTC. With it on, the resitance should occur in L and disengaged in H.

Any ideas anyone?

Thx,
Tim


----------



## HKJ

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



turboBB said:


> Any ideas anyone?



As far as I remember, the Surefire patent is not only about resistors in the tailcap, but inductors are also a possibility.
Could it be that the driver looks for spikes from an inductor?

I would like to put the light on the test bench, but I am not really a fan of unregulated lights and am not going to buy it.

The advantage of unregulated is that you do not really risk running out of power, the light will just get dimmer and dimmer and ...


----------



## monkeyboy

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



turboBB said:


> Lightly depressing it to simulate L, I get full 8.4v further depressing the switch causes no change in v reading. WTHeck is going on here? :shrug:



That's what you'd expect. The voltage wouldn't change with a resistor in series if there's no load.

EDIT: If you want to find out if it uses a resistor or not, set your multimeter for resistance and measure the tailcap directly while pushing for "low" and "high".


----------



## JNewell

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

Well, if nothing else, the lack of a relatively even 400-lumen regulated output for some meaningful period of time means that this one will have to work hard and do some special things to bump my M6 off the shelf.



Fleetlord said:


> It seems simple to me.
> 
> I wanted a light that would put out 400Lumens on high stage with flat regulation for an hour. Then it can drop off down to 50 lumens over the remainder of the battery life.
> 
> I didn't want to run the light for an hour straight, I just wanted to have 400Lumens "full power" available to me whenever I needed it...to a summation of one hour run time.
> 
> This is not what is happening. It's 400 Lumens for a few minutes, then downhill we go. Nothing revolutionary or wonderfully amazing about that...
> 
> What "surprise" is supposed to be discovered when our more advanced CPFer's dig into this light? A wormhole? Interdimensional transportation?
> 
> Trust me, I'm a Surefire fan and have mostly Surefire's in my collection, but I'm not seeing how the performance of this light is considered a "breakthough". I'm open minded and will take correction well if it's given to me, but as of now, I don't see "it".


----------



## jirik_cz

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

Maybe there is a part of the driver in the tailcap...


----------



## turboBB

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



HKJ said:


> As far as I remember, the Surefire patent is not only about resistors in the tailcap, but inductors are also a possibility.
> Could it be that the driver looks for spikes from an inductor?


 
Seems possible but that will be beyond my realm, I'm just a guy with a simple DMM that can't measure current draws from flashlights... :tinfoil:



monkeyboy said:


> That's what you'd expect. The voltage wouldn't change with a resistor in series if there's no load.
> 
> EDIT: If you want to find out if it uses a resistor or not, set your multimeter for resistance and measure the tailcap directly while pushing for "low" and "high".


 
Well it's tricky as I'd have to rig something that would apply the right pressure on the - spring of the tailcap.

Interestingly enough, jumping -/+ springs on head to tube/+ on battery respectively, the light will default to H and give a buzzing noise and loses L mode.

Guess we'll have to wait for a more knowledgeable M3LT owner to take the light through its paces and help explain what's going on.

Sorry I couldn't be of more help here. 

Cheers,
Tim


----------



## Size15's

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

So what could be the reasons SureFire decided to change their two-stage design? Does induction rather than resistance bring benefits?

BTW I'm also looking forward to the time when I can effectively retire my M6's for LED alternatives. I'm not convinced SureFire have yet achieved this.

Perhaps this new light is a step in the right direction though...


----------



## HKJ

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



Size15's said:


> Does induction rather than resistance bring benefits?



It could reduce the power loss in the tailcap compared to a resistor. It is also easy to detect and probably more reliable than a resistor (It will never look like a nearly empty battery).


----------



## easilyled

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



Size15's said:


> BTW I'm also looking forward to the time when I can effectively retire my M6's for LED alternatives. I'm not convinced SureFire have yet achieved this.



You're certainly not wrong there.

It seems to me that the problem hinges on Surefire's philosophy of advocating the use of relatively low-capacity primary cells as the principle fuel supply.

If this could change to embrace the idea of using higher capacity cells (yes, shock horror, rechargeable li-ions/IMRs/LiFePO4s) in order to fully take advantage of driving the high-power leds in regulation, then a more efficient M6-LED replacement could be achieved with great ease.

In times where electricity is in short supply, primaries could still be used as backup.


----------



## DimeRazorback

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

Is it really practical for field use to have a rechargeable power source?

If I didn't have a 100% certainty of having a mains power source everyday, I would only use primaries. 

If you are on an operation in for example Iraq, where you are in the field for a week straight, would rechargeable really be a valid power source?

I think that they know what they are doing, even of it doesn't impress all the white wall hunters of the limited class of CPF.


----------



## chris23

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

Great review, thankyou; it would be awesome to see this light compared to the m6, as well as a physical size comparison between the two if thats possible


----------



## Daylo

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

Excellent review and discussion. I initially loved this light, saw the regulation (or lack there of) and was turned off, now I don't know what to think but I have to assume SF knows what they are doing. :thinking:

C'mon Size15s, spill the beans, stop playing with our emotions


----------



## turboBB

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

Hey guys, I've updated the review to reflect new runtimes by revising my testing to standardize Lux output readings @ 1M.

Check it out in the section: *EDIT 6/26: RUNTIME w/actual Lux readings @ 1M (High)*

Will hit up the SF123A's in the near future (yes, I dislike primaries _that_ much...). 

@chris23, your wish may just come true as I hope to meet up with monocrom to test the light against his M6. Just sorting out our schedules as well as determing best place in NYC to conduct testing given the dead of summer that we're in and the fact that there's still plenty of sunlight even around 9PM.

Is anyone aware of a safe tunnel like structure we might be able to visit during the day for testing in NY/NJ area?

Cheers,
Tim


----------



## easilyled

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



DimeRazorback said:


> Is it really practical for field use to have a rechargeable power source?
> 
> If I didn't have a 100% certainty of having a mains power source everyday, I would only use primaries.
> 
> If you are on an operation in for example Iraq, where you are in the field for a week straight, would rechargeable really be a valid power source?
> 
> I think that they know what they are doing, even of it doesn't impress all the white wall hunters of the limited class of CPF.



The bottom line is that 3 primaries simply cannot sustain a consistently high enough current to keep this light in regulation.

In order to change this, one or more of these options are required:-

1) design it for more than 3 primaries.

2) manufacture primaries with higher capacity (if this is feasible)

3) design the light to accept both primaries and high-capacity rechargeables such as 18500s/18650s. Then in the field, primaries can be used with resultant lack of regulation when no electricity supply is available. At least the option to use 18500s/18650s would still be there when this is not a problem.

Surely this is not rocket science?


----------



## jirik_cz

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

Make a 2x18650 body for it and runtime/regulation should be pretty good


----------



## JNewell

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

If anyone could do so, I'd be interested in a comparison of runtime and output for the M3LT compared to the Wildcat MD3 (new version). 



easilyled said:


> The bottom line is that 3 primaries simply cannot sustain a consistently high enough current to keep this light in regulation.
> 
> In order to change this, one or more of these options are required:-
> 
> 1) design it for more than 3 primaries.
> 
> 2) manufacture primaries with higher capacity (if this is feasible)
> 
> 3) design the light to accept both primaries and high-capacity rechargeables such as 18500s/18650s. Then in the field, primaries can be used with resultant lack of regulation when no electricity supply is available. At least the option to use 18500s/18650s would still be there when this is not a problem.
> 
> Surely this is not rocket science?


----------



## Mark Mck

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

This was an excellent review! Thanks for sharing.:thumbsup:


----------



## Bullzeyebill

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

To understand the M3LT circuit, maybe discovering that it is using some of the technology that pk uses on the ICON lights, try running it for fifteen minutes, turning it off, then on, running it for 15 more minutes, turn it off then on and run it for 15 more minutes. The ICON lights run in regulation for 10 minutes, then switch to direct drive, and if turned off and back on resume full regulation, and this sequence can continue till voltage drops significantly. Just some thoughts, and at this stage in the game, mostly shooting in the dark, no idea is bad.

Bill


----------



## FroggyTaco

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



JNewell said:


> If anyone could do so, I'd be interested in a comparison of runtime and output for the M3LT compared to the Wildcat MD3 (new version).



Yeah..The Wildcat is brighter & runs longer for about 1/2 the money & a comparable warranty. Oh and it's more compact too. 

And to think if the Wildcat production could be & needed to be scaled up to SF level production, it would prolly cost about 220.00 instead.


----------



## turboBB

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

I've conducted another round of testing with primaries, this time using Energizer Photo Lithium's. You can hit up the updated chart for results (very similar to the SF123a's).

@ Mark, thx!! It was fun putting it together and enhanced by the ongoing dialogue now. Just a matter of meeting up w/Monocrom next weekend to complete the outdoor beamshots.

@Bill, I'll give that a shot with the AW's (hate filling up the landfill for mere sake of testing). Analyzing the data, seems to confirm what you are saying about the 10 minute regulation and then DD (is this what Size15's was alluding to?).

I do notice that in terms of regulation, it's not a true flatline but rather a very slight declining trend right from the get go. In the first 12 minutes of each battery type, there is an approximate drop of 2k lux:







Cheers,
Tim


----------



## DimeRazorback

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

As Size15's has already pointed out, table-flat regulation is not always necessary.

So really, the bottom line is that it is up to Surefire, not that we should expect them to do this that and the other.

Surely this is not rocket science?




easilyled said:


> The bottom line is that 3 primaries simply cannot sustain a consistently high enough current to keep this light in regulation.
> 
> In order to change this, one or more of these options are required:-
> 
> 1) design it for more than 3 primaries.
> 
> 2) manufacture primaries with higher capacity (if this is feasible)
> 
> 3) design the light to accept both primaries and high-capacity rechargeables such as 18500s/18650s. Then in the field, primaries can be used with resultant lack of regulation when no electricity supply is available. At least the option to use 18500s/18650s would still be there when this is not a problem.
> 
> Surely this is not rocket science?


----------



## Rocketman

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



easilyled said:


> The bottom line is that 3 primaries simply cannot sustain a consistently high enough current to keep this light in regulation.
> 
> In order to change this, one or more of these options are required:-
> 
> 1) design it for more than 3 primaries.
> 
> 2) manufacture primaries with higher capacity (if this is feasible)
> 
> 3) design the light to accept both primaries and high-capacity rechargeables such as 18500s/18650s. Then in the field, primaries can be used with resultant lack of regulation when no electricity supply is available. At least the option to use 18500s/18650s would still be there when this is not a problem.
> 
> Surely this is not rocket science?



They made this light for their intended audience to provide a high brightness beam for a short period of time. The intention for the batteries was to have the user change them often, at the begin of a mission or firefight. As stated, the design cannot provide for such high brightness under regulation. Also Surefire probably did not want the light to suddenly drop off. Makes sense to me now that I think of it this way.

It's not for us, basically, unless you intend to use it as intended.


----------



## turboBB

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

Hi guys,

Review has been updated with 10 min. interval runtimes on AW17500's (look for "EDIT 6/28:"). It yields subtle improvements at best but does seem to reinforce the 10 min. reg run then DD.

