# JetBeam Backup BC40 (XM-L) High-Output Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS, and more!



## selfbuilt (May 14, 2011)

*Warning: pic heavy, as usual. *







JetBeam has recently added a high-output 2x18650 light to its Backup series – a family of inexpensive, two-stage lights. Let’s see how it compares to the pricier competition in the high-output world … 

*Manufacturer's Specifications:*

LED: CREE XM-L
Maximum output: 830 lumens
Maximum runtime: 11 hours
Battery: 4*CR123 or 2*18650
Reflector: Precision aluminum reflector
Dimensions: Head Diameter 48mm, Tube Diameter 25.4mm, Total Length 223mm
Weight: 227g (without battery)
Aero grade aluminum alloy construction
High performance reflector-based optic system
Fully regulated advanced power management
Reverse polarity protection circuit
2 modes of output
AR coated scratch-resistant mineral glass lens
Type III hard-anodized finish for corrosion and scratch resistance
IPX-8 Waterproof (submersible up to 2 meters)
Impact resistant to 1.5 meters
Estimated MSRP ~$65.









Packaging is similar across the Backup line (although the inviting "Try Me" is new ). Inside the cardboard box, you will find the light (sandwiched inside a molded plastic insert), manual, warranty card, wrist lanyard, grip ring, spare boot cap and o-rings. A well-fitting belt holster was also included with my sample.

A very good package for a "budget" high-output light.








From left to right: Redilast Protected 18650, JetBeam BC40, Lumintop TD-15X (2 extenders), Thrunite Catapult V3, JetBeam M1X (no extender), Olight M31 (no extender)

All dimensions are given with no batteries installed:

*BC40*: Weight: 226.3g, Length: 224mm , Width (bezel): 48.5mm
*Catapult V3 XM-L*: Weight: 434.8g, Length: 254mm, Width (bezel) 58.0mm, Width (tailcap) 35.1mm.
*TK35*: Weight: 256.1g, Length: 162mm, Width (bezel): 48.6mm, Max Wdith 52.0mm
*M3C4 XM-L*: Weight: 348.0g, Length: 164mm, Width: 61mm (bezel)

As you can see, the BC40 is one of the lightest lights in this class. Overall dimensions are also quite compact for 2x18650 light (batteries end-to-end). 










First, a few comments about the holster - I quite like it. It is simple, easy to use, and even has a velcroed flap for attaching around a belt. Considering the extremely low price, it's remarkable they included one at all. 

_*UPDATE May 29, 2011:* Some users have reported receiving the light without the holster. Recommend you confirm with your dealer, if it matters to you._






















The body plan of the BC40 is fairly straightforward. Overall, I find it reminds me of the classic Streamlight Strion/Stinger shape. I found it comfortable to hold and handle. 

Black anodizing (manufacturer claims type III = HA) is slightly glossy, and without blemishes on my sample. Lettering is clear and sharp, and reasonably bright.

The light lacks knurling (except for a small band around the bezel), and instead has a series of thick-cut concentric rings around the body. Looks reminiscent of some McGizmo designs - but is quite basic here. These rings help a bit with grip, but I still find light somewhat slippery overall. 

Screw threads are square-cut (well, trapezoidal) and anodized at the tailcap, to allow for lock-out. :thumbsup: 

Switch is a forward clicky, of similar design to other lights in the Backup family (and some recent NiteCore lights). The BC40 can tailstand.

Like all members of the Backup family, there is a physical reverse polarity device (plastic disc) in the head. But it would seem to be circumvented on the BC40, given there is a spring located in the center of it. :thinking: Higher capacity flat-top cells worked fine in my testing.

I didn't find the bundled grip-ring very useful. You just drop it on at the tailcap region, where it spins freely (even with the tailcap tightened). Somewhat useful as an anti-roll device, but I don't imagine too many would use it as an actual grip aid.

_EDIT: As HIDBlue suggests below, adding an extra o-ring between the grip ring and the tailcap provides enough contact pressure to stop it from spinning._










The BC40 uses a Cree XM-L emitter, with a medium-heavy OP reflector. I would expect throw to be no more than average for the class, given the medium-sized head and OP reflector. 

Although at first glance, the head seems to be sealed. However, MountainMike confirms that he was able to open his with strap wrenches. 