Cheers,
Tim


----------



## easilyled

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



DimeRazorback said:


> As Size15's has already pointed out, table-flat regulation is not always necessary.



You can always excuse something that is not as good. Diehard fans always do.




DimeRazorback said:


> So really, the bottom line is that it is up to Surefire, not that we should expect them to do this that and the other.



Heaven forbid that their captive audience should ever have the audacity to give them any feedback.


----------



## DimeRazorback

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

There is a vast difference between feedback and telling someone what they should do.


----------



## easilyled

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



DimeRazorback said:


> There is a vast difference between feedback and telling someone what they should do.



I'm just stating my opinion, for what its worth. Surefire, no doubt, couldn't care in the slightest.

However, if enough people were to say that they prefer constant regulation to the kind of compromise that appears to exist in this light, then who knows.


----------



## DimeRazorback

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



easilyled said:


> I'm just stating my opinion, for what its worth. Surefire, no doubt, couldn't care in the slightest.
> 
> However, if enough people were to say that they prefer constant regulation to the kind of compromise that appears to exist in this light, then who knows.



That is fair enough. However I feel that yes the general citizen flashaholic may benefit, but those who use the lights as intended will not receive many gains.

Who do you cater for as a producer of tactical flashlights. White wall hunters who want to utilise rechargeable batteries, nice tints and flat runtime regulation, or those who use the lights in the ways they were designed to be used.
I would never go out with a duty appointment half loaded. So why would I with a flashlight... it to is just another appointment.

My point is (to make it more clear) if I were to use an appointment, I would reload it. Same goes with flashlights and their batteries.
(Yes you can carry multiple rechargeable batteries... but will I always have time to keep an eye on their charge status? Will they work when I put them in?)

There are rechargeable SF's on the market... but only a few. Maybe there is a reason for that?

Also, with regards to flat runtimes, I find that they can be quite dangerous.
Not only for the fact that you are left in the dark without warning (read on), but unless there are protection methods built in, batteries become a hazard.

To me, the less electronics inside a light the better.
The more complex they are, the more there is to go wrong for example low battery warnings, protection circuits etc etc.

With regards to all of this, I am purely talking about what I regard as a "tactical flashlight" which to me is a surefire built with that intention.
The M3LT falls within this category.

If the M3LT were something I considered a toy, then hell yes bring on all those other goodies!
But if I need that light to keep a clear sight on a person of interest, I want simplicity, with minimal electronics to be at play.


----------



## easilyled

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

You make some very good points there and I have to defer to you for your knowledge of what is required in military situations, since I do not have any personal experience.

Would there be any harm though, in the battery tube of the M3LT being thick enough to receive 2 18500s instead of 2 17500s? (in order to provide a longer constant regulation option)

This is only a very minor modification and would provide an alternative option for those who wish to use it, maybe not during an active field engagement but for some other less crucial task that a member in the armed forces might be required to perform. 

Maybe I'm completely wrong, but I perceive a certain stubbornness on Surefire's part not to accept anything other than CR123s and being of a cynical disposition, I have conjectured that its in their interest to sell CR123s which they manufacture. :shrug:

I realize that there is a strong bond of loyalty between active service people and Surefire (who have earned that trust by providing first-rate, reliable duty lights), however I think that it is always in the interests of those being provided to, to constantly question and guide the provider for the sake of evolving new products in a changing technological environment.


----------



## DimeRazorback

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



easilyled said:


> You make some very good points there and I have to defer to you for your knowledge of what is required in military situations, since I do not have any personal experience.
> 
> Would there be any harm though, in the battery tube of the M3LT being thick enough to receive 2 18500s instead of 2 17500s? (in order to provide a longer constant regulation option)
> 
> This is only a very minor modification and would provide an alternative option for those who wish to use it, maybe not during an active field engagement but for some other less crucial task that a member in the armed forces might be required to perform.
> 
> Maybe I'm completely wrong, but I perceive a certain stubbornness on Surefire's part not to accept anything other than CR123s and being of a cynical disposition, I have conjectured that its in their interest to sell CR123s which they manufacture. :shrug:
> 
> I realize that there is a strong bond of loyalty between active service people and Surefire (who have earned that trust by providing first-rate, reliable duty lights), however I think that it is always in the interests of those being provided to, to constantly question and guide the provider for the sake of evolving new products in a changing technological environment.



I don't want to drag this great review thread away from it's purpose anymore with my endless opinions laughing, but I will say that I would love to see them introduce 18mm diameter bodies... as long as the rattle when using primary cells is addressed.

I can't stand the sloppiness (for lack of better words ) of cr123's in 18mm diameter tubed lights.

Perhaps moddoo will eventually look into the tube of the M3LT... there may be light at the end of the tunnel!


----------



## JNewell

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



Rocketman said:


> *They made this light for their intended audience to provide a high brightness beam for a short period of time. The intention for the batteries was to have the user change them often, at the begin of a mission or firefight.* As stated, the design cannot provide for such high brightness under regulation. Also Surefire probably did not want the light to suddenly drop off. Makes sense to me now that I think of it this way.
> 
> It's not for us, basically, unless you intend to use it as intended.


 
I suspect that the part bolded above is correct. However, two comments. 

For anyone not operating on someone else's (such as the taxpayers') nickel, this is very likely a serious issue for a light like this. On a smaller scale, level regulation was the thing that finally persuaded me to trade the P60 and P61 LAs in my EDC light gear for LEDs.

Second, I'm not sure that the design goals required this design. The latest Wildcat suggests that very high performance, regulated output, realistic runtimes and 3x 123 primary design elements can be very successfully mixed together in a single light.


----------



## iapyx

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



JNewell said:


> I suspect that the part bolded above is correct. However, two comments.
> 
> For anyone not operating on someone else's (such as the taxpayers') nickel, this is very likely a serious issue for a light like this. On a smaller scale, level regulation was the thing that finally persuaded me to trade the P60 and P61 LAs in my EDC light gear for LEDs.
> 
> Second, I'm not sure that the design goals required this design. The latest Wildcat suggests that very high performance, regulated output, realistic runtimes and 3x 123 primary design elements can be very successfully mixed together in a single light.



Then I am really curious if the UB3T will be regulated. Could I be wrong if I guess that that light is designed for other purposes --> non-military or non-tactical. 
Just blowing the vuvuzela a bit here...


----------



## easilyled

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



iapyx said:


> Then I am really curious if the UB3T will be regulated. Could I be wrong if I guess that that light is designed for other purposes --> non-military or non-tactical.
> Just blowing the vuvuzela a bit here...



Since these lights are open to purchase by CPFers and the general public, it would be helpful to know their specific designated purpose beforehand in order to help with any potential purchasing decision.

Then I wouldn't have to argue against lights such as the M3LT only to find that its specifically designed for military firefights. :tinfoil:


----------



## Bullzeyebill

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

I too am mystified as to why the M3LT only runs about 30 minutes or so in regulation on high. Have not seen a runtime graph for the low mode, and can only guess that the purpose of the high mode is for burst, to light up an area temporarly, then turn off, or go back to low mode. 

We need to be careful that this does not end up as "yet another SF bashing thread". 

Bill


----------



## Fleetlord

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

A couple of things I've been thinking about...

1. Surefire will knowingly NEVER design a light to accept aftermarket rechargables. If I remember correctly the U2 originally could accept rechargables, then Surefire changed the tube and rechargables wouldn't fit anymore. 
They market and sell their own brand batteries which are a renewing revenue stream for the company. They are stating that these lights need these batteries, they have them with their name on them....buy them.

2. Surefire is backing away from LED regulated lights as being a beneficial feature. There doesn't seem to be any mention of regulation on the Surefire website on any lights, including the older A2, which was highly touted as being a regulated incandescent...now, no mention at all. I think as the older LED lights are phased out, the newer models won't be regulated as we would like them to be. The reason? Cost reduction. At the end of the day, Surefire is a business and they are in business to make money. Reducing costs equals higher profits so that is the track they will run on. Non regulated lights cost less to make and require less engineering time, so Surefire stands to make more money on each light.

If Surefire wanted to, they could give a regulated light a better warning before the batteries were drained completely. This, of course,would cost extra $$ and they figure if they get all that regulation "talk" off their website, most end users would never notice that it didn't have constant brightness..


----------



## turboBB

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

Conducted an abbreviated runtime testing on low (shut it off after 109 min as I don't have time to run full test right now). It should be enough of a sample size to show it's regulated (never lower than 5.4K nor higher than 5.8K). The chart looks very exaggerated due to the revised y-axis scale.

@Fleet, agree about the capitilizing on the cells they sell thing. What I do find funny is the inconsistency with the I.D. of their tubes in that out of the lights I have, the M3LT, Z2 and G2Z can all accomodate 17xxx cells while my U2A has a very tight tolerance and can only accept 16xxx cells. :shrug: You'd imagine that they would've enforced strict tolerances all around no?

Cheers,
Tim


----------



## Bullzeyebill

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



Fleetlord said:


> A couple of things I've been thinking about...
> 
> 
> 2. Surefire is backing away from LED regulated lights as being a beneficial feature. There doesn't seem to be any mention of regulation on the Surefire website on any lights, including the older A2, which was highly touted as being a regulated incandescent...now, no mention at all.



In the case of the M3LT, if you look at the spec page, under features you will see the word "regulated". Your post is interesting, but like most surmises is probably not accurate. Truth be told, we do not know what SF is up to, and we are only shooting in the dark. We are making stories up based on little or no information. I am more interested in real facts like what is the current draw from the batteries, and nice runtime graphs like those presented in this thread by the OP. As time goes on we will learn more real information about the M3LT, which the OP has started to present. Enough with the wild guesses, and surmises, and the commiserating that goes along with it.

Bill


----------



## Size15's

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

Fleetlord,
The low output mode of the M3LT shows your assumption about SureFire no longer using regulation to be incorrect. It's a shame CPF hasn't been doing runtime plots for SureFire's latest models as this provides an information vacuum in which minds can easily wander.
Has anyone ever spoken to SureFire staff either openly or privately to try to get their perspective on why they don't make products that can make use of the various rechargeable batteries out there?
I've not met one yet who says or believes it is so they can make loads of money from their branded CR123As.

IMHO we're in an information desert of our own making...


----------



## Fleetlord

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



Bullzeyebill said:


> In the case of the M3LT, if you look at the spec page, under features you will see the word "regulated". Your post is interesting, but like most surmises is probably not accurate. Truth be told, we do not know what SF is up to, and we are only shooting in the dark. We are making stories up based on little or no information. I am more interested in real facts like what is the current draw from the batteries, and nice runtime graphs like those presented in this thread by the OP. As time goes on we will learn more real information about the M3LT, which the OP has started to present. Enough with the wild guesses, and surmises, and the commiserating that goes along with it.
> 
> Bill


 
Virtually indestructible 4-die LED emitter regulated to maximize output and runtime 


I stand corrected. It does state it.

I'm taking from the runtimes review that it will hold 400Lumens for approx 30 minutes, then drop out and dim down...So it's regulated for awhile, but not 1.7hrs..


----------



## Size15's

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



Fleetlord said:


> Virtually indestructible 4-die LED emitter regulated to maximize output and runtime
> 
> 
> I stand corrected. It does state it.
> 
> I'm taking from the runtimes review that it will hold 400Lumens for approx 30 minutes, then drop out and dim down...So it's regulated for awhile, but not 1.7hrs..


And in doing so deciding to ignore relevant feature of the M3LT, and use your selected view to make assumption about other SureFire models :shrug: :trolleys:


----------



## easilyled

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



Size15's said:


> Fleetlord,
> Has anyone ever spoken to SureFire staff either openly or privately to try to get their perspective on why they don't make products that can make use of the various rechargeable batteries out there?
> I've not met one yet who says or believes it is so they can make loads of money from their branded CR123As.



If a large company have a policy that is deliberately made for their business advantage and it conflicts with the public conception of good ethics, 
it would be naive to believe that the company would admit it.

I'm not however saying that this is the case here, only that it may be a possibility and we'll probably never really know.


----------



## Size15's

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



easilyled said:


> If a large company have a policy that is deliberately made for their business advantage and it conflicts with the public conception of good ethics,
> it would be naive to believe that the company would admit it.
> 
> I'm not however saying that this is the case here, only that it may be a possibility and we'll probably never really know.



We do know because I've asked and regardless of who I've spoken to - be they engineers or marketing or tech support - they are people I've got to know and become friends with. I trust them. They have no reason to lie to me. Compared to much of what I know about SureFire their inside story on SF123As is small talk!

SureFire decided to offer SF123As to give their customers the benefit of safe, high-performing, great value batteries.
There are far easier ways to make far more money.

SureFire recognise that whilst there are rechargeable 'alternatives' to the CR123A, use of these is often complicated by significant safety issues as well as useage and recharging issues. There is clear and present danger of users getting into dangerous situations with rechargeables. 
SureFire believe they are being responsible by putting safety first and doing what they can to maximise safety of their products. 
AFAIK, this is the same position taken by other American flashlight companies such as Pelican, Streamlight and Insight. Dedicated branded rechargeable solutions or nothing at all.

Al


----------



## Fleetlord

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



Size15's said:


> We do know because I've asked and regardless of who I've spoken to - be they engineers or marketing or tech support - they are people I've got to know and become friends with. I trust them. They have no reason to lie to me. Compared to much of what I know about SureFire their inside story on SF123As is small talk!
> 
> SureFire decided to offer SF123As to give their customers the benefit of safe, high-performing, great value batteries.
> There are far easier ways to make far more money.
> 
> SureFire recognise that whilst there are rechargeable 'alternatives' to the CR123A, use of these is often complicated by significant safety issues as well as useage and recharging issues. There is clear and present danger of users getting into dangerous situations with rechargeables.
> SureFire believe they are being responsible by putting safety first and doing what they can to maximise safety of their products.
> AFAIK, this is the same position taken by other American flashlight companies such as Pelican, Streamlight and Insight. Dedicated branded rechargeable solutions or nothing at all.
> 
> Al


 

It doesn't matter to me as I prefer primaries myself, but sourcing batteries and putting the Surfire name on them is an easy profit driver. There is no crime in that. You're getting defensive for no reason mate.


----------



## Size15's

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

The intentions and motivations were being misrepresented. The SureFire staff I've met and got to know over the last decade are worth defending. :thumbsup:


----------



## easilyled

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

It is clear that this light is intended *primarily* for critical military purposes. (pun intended).

This light is therefore not suitable for me. I will continue to choose lights that accept 18500s/18650s, at least, for fuelling high-power leds,
since I much prefer to have table-flat regulation at a decent runtime for my non-critical white-wall hunting and other rather meaningless pursuits like lighting up the woods at night. 

I now fully respect and understand the reasons why soldiers may prefer this light though and it makes sense for them to have something that they consider to be as reliable as possible for use in active conflicts.

In future, I will assume that Surefire high-powered led-lights continue to be designed only with service-personnel in mind, unless informed otherwise.


----------



## turboBB

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



Size15's said:


> Fleetlord,
> The low output mode of the M3LT shows your assumption about SureFire no longer using regulation to be incorrect. It's a shame CPF hasn't been doing runtime plots for SureFire's latest models as this provides an information vacuum in which minds can easily wander.


 
FWIW, here's a runtime of 200L E2DL (B serial) on High that I conducted in anticipation of a future review showing good regulation:





X = Time in Min. / Y = Actual Lux reading @ 1M

I stopped the test as the output started to decline as I didn't want to over discharge the batteries.

Cheers,
Tim


----------



## monkeyboy

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



jirik_cz said:


> Make a 2x18650 body for it and runtime/regulation should be pretty good



The Leef 2 x 18650 may work with this head and tailcap. Hopefully someone will give it a try. If it works, we need to get Leef to make some more of these. It seems as though my original plan of using an M6 body and 2 x 18650 will only give low mode unless the tailcap is modified.


----------



## JNewell

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

But surely this is no surprise? If it does not suit your needs, or mine, very well, why would that matter? GM made the Humvee and sold it to the civilian market. When I was most recently looking for a 4WD vehicle, I decided to buy a Jeep Cherokee instead. I didn't take any offense that GM hadn't made the Humvee along lines that would have made it more acceptable to me. Am I missing something? I mean this in a friendly way, not trying to jab or flame.




easilyled said:


> It is clear that this light is intended *primarily* for critical military purposes. (pun intended).
> 
> This light is therefore not suitable for me. I will continue to choose lights that accept 18500s/18650s, at least, for fuelling high-power leds,
> since I much prefer to have table-flat regulation at a decent runtime for my non-critical white-wall hunting and other rather meaningless pursuits like lighting up the woods at night.
> 
> I now fully respect and understand the reasons why soldiers may prefer this light though and it makes sense for them to have something that they consider to be as reliable as possible for use in active conflicts.
> 
> In future, I will assume that Surefire high-powered led-lights continue to be designed only with service-personnel in mind, unless informed otherwise.


----------



## easilyled

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



JNewell said:


> But surely this is no surprise? If it does not suit your needs, or mine, very well, why would that matter? GM made the Humvee and sold it to the civilian market. When I was most recently looking for a 4WD vehicle, I decided to buy a Jeep Cherokee instead. I didn't take any offense that GM hadn't made the Humvee along lines that would have made it more acceptable to me. Am I missing something? I mean this in a friendly way, not trying to jab or flame.



The surprise for me was the lack of true regulation in this light (which was revealed in the runtime graphs in this thread)

If I hadn't seen them, I might well have purchased this light, based on the fact that it is described as a regulated light.

Therefore I am thankful that this review spared me making a mistake and also showed me that a light of this power consumption can never have true regulation on primary cells.

I also learned why some of my military CPF colleagues prefer to use primaries in this type of light in battle situations.

This may be very obvious to most of you, but to this veteran civilian CPFer it was a valuable learning curve.


----------



## turboBB

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

@easilyled, that's why lovecpf

I too have benefitted from the reviews of fellow CPF'ers which have helped me make informed purchasing decisions. These reviews really help one understand the features that are important to them and I guess that's even more relevant in the cases where a light costs $$$$.

WRT Surefire's claims of regulation, I suppose there is enough ambiguity around the specs and features listed for the M3LT for both camps (both for and against) to make a valid argument.



Starting with the specifications:

Max Output is simply listed as 400 lumens but not joined or footnoted with the runtime
Tactical Runtime is listed at 1.7hrs with the following footnote: "*Total runtime (at highest setting for multiple-output flashlights) until output drops below 50 lumens "
I'm not sure that I can deduce beyond the shadow of the doubt that the Max Output is regulated for 1.7hrs by reading these two bullets. The way I interpreted was that by 1.7 hrs, the output would have fallen to 50 lumens implying that there is a downward trend in output from the start. Of course, that's just my interpretation of it.



Then under the Features, the first bullet lists:

Virtually indestructible 4-die LED emitter regulated to maximize output and runtime
This would imply the light is regulated but again, does not state the actual runtime.

Had they actually footnoted the: Max Ouput: 400 Lumens* and then added the following footnote: "*Regulated for 1.7hrs" then this would have left absolutely no doubt.

FWIW, I've emailed Surefire inquiring about this and will post an update when I hear back from them.

In the end, while regulation is great, it hasn't been at the top of my list in terms of the features I look for. However, this debate has got me questioning what is the real world impact considering our eyes don't view light in linear fashion. I wonder at what point through the runtime would our eyes actually be able to perceive a difference?

In the future, I'll try to conduct another runtime test but supplemented with beamshots at intervals throughout to help show what the real world differences in the output are as the light falls out of regulation. No promises though as this would require some effort and I'd have to borrow some equipment to get this done (unless someone knows of an easy way to conduct this test). 

Cheers,
Tim


----------



## easilyled

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

@turboBB, many thanks for your very comprehensive review that is both very informative and impartial.

Yes, the phrase "Virtually indestructible 4-die LED emitter regulated to maximize output and runtime" would certainly mislead me but I can only speak for myself.


----------



## JNewell

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

I completely agree with your first three paragraphs. I had the same expectations and the same reactions, with one exception. 

Am I missing something? The MD3 Wildcat puts out almost 2x the lumens on 3x123 primaries with regulated output for 1.25 hours, AFAIK. I'm not trying to bash, bait or flame. Just trying to understand what I might/must be missing here.



easilyled said:


> The surprise for me was the lack of true regulation in this light (which was revealed in the runtime graphs in this thread)
> 
> If I hadn't seen them, I might well have purchased this light, based on the fact that it is described as a regulated light.
> 
> Therefore I am thankful that this review spared me making a mistake and also showed me that a light of this power consumption can never have true regulation on primary cells.
> 
> I also learned why some of my military CPF colleagues prefer to use primaries in this type of light in battle situations.
> 
> This may be very obvious to most of you, but to this veteran civilian CPFer it was a valuable learning curve.


----------



## Bullzeyebill

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

Not sure if I would buy this light even with excellent regulation on high, but I do want to wait for another review, another sample of the M3LT, before I do a thumbs down, so for now I'm not getting worked up, and I think that none of us should draw absolute conclusions based on this review, and on the surmises presented here. Course, I must temper my comments cause I'm a flashaholic and lovecpf for its folks that don't get carried away with their hobby, but want to explore, explore, research, research, learning valuable info for decision making regarding lights of all kinds.

Bill


----------



## iapyx

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

Thanks again turboBB for this excellent review. Very interesting thread which has been very informative. I'm very curious to SF's answer to your mail to them. Will this (what your graphic shows) be a new trend? I'll be reading this thread for the next days [weeks perhaps]


----------



## easilyled

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



JNewell said:


> I completely agree with your first three paragraphs. I had the same expectations and the same reactions, with one exception.
> 
> Am I missing something? The MD3 Wildcat puts out almost 2x the lumens on 3x123 primaries with regulated output for 1.25 hours, AFAIK. I'm not trying to bash, bait or flame. Just trying to understand what I might/must be missing here.