And now the white-wall beamshots.  All lights are on 2xAW protected 18650, about ~0.75 meter from a white wall (with the camera ~1.25 meters back from the wall). Automatic white balance on the camera, to minimize tint differences. 





























































Beam pattern is good – the light has a reasonable amount of throw, and a nice transition from spot to spill. 

_*UPDATE June 6, 2011:* I have just posted a new 100-yard round-up beamshot review for 2011, showcasing all my current "thrower" lights. Below are a couple of an animated GIFs showing some relevant comparisons for the BC40. Please see that round-up review for additional pics of other lights, taken under the same conditions.









_

*User Interface*

The UI is the same across the Backup family – twist the head tight for Hi, loosen for Lo.

Turn on/off by the forward clicky switch (i.e. press for momentary, click for locked-on). 

And that’s it. :kiss: No strobe, SOS, etc.

*PWM*






Unlike the other members of the Backup family, the BC40 uses PWM on its low mode, measured at 876 Hz on my sample. This is high enough to not be overly distracting in regular use, but it is detectable. 

*Testing Method:* 

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

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

*Throw/Output Summary Chart:*

*Effective November 2010, I have revised my summary tables to match with the current ANSI FL-1 standard for flashlight testing. Please see http://www.sliderule.ca/FL1.htm for a description of the terms used in these tables.*






No surprises on Hi - the BC40 performs in the same range as most lights of this class, both for overall output and for throw. 

Lo output level is reasonable for a two-stage light. Note that it is not as low as most multi-level lights in this class.

*Output/Runtime Comparison:*
















Output and runtime on Hi are right in keeping with this class. On both 2x18650 and 4xCR123A, the light performed exactly as expected.

On Lo, runtime was a little low compared to some other lights. Still quite reasonable, but not as effiient as the TK35 for example.

*Potential Issues*

The light lacks any real knurling, and can be somewhat slippery to handle.

The light uses visible PWM on the Lo mode, but the frequency is high enough to not be overly distracting - 876 Hz. However, output/runtime efficiency on Lo is not as high as other lights that use current-control.

Lo output level is reasonable for a two-stage light, but not as low as the multi-level competition.

*Preliminary Observations*

I am impressed with how much light you get with the BC40 for the price. :thumbsup:

No, you don't have all the levels of most of the competition. But you do get reasonably well-spaced levels, with a simple two-stage head-twist interface. In some ways, you could think of the BC40 as a slightly smaller and more streamlined version of the original Catapult V2 XM-L (but with less throw due to the smaller reflector, of course).

Despite the budget price, there is nothing budget about the quality of this light. Like the rest of the Backup family, the build seems of high quality. No, it doesn't have all the flourishes of the regular JetBem lights, but the minimalist ethic of the Backup series is well implemented (and suitable for a high-output light, IMO). That being said, I would like to see a little actual knurling on the body tube. 

Like the other members of the Backup family, I found the switch easy to access (despite being recessed for tailstanding). 

Beam pattern is good - well-balanced, with a good mix of spot/throw to spill. Emitter tint was good on my sample (i.e. a premium Cool White, with just a hint of purple). But as always, YMMV - I would expect greater tint variation on a "budget" light.

Output and runtime on Hi are right on the money for this class - no surprises.  Runtime on Lo was a bit low (especially compared to the always-efficient Fenix offering in this space), but still reasonable. Unfortunately, the light uses visible PWM for the low mode, but I didn't find it distracting in use (i.e. freq is 876 Hz).

If all you are looking for is a simple two-stage High-output light, I don't see how you could do better right now for the price. The light even comes with a decent holster! oo: While there are still a few areas for potential improvement (as with any light), in my opinion the BC40 is a fantastic bargain in this space at the moment.

_*UPDATEs May 29, 2011:* Contrary to what I previously reported, the BC40 does use PWM for its low mode - measured at 876 Hz on my sample. Also, one CPFer reports being able to open the head with strap wrenches. And a number of members report that their lights came without holsters._
----

BC40 provided by JetBeam for review.


----------



## pageyjim (May 14, 2011)

I like the holster also I just wished it fit the light with the cigar ring attached.


----------



## monkeyboy (May 14, 2011)

Great review as usual! I'm looking forward to mine arriving.