I cannot comment on the MD3 Wildcat because I don't have one.

We would need to measure the total lumen output of each light before being able to draw any conclusions. I would guess that the M3LT actually produces more overall output. (Output claims on paper are virtually worthless)


----------



## JNewell

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



easilyled said:


> I cannot comment on the MD3 Wildcat because I don't have one.
> 
> We would need to measure the total lumen output of each light before being able to draw any conclusions. I would guess that the M3LT actually produces more overall output. (Output claims on paper are virtually worthless)


 
Gene Malkoff's claims are at least as reliable as SureFire's, and the 750 lumen output has been independently reported and verified here...


----------



## monkeyboy

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

Bigchelis measured around 750 OTF lumens for the Wildcat, for the first few minutes that is. But we should wait for him to measure the M3TL (some generous person could send him one) before we know for sure. 400 surefire lumens could mean anything. I would expect the Wildcat to be a little brighter and more efficient due to the XP-G's but the M3TL will easily out throw it. Different lights for different purposes so it's not really worth comparing them side by side IMO.


----------



## JNewell

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

Yup, see this post.

I would definitely expect you're right about throw. That's the nature (usually) of the optic. Trade-offs...my M6/HO-M6R out-throws the Wildcat, but has nothing even remotely approaching the truly blinding wall of light that the Wildcat provides.



bigchelis said:


> I got a test sample today and the beam is still flawless
> 
> 
> I want to test it with 2 AW 2600mAh cells and 2 AW 18500 cells.......


----------



## easilyled

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

@JNewell, has there been a runtime test of this light?


----------



## Fleetlord

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

So now we have an idea what happens with three SF123's..

What do you think would happen to runtime with this head on a M4 body? What about putting it on a M6?

Would the LED burn out? Would it run longer? Would it regulate flatter?


----------



## leon2245

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

thanks for the great review.






easilyled said:


> The bottom line is that 3 primaries simply cannot sustain a consistently high enough current to keep this light in regulation.


 

so if possible, screwing the m3lt's head on an m6 for instance would keep it in regulation longer? because i'd prefer it in that form factor anyway.

about the battery types, i'm among those who do not prefer rechargeables in the first place, so not an issue for me. would just assume their tubes only fit cr123's with minimal tolerance & not allow anything else. from s.f.'s perspective, not only profit from battery sales, but the more of that stuff you allow the more avenues of user error & resulting warranty issues (might result in higher prices for us). i.d.k. about all their motivations, & i can't say anything bad because s.f. has been very generous with me in replacing a large shipment of batteires at their expense for something that was not even their fault (long story), so it's definitely not pure greed. but to think design & battery sales are not _any_ part of their intended business model isn't necessarily undermining anyone's credibility, but would just be a BIG coincidence. works out for them at a number of levels, as it should, & works for me too. plus you can't say across the board, because you have their rechargeable models, cr2, AA lights etc.


anyway with this one i would prefer the melt to stay in regulation longer. relatively consistent output until near battery change is the #1 advantage of led's over incans (except the a2) for me, even over pure efficiency. has anyone put this light on an m6 head yet? wish i'd not read about our tax dollars going toward topping off military lights with a new set after the peak brightness had worn off. now this may be naive but i'm going to pretend that's not true, or they at the very least put these minimally discharged cr123's in something else more efficient & less critical that can use them for a 2nd run.


----------



## leon2245

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



Fleetlord said:


> So now we have an idea what happens with three SF123's..
> 
> What do you think would happen to runtime with this head on a M4 body? What about putting it on a M6?
> 
> *Would the LED burn out? Would it run longer? Would it regulate flatter*?


 

lol i didn't see your post while i was typing, but that was my main question that i buried in an o.t. rant.

yes that would be great to know.


----------



## Fleetlord

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

It may be the right LED head with a body that can't hold enough juice to run it the way WE want it to run.

Any theories on what a M4 or M6 body would do?

I know the M4 is a 12v light and the M6 is a 9v light running in parrallel.

What would this head do on these bodies? Any theories out there?


----------



## Bullzeyebill

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

The head is not compatible with any existing SF bodies. 

Bill


----------



## monkeyboy

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



Bullzeyebill said:


> The head is not compatible with any existing SF bodies.
> 
> Bill



Should be compatible with M head bodies according to what TurboBB said. Or did I miss something?

Only problem is that a standard tailcap would only give low (e.g. with an M6 body and tailcap). The tailcap is standard C fitting but I'm unsure of whether or not it would work with a different body e.g. Leef, M4, old M3 etc.


----------



## Bullzeyebill

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



monkeyboy said:


> Should be compatible with M head bodies according to what TurboBB said. Or did I miss something?
> 
> Only problem is that a standard tailcap would only give low (e.g. with an M6 body and tailcap). The tailcap is standard C fitting but I'm unsure of whether or not it would work with a different body e.g. Leef, M4, old M3 etc.



See this in first post:

*DESIGN / FEATURES*
Despite sharing the same model name as the M3 line, the M3LT is not a simple LED reincarnation of its incan brethrens (a la G2 LED vs. G2) but rather a completely new design sharing no parts w/the M3 or M3T. It has the same recessed slotted elements as can be found on their newer lights (A2L, LX2, AZ2, etc.) and comes with a completely new head labeled, KX9T.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill


----------



## monkeyboy

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



Bullzeyebill said:


> See this in first post:
> 
> *DESIGN / FEATURES*
> Despite sharing the same model name as the M3 line, the M3LT is not a simple LED reincarnation of its incan brethrens (a la G2 LED vs. G2) but rather a completely new design sharing no parts w/the M3 or M3T. It has the same recessed slotted elements as can be found on their newer lights (A2L, LX2, AZ2, etc.) and comes with a completely new head labeled, KX9T.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Bill



That just says that it doesn't share any parts with the old M3. It doesn't say that the parts aren't compatible.

If you read the other part of the post, Turbo BB says that he could screw a different M head onto the new body.


----------



## turboBB

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

I don't have any other M lights to try with but did have a TLS TX3 head that is M compatible and it fit without any issues so I have to assume that it can accept other M series head (except M2 since that's C/G/P/Z compatible).

I should know for sure by this Sunday when I meet up w/Monocrom as he'll be bringing his M6.

Cheers,
Tim


----------



## knightrider

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

I'm very happy I read through this. It seems to be a different kind of light than I'm used to in some ways.

I would still like to see it in comparison to some known incandescent lights like the standards 9P, M3, M3T, M4, M6. These are the types of lights I'd want it to replace. And right now I'm thinking about sticking with my standard M3 and my other large KT4 light. Wanted to upgrade, don't think I will though.


----------



## monkeyboy

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



turboBB said:


> I should know for sure by this Sunday when I meet up w/Monocrom as he'll be bringing his M6.



I can't wait to find out. :thumbsup:

If the tailcap is just using a simple resistor or circuit in series, it should be easy to incorporate this into the 2 x 18650 battery holder for a high-mode-only light. The 2 x 18650 is convenient for this due to the piece of wire that it uses.


----------



## Kestrel

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



turboBB said:


> I should know for sure by this Sunday when I meet up w/Monocrom as he'll be bringing his *M6*.





monkeyboy said:


> I can't wait to find out. :thumbsup:


+1


----------



## turboBB

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

As an update, finally heard back from Surefire re: the questions I sent before I got the light which were:


Can you confirm that a MC-E is used as well as the voltage range that it can handle? 
What is the current draw on H/L? 
Is there a clicky tail cap available that will allow the light to retain both modes? 
The stated runtime and output on H, was that supposed to be regulated over the full 1.7hrs (so meaning 400 lumens to 1.7hrs and then starts dropping)?
And here's the reply:

Dear Sir,
 
I apologize for the delay in getting back to you. We can’t answer questions 1 and 2 because we don’t have that information readily available. I’ll need to forward those questions to someone in product management or engineering to see if we can get them answered. Question 3 the answer is “No” there are no clicky tailcaps available that are compatible with the M3LT. Question 4- The time that it takes for the lumens to drop steadily from 400 lumens to 50 lumens is 1.7 hours. 
 
When I hear back from someone regarding the first two questions I’ll let you know. If there’s anything else I can help you with please let me know. 

I then followed up with:

Thx for the reply, just one thing re: the runtime. As you can see from my runtime chart, the light is “regulated” for 10 minutes at best and then steadily declines:
[CHART]
 
However, the first bullet under the Features states:
· Virtually indestructible 4-die LED emitter *regulated* to maximize output and runtime
 
Can you please advise what regulated means in this point? I’m not trying to be nitpicky but it seems that when the runtime chart was posted, a lively dialogue ensued around the fact that feature is not an accurate statement.

Let's see what the response is, however, the first reply re: runtime seems to imply that it's not regulated (unless there is a different meaning to regulated that Surefire is using): "The time that it takes for the lumens to drop steadily from 400 lumens to 50 lumens is 1.7 hours."

Cheers,
Tim


----------



## Size15's

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

I suppose the question is for those who believe the term 'regulation' means only 'flat' output over runtime, whether it is possible to accept that there are other interpretations that do not fit with the view they are accustomed to.
This isn't helped by the the apparent flexibility of approach SureFire takes by using different electronic control methods for high and low output modes. My understanding is that SureFire's Patents advocate separating the electronic control of each level so it can be regulated in the most ideal way possible


----------



## SuperTrouper

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

If it's regulated to maximise output *AND RUNTIME*, perhaps that means that as the cells are depleted it steps back on the output in order to keep the cells running longer and not leave you in the dark suddenly at the point the cells can no longer sustain 400 lm.


----------



## turboBB

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

Fair enough, I'll be honest in that in my mind, when I hear the word regulated as it pertains to LED lights, I always interpret it as flat line since that is basically like bragging rights.

It's never crossed my mind that output / runtime can be regulated via a curve to achieve best results. The closest analogy I can draw right now at this hour tired is sort of like the rebound rates of the springs in automotive shocks. A consistent (flat) rate may be great on a smooth surface but not necessarily so over a variety of terrain. With the M3LT, Surefire may have seen it fit to use a curved regulation for H to achieve optimal results.

In the end, it's not a big deal to me for as I've previously mentioned, it's usually not a key consideration. I wanted to know more out of curiosity than anything and to satisfy the inquiring minds here.


----------



## JNewell

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

Yep. That curve looks more like the "regulation" of a 6P right out of the box.


----------



## turboBB

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

Here's the response from SureFire (emphasis their's):

Electronic Power Regulation — SureFire's LED illumination tools contain a rugged, sealed electronic power regulator that supervises the operation of the LED (with the exception of the A2 Aviator, in which the xenon lamp is regulated). This circuitry assesses battery output, monitors system performance, and controls power supplied to the LED. Power regulation provides a more consistent light output for the useable life of the batteries. Although any LED may continue to produce negligible light output for up to several hundred hours, the amount of useful light produced is of a shorter duration. *Power regulation circuitry reduces the amount of negligible output and increases the overall duration of useful light output.*
 
Also, ICTTL posted a brief comparo vs. the M6 here.

Cheers,
Tim


----------



## Fleetlord

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

We can speculate about "flat" regulation and "curved" regulation and what Surefire designers intended but I think we're looking away from the elephant in the room..

At the end of the day, I think this light is really underpowered. Three cells just isn't enough juice to keep that output at 450 Lumens for very long..

They should have put this on a 4cell or M6 host and gotten the most out of that head...


----------



## Bullzeyebill

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



Fleetlord said:


> We can speculate about "flat" regulation and "curved" regulation and what Surefire designers intended but I think we're looking away from the elephant in the room..
> 
> At the end of the day, I think this light is really underpowered. Three cells just isn't enough juice to keep that output at 450 Lumens for very long..
> 
> They should have put this on a 4cell or M6 host and gotten the most out of that head...



Yes, you might be right considering the MC-E is being used, and it is no doubt being run in series. Three CR123's is capable of running a light at 400+ lumens with relatively flat regulation lasting longer than the M3LT, and examples have been given in this threat regarding those lights. 

We still do not know the actual lumen output of this light, and it may be much higher than 400 lumens. Also, we are not sure what driver is being used. So................ why not wait for more data before we give it the final .............whatever. In the meantime, this is becoming a *useless thread*.

Bill


----------



## leon2245

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

thanks for sharing that one tim. so for s.f. regulation is just about leaving less "negligible output" at the end, than producing a flat, or any particular shaped output curve. my priority is the latter, but now i know not to assume when i see that word.

& definitely staying tuned to see what you & monocrom find out sunday with the m6!


----------



## Fleetlord

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



Bullzeyebill said:


> Yes, you might be right considering the MC-E is being used, and it is no doubt being run in series. Three CR123's is capable of running a light at 400+ lumens with relatively flat regulation lasting longer than the M3LT, and examples have been given in this threat regarding those lights.
> 
> We still do not know the actual lumen output of this light, and it may be much higher than 400 lumens. Also, we are not sure what driver is being used. So................ why not wait for more data before we give it the final .............whatever. In the meantime, this is becoming a *useless thread*.
> 
> Bill


 

Thread is far from useless to me. It saved me $450 from buying a light that wouldn't perform as I would like/need it to. I'm not down on Surefire or anything, I'm just don't see the M3LT as being something that fits MY needs and requirements. I like the Z2-S so I'll get one of those. Who knows, after 45mins of runtime, they may be the same brightness .

Thanks for the work Turbo BB!


----------



## Bullzeyebill

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



Fleetlord said:


> Thanks for the work Turbo BB!



Yes, good work Turbo BB. 

Bill


----------



## FroggyTaco

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

I do not not have enough technical knowledge of drivers but I do have a question after observing most of this thread.

Could a "driver" be as simple as a voltage limiter that keeps the assumed MC-E from excessively draining the batteries initially in order to have a higher "tactical" level of light as the cell voltage drops?

Travis


----------



## Monocrom

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

You guys are in for a treat. turboBB and I were able to get together to take some sweet beamshots of various lights to compare with his new M3LT.

Also, just wanted to say that I appreciate the fact that both turbo and Mrs. turbo were willing to accommodate my screwed up work-schedule so that he and I could get together and have some fun as only flashaholics could. Much thanks to both of them.


----------



## turboBB

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

Hey Monocrom, the pleasure was all mine but special thx to my better half and the family for being so accomodating too. Also, major thanks for coming out in spite of the crazy heat and for packing the big guns (but we know who went home with the title right?) :nana: 

All,
I've now updated the review to include the beamshots as well as adding a tid bit about swapping heads between the M6 and M3LT (just search for "7/5" without quotes).

Monocrom, please feel free to let me know if any edits are required.

Cheers,
Tim


----------



## Monocrom

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*



turboBB said:


> Hey Monocrom, the pleasure was all mine but special thx to my better half and the family for being so accomodating too. Also, major thanks for coming out in spite of the crazy heat and for packing the big guns (but we know who went home with the title right?) :nana:


 
You win this round, Tim. But I shall return . . . Most likely when Milky isn't horribly overloaded with other orders. 



> Monocrom, please feel free to let me know if any edits are required.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tim


 
Took a long look at the revised first post. No edits needed.

For the benefit of everyone, I just wanted to add that the 2nd set of outdoor beamshots with the M3LT overpowering the M6 in the left pic, that's spot-on. (In the first set of pics, it looks like the two lights are close.) In the same 2nd set of pics, (close-up pic on the right) the M6 and the M3LT show no difference when fired up at very close range.

Also, beamshot of the M1X didn't quite come out right. The M1X is a solid and quality light. While the beamshots of the the M1X and the M3LT appear somewhat close, I recall the M3LT actually being significantly brighter than the M1X.

My SF 6P w/ Malkoff M60W MC-E Warm is actually putting out around 470 lumens. But as great as it is up close, it's just not designed for throw. So in the beamshot, it appears weak.

Everything else shown in the outdoor pics are just as I remember them.

Thanks again for a fun night out.


----------



## The_Driver

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor & Outdoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

There are two things i find interesting concerning your comparison of the M3LT and the M1X:

1. Your M1X has the newer, shallower reflector, which causes it to have less throw then the older versions of the light :sick2: (v1-v4 I think), but judging from the the outdoor beamshots it seems to have a better collimated (farther throwing) beam :devil: then the M3LT. 

2. Could you maybe also do an outdoor shot of the RRT-1 compared to the M3LT and the M1X? I would find that very interesting.


----------



## monkeyboy

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor & Outdoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

Thanks for your efforts Turbo BB and Monocrom. Great pictures.

Interesting results.
in pic 1; it looks like the M6 hotspot is more intense than the M3LT but in pic 2; the M3LT is easily outshining the M6. Were the batteries running down? Is that a typo? (was it actually the M4?)

Compared to the M1X, the intensity is very similar, arguably the M1X is a little more intense but that could be accounted for by the state of charge of the batteries etc. The M3LT has a bigger hotspot and is throwing much more light forward overall due to the optic but at the expense of side spill. I think the M3LT would be the better long distance spotting light.


----------



## MattK

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor & Outdoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

Wow Tim, you've really fleshed out this review - fantastic work!


----------



## turboBB

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor & Outdoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

@Monocrom - Thx, your summary is exactly as I recalled it as well.

@The_Driver - It does indeed have a tighter hot spot thus may throw further. I might do a further comparo of the two in the future and will throw the RRT-1 into the mix.

@monkeyboy - All batteries were freshly charged or brand new. We lit up each light for approx. 5 seconds for each shot so it shouldn't have been run down. To be honest, we were both surprised at the results of the M3LT vs. M6 when shone on the tree next to each other. We even purposely picked a spot that were on the same relative plane so as not to give one an advantage over the other (thus the different set up as compared to the original beamshots).

@MattK - Thx Matt. I'm really excited about SureFire's latest releases. Can't wait to see what they have in store (in particularly the UB3T).

Cheers,
Tim


----------



## chris23

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor & Outdoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

Thankyou guys for those nice beamshots, greatly appreciated; I still would like to get the M3LT someday, but at that price it won't be for a long time; I'm looking forward to surefire releasing the lx1, also would like to get the fenix tk45 eventually; but for now I have a streamlight waypoint that should be coming this week, so I'm hoping to post a review of that this week if you guys are curious about that light


----------



## SuperTrouper

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor & Outdoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

Great work guys.

Many thanks to both of you for putting the effort in to do this!


----------



## Brozneo

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor & Outdoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

That's an awesome, detailed review - Cheers!


----------



## Vernon

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor & Outdoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

So for those of you who own it and use it, is it worth the price tag in your opinion? Remember, the guy asking this question would use a light like the M3LT for camping purposes only.


----------



## willrx

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor & Outdoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

I have one and use it. It is all this review says and more. Decision to buy probably comes down to justifying the cost. I like mine though!!


----------



## dcycleman

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (Pics, Indoor & Outdoor Beamshots, Runtimes)*

I wonder if they will ever release the regulat m3l version with the narrow reflector?


----------



## turboBB

Hi guys,

Just updated the review to include additional outdoor comparo beamshots and additonal comparo runtime testing vs. M1X.

@The_Driver - these new shots include comparos of M3LT vs. M1X and RRT-1 respectively as well as M1X vs. RRT-1 as well.

@Vernon - the M3LT and lights similar in size and ouput would probably be overkill for camping but again, it really depends on your intended use. It would certainly make a great long distance spotlight but my personal preference during trips is to pack light and alas, would most likely leave this at home unless I had a serious need for lumens. A quick search will yield many great threads re: lights for camping use of which one that was surprising and left quite an impression on me was of a SureFire Kroma.

With regards to pricing for a given product, I believe when you're dealing with a price range that is XX times over the cost for a standard unit, the acquisition will be based more out of desire and not necessity so it's really hard to place a value on that. Ultimately, you're the only person who can justify what something's value is for you. For me, given my review, I think you know where I stand with my M3LT acquisition. :thumbsup:

Cheers,
Tim


----------



## The_Driver

Thanks for doing more of those great comparison shots :kewlpics:.
Now it looks like the M3LT outhrows the M1X a little but the RRT1 easily beats both :devil:


----------



## stallion2

outstanding work on this one BB!
i went over this before placing an order and found it quite helpful. mine arrived from BJunction on Friday so i've been able to use it all weekend. it may look like a toilet plunger but i find that appropriate because this light is the poop!!! the beam profile is similar to the LX2 but the only available spill is from the gradual fade that moves outward from the beam. the LX2 still has an apparent spill "region". its easier to justify spending $200 on the LX2 than $400+ dollars on this but i'm still happy. with the diffuser attachment this light can easily outperform all my other high output lights. this could take the place of my Olight M30, DBS V3/MC-E, DBS V3/ nailbender SST-50 2.8A, MagicShine P7 divelight, TX3-nailbender SST-50 DD lego light. the only light it can't quite match is the Catapult...but only on throw. 

the regulation is probably not ideal for civilian use....seems like it was geared more for SWAT or SRT use. it kinda makes the UB3T seem a little more sensible but i don't even want to think about how much more that's gonna cost.

has anyone found out the voltage range on this yet???


----------



## Bullzeyebill

If you can get an A19 on your M3LT you will be able to use 2X17670's, for better runtime on high, and maybe down the road you could have the body, and A19 bored for 18mm's, and your runtime on high should double with two 18650's. The M3LT head begs to be placed on the M6 body for use with CR123's.

Bill


----------



## Monocrom

Bullzeyebill said:


> The M3LT head begs to be placed on the M6 body for use with CR123's.
> 
> Bill


 
We tried that already. The head fit perfectly on my stock M6. But all you get is low-mode. Would make an ideal blackout light. But then again, so would putting an MN15 in the M6.

Perhaps someone talented enough could take apart their M3LT head and fix it so high-mode would work. But so far, doesn't seem anyone who owns one is willing to dissect the head of their new light.


----------



## MattK

stallion2 said:


> it may look like a toilet plunger but i find that appropriate because this light is the poop!!!



I actually :lolsign:

And the rare chance to use these smilies in context:

:toilet: :eeew:


----------



## DimeRazorback

I received my M3LT just an hour and a half ago.