Runtime is a little disappointing though. Maybe Jetbeam were testing with 2900's


----------



## MTL (May 14, 2011)

I bought one for my dad for his birthday next week and can't wait to give it to him. He has always kept a maglight handy on a counter by his main door (lives in the country). He wouldn't mess with rechargeables and I figured I could keep him supplied with CR123 cells. It's just big enough so that it's not likely to get stuck in a drawer (not a pocket light). I think it will be a perfect maglight replacement. I loaded it up with cells and loosened the bezel. When he turns it on low it will already be brighter than his mag.


----------



## selfbuilt (May 14, 2011)

monkeyboy said:


> Runtime is a little disappointing though. Maybe Jetbeam were testing with 2900's


yes, that would certainly explain it. My 2200mAh AW protected are definitely lower capacity than most 18650s today. But it their runtime specs could also be referring to 4xCR123A.



MTL said:


> I bought one for my dad for his birthday next week and can't wait to give it to him. He has always kept a maglight handy on a counter by his main door (lives in the country). ... When he turns it on low it will already be brighter than his mag.


Oh yeah, that should be a big difference! I am sure your dad will be blown away.


----------



## Sway (May 14, 2011)

pageyjim said:


> I like the holster also I just wished it fit the light with the cigar ring attached.



The holster will work with the cigar ring it just needs a little breaking in, I put a D cell Mag in mine for a few days to stretch it out the bottom opening.

Later
Kelly


----------



## pageyjim (May 14, 2011)

Sway said:


> The holster will work with the cigar ring it just needs a little breaking in, I put a D cell Mag in mine for a few days to stretch it out the bottom opening.
> 
> Later
> Kelly



Great I'll give it a shot, thanks.


----------



## Bass (May 14, 2011)

Thanks for another great review Selfbuilt. 

Jetbeam (Sysmax) have really done a good job with the BC series. The features, build and accessories are excellent for the price point; trapezoidal threads, double o-rings, anodized tailcap threads, holster, latest LED etc. are features normally on higher priced lights. Impressive!

The design is a bit basic (looks like a toilet plunger to me), when put against the Catapult and M1X, but not bad by any means and expected for the price point. Not sure about the packaging livery but that's only a small point!

Someone at Sysmax is definitely a fan of Don's work though. A certain 'resemblance' to a Ti 2x123 pak. That and their new clips, 'McJetBeam' Clickies and Nitecore PD series Licence.


----------



## sirimaxi (May 15, 2011)

Great review as usual!!! My wallet hates you


----------



## HIDblue (May 15, 2011)

Excellent review selfbuilt! 

I'm a big fan of the Jetbeam BC series. I just picked up the BC40 and BC10 and I was really surprised how great the lights were given the price point. 

Specifically, with regard to the BC40, as you pointed out, it's very reminiscient of the Streamlight Stinger that I used to carry so I'm a big fan of the form factor and the very simple Hi-Lo UI. And I agree, I wish it had a bit more knurling rather than the smooth ring design on the tube portion of the light. 

My Catapult seems to outperform the BC40 but it is also considerably heavier and bulkier than the BC40. The BC40 is much easier to carry than the Catapult. 

Time will only tell if the BC40 holds up to routine use/carry, but initial observations look promising. 

As far as the cigar ring (grip ring)...I just placed a thin O-ring from another light in between the cigar ring (grip ring) and the body tube and the pressure from the tightened tail cap on the cigar ring (grip ring) prevents it from spinning at all and it stays firmly in place. It does a good job of preventing it from rolling off the hood of the car when I have to place it down. 

Overall, I'm very happy with the BC40.


----------



## selfbuilt (May 15, 2011)

Bass said:


> Someone at Sysmax is definitely a fan of Don's work though. A certain 'resemblance' to a Ti 2x123 pak. That and their new clips, 'McJetBeam' Clickies and Nitecore PD series Licence.


2x 



sirimaxi said:


> Great review as usual!!! My wallet hates you


On the plus side, at least this one isn't very expensive for a high output light. 



HIDblue said:


> As far as the cigar ring (grip ring)...I just placed a thin O-ring from another light in between the cigar ring (grip ring) and the body tube and the pressure from the tightened tail cap on the cigar ring (grip ring) prevents it from spinning at all and it stays firmly in place. It does a good job of preventing it from rolling off the hood of the car when I have to place it down.