It is *awesome!*

I am one happy camper right now!


----------



## NE450No2

Good review.

However I would like some input to the following questions.

I have a SF M6, but I just cannot justify using it nightly to check on my animals. I love it when in the field I need a lot of light...

I have considered getting a SureFire 10x Dominator for a "house light".
Rechargeable/freelumens, etc...

However I have read reports of problems with the charger over a period of time...

What I need is a bright light that I can "shine around" and check on my animals after dark, check for varmints etc. I need a light that will shine to a little over 100 yards...

So I ask, in the Long Run, would I be better off to try to find a 10X or get a M3LT.

The light will be used every night several tikmes around 2 to 5 minutes at a time, unless I need to go out and investigste further...

I am wondering about:

1. Total light performance. I do need a lot of throw for what I want this light to do...

2. Total cost over the long haul considering batteries of the M3LT vs bulbs of the 10x, ioe is there a big difference???

3. Even if there is a slight increase of nightly using the M3LT, at the house, I do know it would be of much greater use "away from electricity".
And I do spend a fair amount of time away from the power grid...


----------



## Monocrom

If throw is important to you, the M3LT is the better choice out of those two lights.

I believe turboBB has successfully used 2x17500 rechargeable cells in his M3LT. And with the M3LT, there are no bulbs that would eventually need replacing.


----------



## CSI304

I am very impressed with my M3LT :twothumbs


----------



## oldways

NE450No2 said:


> Good review.
> 
> However I would like some input to the following questions.
> 
> I have a SF M6, but I just cannot justify using it nightly to check on my animals. I love it when in the field I need a lot of light...
> 
> I have considered getting a SureFire 10x Dominator for a "house light".
> Rechargeable/freelumens, etc...
> 
> However I have read reports of problems with the charger over a period of time...
> 
> What I need is a bright light that I can "shine around" and check on my animals after dark, check for varmints etc. I need a light that will shine to a little over 100 yards...
> 
> So I ask, in the Long Run, would I be better off to try to find a 10X or get a M3LT.
> 
> The light will be used every night several tikmes around 2 to 5 minutes at a time, unless I need to go out and investigste further...
> 
> I am wondering about:
> 
> 1. Total light performance. I do need a lot of throw for what I want this light to do...
> 
> 2. Total cost over the long haul considering batteries of the M3LT vs bulbs of the 10x, ioe is there a big difference???
> 
> 3. Even if there is a slight increase of nightly using the M3LT, at the house, I do know it would be of much greater use "away from electricity".
> And I do spend a fair amount of time away from the power grid...




Get a PhD-M6 regulated rechargeable pack for your M6.


----------



## Kestrel

oldways said:


> Get a PhD-M6 regulated rechargeable pack for your M6.


Definitely. It seems to me that that would be the ultimate end-game rechargeable solution for your M6. Here's the link.


----------



## pulstar

There are some nice deals for NIB M3LT's on ebay, one is only around 360 dollar, i believe. I would buy it if the seller wouldn't be from the States. Really nice light and great review! Based only on pictures, M3LT looks atleast 2 times brighter than E2DL, so it probably really puts out more than 400 lumens from the beginning. 
BTW, really nice idea to measure runtimes with the fan, regulation looks much flatter (i wonder how the fan would affect runtime graph on primaries..)

Back on top, where this light deserves to be!:twothumbs


----------



## sween1911

Thanks for the review. Nice to see a new head and design. Also, the lo-hi tailcap is one of the best UI's for a light that's mainly for tactical usage, but can pitch in for utility use if needed.


----------



## Tempest UK

Whilst I doubt any light will ever truly replace the M6, the M3LT is very close to doing so. With the latest crop of LEDs, I haven't been using my M6s nearly as much as I used to, and the output of the M3LT on high is pretty much comparable to the M6 running the MN21...and with half the number of batteries. 

The M3LT makes it into my list of top SureFires. Behind the M6, but there nonetheless.


----------



## outersquare

not regulated..what a joke

i was gonna get one but thats a deal breaker


----------



## Tempest UK

outersquare said:


> not regulated..what a joke



It has been said before, but think about who is likely to use a light like the M3LT. Would they necessarily want or need regulation?


----------



## outersquare

you guys are overthinking and giving SF too much credit, if regulation is suddenly not important then why do all the other SF LED models run regulated. Cause no one important uses any of those??

they probably just hit the wall with the form factor and didn't want to do anything about it

besides, there are plenty of products that run flat output and then slowly taper off


----------



## ghosthound

woot woot!!

I just ordered myself a new m3LT!!

Ill be listing my old M3T-CB shortly!!


----------



## Bullzeyebill

The M3LT is regulated in low mode. Think about the high mode as a burst mode to be used in short "bursts". 

Bill


----------



## Monocrom

Bullzeyebill said:


> The M3LT is regulated in low mode. Think about the high mode as a burst mode to be used in short "bursts".
> 
> Bill


 
The M3LT is an absolute great light. But it could have been mind-blowingly fantastic if SureFire had found a way to regulate high mode. Also . . . If any company could have pulled that off, it just seems as though SureFire should have been able to easily do so.


----------



## Size15's

Monocrom said:


> The M3LT is an absolute great light. But it could have been mind-blowingly fantastic if SureFire had found a way to regulate high mode. Also . . . If any company could have pulled that off, it just seems as though SureFire should have been able to easily do so.


Would regulating the High-output result in a short (perhaps too short?) runtime?


----------



## Monocrom

Size15's said:


> Would regulating the High-output result in a short (perhaps too short?) runtime?


 
A possibility. However, I doubt we will ever know.

Unless there's a fully regulated M3LT prototype that we don't know about.


----------



## Size15's

If the capacity of the batteries is equivalent to the 'area under the output curve' then the runtime for a 'flat regulated' output could be estimated, and shown with the actual output curve for comparison.


----------



## Kestrel

It's a difficult situation.

Regarding regulation of this light, I believe that the crux of the matter is as follows: This does seem like the limit for how hard CR123's can be pushed for a continuous run. LiIons do have the advantage for this demanding of an application, as has been demonstrated earlier in this thread.


----------



## stuffgeek

Is it confirmed that 17500s will work in m3lt?


----------



## easilyled

Kestrel said:


> Edit: This does seem like the limit of how hard CR123's can be pushed for a continuous run. LiIons do have the advantage for this demanding of an application, as has been demonstrated earlier in this thread.



Yes, but the guys in the field don't want to use LiIons during engagements such as fire-fighting and apparently they are the target users for the M3LT :shrug:

As you say sustained regulation with 3 CR123s at the initial brightness isn't possible. 

However if there was a light with the head of the M3LT and the body of the M6 (using 6 CR123s) then I would guess that high-lumen regulation would be achievable quite easily.


----------



## Monocrom

stuffgeek said:


> Is it confirmed that 17500s will work in m3lt?


 
Yes.

turboBB uses them in his M3LT.


----------



## Monocrom

easilyled said:


> However if there was a light with the head of the M3LT and the body of the M6 (using 6 CR123s) then I would guess that high-lumen regulation would be achievable quite easily.


 
Perhaps. But more will have to be done to the head of the M3LT to get it to function properly on an M6 body. In its current state, the M3LT head will indeed work on an M6 body. But all you get is low mode only.


----------



## easilyled

Monocrom said:


> Perhaps. But more will have to be done to the head of the M3LT to get it to function properly on an M6 body. In its current state, the M3LT head will indeed work on an M6 body. But all you get is low mode only.



Yes, the M3LT is what it is. Clearly it isn't a regulated light when using primary cells.

However, if Surefire thought that there might be a demand for a regulated primary-cell light for dedicated soldiers, then they would have to design a larger body for more than 3 primary cells.

If they ever decided to make a regulated high-output light for civilian use that is still in a compact form factor, then they would have to review their policy of eschewing li-ions and widen the body for 2 18500s which could sustain regulation at the initial level of this light for an hour. 

For a longer light (ie 2 18650s), the initial level of light could be sustained for 1.5 hours.


----------



## JNewell

Did anyone ever do a comparative review with the Malkoff Wildcat? The new Wildcat appears to be brighter, have longer runtime, and real (i.e., flat during its initial phase) regulation.


----------



## pjandyho

Just got myself an M3LT last night from my local dealer. I am impressed by the brightness this light produces in the low mode as well as high. Only gripe about this light is that I really hate the dual output switch. It is too sensitive. On ready position I can't help switching on the light unintentionally, and even though it is only the low mode that I had switched it on to, it is a very bright low output. Can't imagine the tactical guys moving in stealthily, with lights at the ready, only to have it turn on suddenly without intention and thus giving their position away.


----------



## lew187

hi,

which flashlight puts more light otf:

A SST-50 flashlight from Jetbeam (m2s), olight (m31) or maybe thrunite (catapult v2)... or the surefire m3lt???


----------



## tick398

I've used this light every night on duty for the last two months...it's absolutely amazing.

On the first day I got it I was afraid it would be to flood like when I played with it at home before work...was I wrong!

That lens is an ingenious idea... I can be a hundred yards from some bushes in a park that I need to search and it sends a wall of light that illuminates the whole thing. 

And today I ge the email that the strobe version is available... I want that one now...ugh!


----------



## rgarcia145

I have been thinking about this light since it came out and dang each day i want it more and more. i only have one question is it a worth it?....i already have an LX2 and a E2DL, which i already love for their TIR lenses. I want a WOW light thats not so huge as other ones i have seen and i think this could be it


----------



## stallion2

rgarcia145 said:


> I have been thinking about this light since it came out and dang each day i want it more and more. i only have one question is it a worth it?....i already have an LX2 and a E2DL, which i already love for their TIR lenses. I want a WOW light thats not so huge as other ones i have seen and i think this could be it


 
i have the LX2 and love it...if you like yours as much as i like mine then you would love the M3LT no less. its kinda like the LX2 on steroids and HGH. its hotspot looks just like that of the LX2 except where the LX2 may have 10-15% of its output diverted to the spill region, the M3LT would be more like 2-3%. i know, that was a pretty arbitrary comparison but thats just how it looks to my eyes.


----------



## pjandyho

It's not exactly that small a light. I could not seem to find a holster for it yet considering it is so long. Have to carry it in my bagpack on my trips and only taking it out when I need to use it. Once it's out it hangs on my neck via the supplied lanyard.

Other than that I quite like the M3LT. Most of the time I am on 70 lumens setting since it is plenty bright enough for all my needs and only turning it up to the 400 lumens as and when I feel the urge to do it. Do I need the 400 lumens? No. But do I like the 400 lumens? Hell yes! I love it!

The way the TIR works is quite similar to the LX2 except like what stallion2 said about the lack of spill. It does however have a very big hot spot, and the further you shine the bigger the area you cover. That's why I love to play with the 400 lumens once in awhile even though I don't need it. Just so I could see it reach out to 100 meters and light up an entire area.


----------



## RobertM

tubroBB (& Monocrom),

Thank you for all of your hard work and time put into making this excellent review of the SF M3LT. After seeing the comparison pics between it and the M6, I might just have to save up for one of these bad boys! :naughty:


----------



## Monocrom

RobertM said:


> tubroBB (& Monocrom),
> 
> Thank you for all of your hard work and time put into making this excellent review of the SF M3LT. After seeing the comparison pics between it and the M6, I might just have to save up for one of these bad boys! :naughty:


 
I'll always hate SureFire for releasing it during the height of Summer.


----------



## stallion2

Monocrom said:


> I'll always hate SureFire for releasing it during the height of Summer.


 
i'm sure it was so they could release the UB3T just in time for xmas:santa:

...we'll see it that comes to fruition:shrug:


----------



## Sean

Very nice review. Looks like a great light. I just wish it defaulted to high (instead of low) when put on the M6.


----------



## pjandyho

Actually I do love the low output a lot. It is definitely quite bright even though it is rated at only 70 lumen. Felt more like 120 lumen or more than that. As for M6, if it could just be as simple as adding a two stage tailcap that would be great! I really like the two stage output as it is and it will be a pity to see it go.


----------



## GhostNPC

Interesting... This looks like just the flashlight I've been looking for. Nicely done review~


----------



## IsaacHayes

Cool review, nice pics and beamshots!

One thing though, this is not SureFire's first foray with high output multi die LEDs... The KL4, KL5, and KL6 used a Luxeon V LED back in the day (contained 4 Luxeon 1 chips in a series-parallel arrangement)


----------



## auxcoastie

Does anyone have any pictures of mounting it on a weapon like an AR yet? Or can one of you owners meause te diamater of the main body to figure out what larue or ARMS mount it would fit into?


----------



## TITANER

Hi tueboBB,nice review,good job :thumbsup:.
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/member.php?u=37353


----------



## Sean

What happens if you swap the M3LT body with a standard M3 body? Does the two stage tailcap work?



pjandyho said:


> Actually I do love the low output a lot. It is definitely quite bright even though it is rated at only 70 lumen. Felt more like 120 lumen or more than that. As for M6, if it could just be as simple as adding a two stage tailcap that would be great! I really like the two stage output as it is and it will be a pity to see it go.


----------



## pjandyho

Sean said:


> What happens if you swap the M3LT body with a standard M3 body? Does the two stage tailcap work?



The two stage tailcap won't work on the M3 host because M3LT's tailcap is much longer and the negative contact point sits deeper so there is no contact at all between the body and tailcap. M3LT's head works on M3 host and M3 tailcap but you will only achieve low output instead of high. You are better off buying an entire M3LT.


----------



## Sean

Thanks for the info. I'm wondering to myself how bright the low really is on the M3LT. I'm also wondering what the run time really is on low.


----------



## iso9009

*I plan to use two 18500's and bored M3LT body *
*but I failed. I made a hole in my M3LT body. :mecry:*


----------



## DM51

iso9009 said:


> *I made a hole in my M3LT body. :mecry:*


 *Ouch!*


----------



## sledhead

*I'll second that ouch!* When I saw the 1st picture I was trying to figure it out. Then I scrolled down. You get an "A" for effort. Sorry about the outcome.


----------



## Machete God

Bump, for a well-written review of a beautiful light, with marvellous pictures and beam-shots. And for the holed M3LT a couple of posts above. All the subsequent gasping posts must've been lost in the abyss (the big CPF crash of 2010, November 2010-February 2011).


----------



## turboBB

Thx! Lost in the crash were my updates about the "oil smudge" between the lens (perfectly normal conditon as SF has replied). 

As further update, I ended up sending mine back for repair and received it worse than it went in (rubber smudges on bezel, etchings removed, excessive thread lock applied and apparent under the lens, slight dent on lens where original "oil smudge" was and new oil smudges).

To be honest, I was quite disappointed given all I kept hearing about the legendary SF warranty. I explained to them that this was a gift various family members pooled in for and had great sentimental value so was a bit upset about that but they seemed to shrug it off but did issue me another RMA and said that a manager would personally inspect my light but again up to his discretion to repair / replace.

I'm kind of on the fence about sending it back yet again given I have to shell for postage and there being no guarantees it'll be any better.

However, now that I've successfully removed my first SF bezel on a Kroma, I'm really tempted to get this one open for an emitter upgrade...





As the adage goes... "When life throws you lemons, what do you do?" :thumbsup:


----------



## Monocrom

Sadly, that's the way it goes with SureFire. Customer service is always fantastic beyond belief, or horrible . . . Beyond belief.

I have yet to encounter a single post here or on EDCF in which someone said the service was "O.K." or "Good" or "Decent."

Fantastic or horrible. Nothing in between.

I'd send it back, and give SureFire one more shot at getting it right. Please keep us updated. I know how much that M3LT means to you.


----------



## Machete God

Yeah, I went through the thread looking for a follow-up to the oily smudge, but didn't see any.

I too vote for sending it back in again - give them a second chance to see if they can make things right, since they promised a "personal inspection".


----------



## lyklyk616

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (6/22: Now with initial runtime and more updates)*

This is my favorite flashlight ! Although it has an odd design , its like love first sight on an indian !


----------



## tundratrader

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (6/22: Now with initial runtime and more updates)*

I just posted in the LED section about mine. What is the deal with the oil slick? Mine has that as well. I have not had to send anything to surefire before. They usually just send parts. Hopefully they get mine sorted out. Has anyone else had tailcap issues. Mine is strobe/flickering when going from low to high. I really hope someone can figure out how to get a Z41 to work on high only. Someone must be up to the task.


----------



## turboBB

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (6/22: Now with initial runtime and more updates)*

@Monocrom/Machete, thx, I guess I'll give it another go. I have a Kroma I need to send back as well due to the selector ring so might as well ship them in together.



lyklyk616 said:


> ...its like love first sight on an indian !


Eh? never heard of that phrase before 

@TT, according to SF, it's due to the inner lens rubbing up against the outer lens and is a perfectly normal conditon as it doesn't affect performance of the light. Please let us know how yours turns out, hopefully it'll be better experience than mine. Re: tailcap issues, can't say I've experienced any and given the cap that holds it in place is threadlocked, I'm reluctant to take it apart without the proper tool.

EDIT: I've updated the review to repost my ownership update as well as current draw reading which I'll just post here so you don't need to go back to look it up:

"I measured the draw on H @ 2.1A (w/the 2x17500's slightly depleted to around 3.95V). Interestingly, it looks like the resistance from the meter has triggered the light to go into H mode so I've confirmed the electronics that governs H/L is in the head and not in the LOTC. Will conduct additional testing using an actual resistor when I acquire one."

Cheers,
Tim


----------



## Mr Bigglow

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (6/22: Now with initial runtime and more updates)*

TurboBB,

Glad you updated on the oil slick. When it appeared on mine, I started debating on whether or not it was worth sending back to SF. Seems you had a negative return on that. Just curious: did SF say anything pro or con about the slick returning no matter what? Most unlike them to have a design flaw that can't be corrected.


----------



## turboBB

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (6/22: Now with initial runtime and more updates)*



Mr Bigglow said:


> TurboBB,
> 
> Glad you updated on the oil slick. When it appeared on mine, I started debating on whether or not it was worth sending back to SF. Seems you had a negative return on that. Just curious: did SF say anything pro or con about the slick returning no matter what? Most unlike them to have a design flaw that can't be corrected.


 
Here's an excerpt of a reply from SF:

"The residue you are seeing on the protective lens of your M3LT Flashlight is a known side effect that occurs during the production stages of the light. This “blotch” is found on all M3LT lights without exception. Furthermore, we have found that it does not have any negative effect on the output or performance of the M3LT (on either the high or low setting), and can only be seen when the light is turned off. We have been issuing Returns to have the blotch minimized, however we have yet to find a solution to remove it entirely."

This was back in late Feb., not sure if they've since found a solution but am eagerly waiting to see how TT's M3LT comes back. In your case I'd probably hold off a bit. In my case, the only reason I'd return it would be for an exchange but since there's no guarantees that will happen, I'm just waiting to collect more info to present back to the service dept.

Obviously, this may seem nit picky to those who actually use their lights and don't care for the condition but in my case, this is a collector's piece with great sentimental value. Putting that aside for a moment, as I've replied to SF, one should have reasonable expectations that when sending an item in for repair, it should be returned with the issues repaired and in the same condition as it went in but that wasn't the case here.

Cheers,
Tim


----------



## tundratrader

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (6/22: Now with initial runtime and more updates)*

One thing they did tell me was that they would send a UPS box for me to send it in and they would pay for shipping. They said most people dont want to wait and just send it themselves. I will call Wednesday when and check my status. I will post pics and info when I get it here.


----------



## turboBB

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (6/22: Now with initial runtime and more updates)*

Wish they had informed me of that option. I'll ask for that if I do ship it in again, thx for the tip! As a FYI, my repairs took roughly 3 weeks door to door.


----------



## Monocrom

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (6/22: Now with initial runtime and more updates)*

Tim, please keep us updated. Hopefully everything will go well.


----------



## yowzer

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (6/22: Now with initial runtime and more updates)*

Argh. The beamshots in this review are making me reconsider getting a new pistol for my upcoming birthday in favor of a M3LT... I lke.


----------



## turboBB

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (6/22: Now with initial runtime and more updates)*

I'd tell you to wait but we all know how that goes with SF products... :tinfoil: but if you can, the next incarnation of the M3LT is touted to have 600 OTF lumens and most likely using the XM-L so should be more efficient and thus offer slightly better run times as well.

Cheers,
Tim


----------



## yowzer

*Re: SUREFIRE M3LT REVIEW (6/22: Now with initial runtime and more updates)*

The XM-L version might be out by my birthday next year. Or by that point, maybe the LX1 will be on the shelves...


----------



## tundratrader

So here is my update. I called Surefire last week and they said my replacement M3LT had been sent. They found my lens defective(oil slick) and that the electronics in the head had an issue. That is why I was getting flicker/strobe mode. My replacement arrived today brand new in box fresh off the shelf. Everything perfect, lens and both modes. Tint is perfect. I am still not the biggest fan of the two modes. I dont have any other lights with multiple modes. Until a single mode version, taillcap or someone figures out a 100% reliable way to make this high only is available. This just isnt the light for me. My Malkoffs dont throw as far but they serve me just fine. We are already up to about 18 hours of daylight anyways so flashlight season is done for awhile. 
Zach


----------



## candle lamp

Excellent review and thanks for the informations.

Your replacement is brand new really!


----------



## turboBB

Thx for the reply Tundra! Now I can refer to your case as incentive to receive a replacement instead of them trying to fix the issue again.

Cheers,
Tim


----------



## iso9009

deleted


----------



## turboBB

@iso9009, sorry I missed the reply for some reason by subscription isn't working for this thread. Thx for posting, I recall seeing the damaged body a while back. Ouch! that must've really hurt but good to see that you have your M3LT back up and running again. Any ideas how the runtime is on 2x18650? Also, I can't really tell from your pic but how does the P7 head compare to the M3LT? Seems like it has a tighter hotspot but more floody.

Incidentally I recently got a few XM-L drop-ins and they really do have amazing output! I can't wait to see how the M3LT will be like w/a XM-L in it.

Cheers,
Tim


----------



## quad088

I will be collect mine tomorrow and will go into the woods and open space this saturdaynight to try out this remarkable awesome light which I have been waiting for a long time .


----------



## turboBB

Congrats! Let us know how you like it and post some pics if you can.


----------



## grayhighh

Got my for about three week, the hotspot is amazing, even my surefire lx2 is nowhere can compare with it, just LOVE IT.
Maybe i'll post some pics too.(beamshot+hiking photo)


----------



## mefistofele86

I'm waiting for this beauty, I bought an used 400 lumens M3LT but i think it will be brighter than i expect  I ordered also two 17500 to feed it. Guilt free lumens :devil:


----------



## ebow86

Its hard to judge from pic's but when looking at the weird lens the M3LT has it hard to believe ANY light gets through that thing, let alone 800 lumens.


----------



## quad088

I have tested both M3LT & M3X last night. In terms of throw the M3x beats the M3LT is brightness and spot beam. In terns of spill/flood the M3Lt is excellent at 300 meters


----------



## grayhighh

Ok, here's my M3LT & LX2 comparison

Set 1 
control





LX2 @ 15 lumens





LX2 @ 200 lumens 





M3LT @ 70 lumens





M3LT @ 400 lumens






Set 2
control





LX2 @ 15 lumens





LX2 @ 200 lumens





M3LT @ 70 lumens





M3LT @ 400 lumens







Set 3 
control





LX2 @ 15 lumens





LX2 @ 200 lumens





M3LT @ 70 lumens





M3LT @ 400 lumens






Try to capture the pic like what i see, so the pics i post is pretty much what i saw.
The LX2 has more spill than M3LT, which dont show a lot in the pic, due to the camera ability.
M3LT has a really good hotspot and tint IMO, really like this light.
My LX2 when is on 15 lumens, looks a little bit green, but when go to 200 lumens it looks white,
so is this normal ?


----------



## turboBB

Thx for the great shots! Yes, pretty normal to have tint shift between levels and is typically as you've observed in that the harder an LED is driven the whiter it'll be. Of course not all lights/LED's exhibit this.

I'm curious though, since the updated M3LT has been released (I'm assuming in certain parts of the world but not sure exactly), did the store you purchased it from not have them?

Thx,
Tim


----------



## grayhighh

Thanks from the information Tim.

Just checked the local store's website, they do carry the newer version of the M3LT and also the UB3T, i will say that they got them pretty fast.

I never purchase a surefire from my local store, cause the price the sell is ridiculous. If i'm going to get a surefire, i'll purchase it from Surefire.com or batteryjunction, cause it's alot cheaper.(Include international shipping,usually $20-40)
The local store's price will add up 60-80 us dollars, some times even more. For instant, if i get two flashlight from the local store i will need to pay an extra 120-160 dollars, but if i purchase two surefire form any US dealers, the shipping will normally be at 40 dollars(sometimes even more flashlight the shipping will still be 40 dollars, depending on how heavy it is), although i maybe spend an a little bit more on shipping but compare to buying surefire from the local store, it's probably the cheapest way to go.


----------



## pjandyho

Hi grayhighh,

Have you already bought any Surefire from the US? Because if you do, I would be interested to know since Surefire set the no export policy on all their US dealers and themselves. As far as I know, overseas customers must order from the respective distribution networks authorized by Surefire.


----------



## grayhighh

In Taiwan, their are some people who help you buy stuff from the US, and you just pay a little fees to them, usually 3 US dollars.
These people who help you buy stuff they normally lived in the US, so anything you buy will be sent to their address, and then they send it back to Taiwan. And many people in Taiwan like this service, because some Taiwan's local dealer rate their price way higher than it should(not only surefire). For instant a Nikon prime lens 24mm f1.4, you can get it for 2000 us dollars but if you buy i buy it from local dealer, i will have to spend an extra 500 dollars which is 2500 US dollars, kinda ridiculous.
So if the the surefire i bought will be send to an US address and then send back to Taiwan, so it won't be a problem as far as i know.
Another way is to buy it from ebay, although their is more risk.


----------



## stallion2

iso9009 said:


>


 
haven't visited this thread in a couple months...nice rebound after the wrecked M3LT body!!!
i like what you did w/ the extender to get it to work w/ SF's goofy tailcap for that light. 
i'm pretty sure this is the first 2x18650 setup i've seen for the M3LT and its kind of tempting
me to move forward w/ making my own.


----------



## mefistofele86

Thank you Turbo for this great review. I also have a M3LT and i like it very much but i'm not satisfied about tailcap. It's wobbly, it don't give me reliability sensation. I can turn on the light just pressing the tailcap (NOT the button). If i turn the tailcap to turn-on the flashlight on low and i press the tailcap, M3LT goes on max (400 lumens). Just to play, i tried to screw the U2 tailcap on M3LT body and it feels solid as a rock..(but it works only at low level).
If i screw entirely the tailcap, it still moves slighty. Is this normal? I suppose no so i emailed Surefire but they don't answer :-(


----------



## turboBB

@mefisto - Sounds like you have a loose tailcap, I can not reproduce the issues you've cited on my M3LT. The tailcap is pretty firm throughout the entire range of threads. Only when I reach the very end when it's about disengage does it become somewhat loose. Surefire is usually a little slow to respond via email, but they will eventually get around to it. Good luck with your repair/replacement and let us know how it goes.

Tim


----------



## mefistofele86

Hi Tim, Surefire answered yesterday. They will sent me a new tailcap  I hope to fix the "problem". This is a very subjective thing but i don't feel safe with this wobbly tailcap.


----------



## M Powered

mefistofele86 said:


> Thank you Turbo for this great review. I also have a M3LT and i like it very much but i'm not satisfied about tailcap. It's wobbly, it don't give me reliability sensation. I can turn on the light just pressing the tailcap (NOT the button). If i turn the tailcap to turn-on the flashlight on low and i press the tailcap, M3LT goes on max (400 lumens). Just to play, i tried to screw the U2 tailcap on M3LT body and it feels solid as a rock..(but it works only at low level).
> If i screw entirely the tailcap, it still moves slighty. Is this normal? I suppose no so i emailed Surefire but they don't answer :-(



I just got an M3LT-S the other day and noticed the tailcap has a little play, "wiggle" if you will, but very little, maybe a few millimeters. However if fully tightened its solid. I called surefire and they said its normal, I checked with a few other M3LT-S in stock at the store and they wiggle as well. I have an M6 and L4 and checked, they also have a little "wiggle." The M3 having a longer tailcap and slender, I'm sure the wiggle is more noticable, but it does not affect operation.

I'm sure you new tailcap will wiggle as well :naughty:


----------



## pjandyho

mefistofele86 said:


> Hi Tim, Surefire answered yesterday. They will sent me a new tailcap  I hope to fix the "problem". This is a very subjective thing but i don't feel safe with this wobbly tailcap.


Hi my friend, I hope you are happy with the M3LT I sold you. You might have told me but I couldn't remember. How's the replacement tail cap from Surefire? Is there any improvement?


----------



## mefistofele86

Hi guys, i received a new tailcap and yes, it still moves a little but now it is definitely better than before. I'm very satisfied now with this light and i like the beam pattern. Tint is also perfect white. The most important thing is this: i can entrust this flashlight without any problem ;-)


----------



## pjandyho

mefistofele86 said:


> Hi guys, i received a new tailcap and yes, it still moves a little but now it is definitely better than before. I'm very satisfied now with this light and i like the beam pattern. Tint is also perfect white. The most important thing is this: i can entrust this flashlight without any problem ;-)


Good to hear that. I do miss the M3LT you are holding now. Just love the tint and beam profile so much.


----------



## M Powered

mefistofele86 said:


> Hi guys, i received a new tailcap and yes, it still moves a little but now it is definitely better than before. I'm very satisfied now with this light and i like the beam pattern. Tint is also perfect white. The most important thing is this: i can entrust this flashlight without any problem ;-)



Just a suggestion, I took the O ring out of my L4 and put it on my M3LT-S, now its super snug, no more wiggle :naughty:


----------



## mefistofele86

M Powered said:


> Just a suggestion, I took the O ring out of my L4 and put it on my M3LT-S, now its super snug, no more wiggle :naughty:


Have you got any problem in twisting the tailcap? However now i want that O-ring  where can i find it?


----------



## M Powered

mefistofele86 said:


> Have you got any problem in twisting the tailcap? However now i want that O-ring  where can i find it?



When you screw the tail cap in after the 2nd O-Ring is installed you have to push a little harder to get the tailcap in the thread, once its starts screwing its pretty easy, little more resistence but not much. Now every turn feels reallly snug and solid! :thumbsup:

Feels like my M6 now, double O-rings and no more wiggle :naughty:

I took the o-ring from my L4, which is about the size of your pinky finger (depending on how big your hands are haha) Home depot should carry a large supply in different sizes.


----------



## turboBB

Hey all, just edited the review to provide an update as I finally decided to send the M3LT back in. I just got it back a few days ago. Just search "3/29" to see how that turned out as well:

Runtime chart on low
Measured performance
Long Term Conclusions

Cheers,
Tim


----------



## Darksides

A few years later and the review that sparked my M3LT purchase is still relevant if not more...amazing


----------



## Greenbean

*So if it threads onto an M3 boldy, has anyone tried it on a bored M4 body, or at least an M4 body with two 17670 cells?

I am loving the beam on this thing and I have never seen it in person, I am shopping for basically an XM-L thrower, 
and now am thinking I just need to save a little more and get an M3LT, instead of a Thrunite, or M3X, or T40CS, Again I am
impressed with the throw and tightness of the beam...

Great job OP on the review....*:thumbsup:


----------



## jso902

What's the difference between the MC-E and the XM-L TIR lens. Does it make a difference?


----------



## Bullyson

Greenbean, have you checked Vihn's page for an XM-L2 thrower?


----------



## Giang20021964

First of all, I want to thank you for your well written review. Due to your article, I bought the flash light M3LT and whole heartedly satisfied with its performance. Here are some pictures that I took while unboxing the M3LT s-b 1000/100 Lumens.


----------



## Sean

Nice pictures!


----------



## annarosy

I remember the old L2 was a two stage light with an unregulated high stage, maybe it's the same dealio with the M3LT? Electronics may be different, but same philosophy/execution?


----------



## Bullzeyebill

The old L2 was regulated. See this review.

Bill


----------



## JohnSmith

Great pics. This light is currently tempting me even though I have sworn off the Surefire lights with the "toilet plunger" form factor. There are a lot of great deals on the web for the newest 1000 lumen version, and I think they may be discontinued so I feel the need to pick one up soon.


----------



## foxtrot824

I see this old thread is coming back to life. Has anyone opened one of these up and successfully modded it? I've tried several times and had very mixed results.


----------



## Sean

Ouch!


----------



## tab665

looks like my weed eater after it didnt want to crank up a few years back. SERENITY NOW!!!!


----------