Good thinking, that should definitely solve the problem. :thumbsup:


----------



## adirondackdestroyer (May 15, 2011)

Thanks for the review! 
I have the ITP Polestar, and am looking to replace it, because I want a comparable light with a forward clickie. I checked your Polestar review to compare its brightness to this light, but it looks like your method for testing output has changed and really can't be compared. Is this light brighter than the Polestar? I tested my Polestar in my lightbox and get around 450 out the front lumens. Are you saying that this light is 730 out the front lumens? Is there anyway you could compare this to the polestar (even if you just test them briefly yourself and post the numbers in this thread)? 

Thanks


----------



## Phaserburn (May 15, 2011)

Great review, as always. How does the Backup do heat-wise when doing deep runs? I avoided the TD-15X and went with the Cat v3 for that reason.


----------



## selfbuilt (May 15, 2011)

adirondackdestroyer said:


> I have the ITP Polestar, and am looking to replace it, because I want a comparable light with a forward clickie. I checked your Polestar review to compare its brightness to this light, but it looks like your method for testing output has changed and really can't be compared. Is this light brighter than the Polestar? I tested my Polestar in my lightbox and get around 450 out the front lumens. Are you saying that this light is 730 out the front lumens? Is there anyway you could compare this to the polestar (even if you just test them briefly yourself and post the numbers in this thread)?


Yes, that's right - you can't directly compare my new ANSI FL-1 summary tables to the old ones. 

The main difference is that before, Max Output (lightbox) and Max Throw (lux) readings were taken immediately after activation. With ANSI FL-1 (the new tables), you need to wait 3 minutes for output readings and at least 30 secs for throw readings. FYI, you can still estimate lumen output from my old tables (realizing these were taken immediately after activation) by using the conversion method described here. 

I have gone back to my original Polestar data, and my estimated lumen values according to ANSI FL-1 are 460 (6xEneloop) and 480 (6xAlkaline). Those numbers are directly comparable to the 730 lumen estimate for the BC40 (2x18650), all measured the same way.

Note the Polestar has a much lower lo mode - 9 estimated lumens in my lightbox (compared to the BC40's Lo mode 105 lumen estimate).

I am not going to redo the Polestar throw data, but I can estimate the drop in throw by the drop in lightbox lumen estimates over time. I have done previous calculations on other lights, and they match direct measurement - basically, raw lux at 1m changes linearly to my lightbox lumen estimates. In this case, the the drop-off in lumen output over the first 30 secs was 3% on Eneloop. You could therefore simply adjust down my raw lux numbers by a proportional amount (i.e. from 8400 lux at activation, to an estimated ~8150 lux at 30 secs). That would translate into an estimated Beam Distance for the Polestar of 181m.



Phaserburn said:


> Great review, as always. How does the Backup do heat-wise when doing deep runs? I avoided the TD-15X and went with the Cat v3 for that reason.


Can't say I've noticed anything unusual during handling, but of course all my runtimes are done under a cooling fan.


----------



## Phaserburn (May 15, 2011)

Is the lens accessible?


----------



## adirondackdestroyer (May 15, 2011)

Selfbuilt,

Thanks for the quick reply! This is the most tempted I've been by a flashlight in a long time! It's 250 lumens brighter than my Polestar (which I consider a REALLY bright light), and has the forward clickie that I've been looking for. 
Looks like it's time to sell off a few lights to fund this one.


----------



## selfbuilt (May 15, 2011)

Phaserburn said:


> Is the lens accessible?


Not that I can tell (i.e. there is no bezel ring). Part of the low cost means limited accessibility, I guess ...


----------



## houtex (May 15, 2011)

Got mine yesterday and took it wih me to work last night. Lights up the inside of a car like the sun in my hand. I would like a smidge more throw though. 

Any way to swap to a smooth reflector? Do they even offer one?

As always,great work SB.


----------



## adirondackdestroyer (May 15, 2011)

I'm ready to pull the trigger on this one, but have a quick questions first. 

I noticed that Jetbeam now makes protected 18650 cells that are 2300mah. They have a nipple on the positive end, and are much cheaper (half the price) of similar AW cells. Does anyone know how these compare? Are they just as high quality as the cells AW makes, or are these cheaper quality batteries that are comparable to the ultrafire 18650?


----------



## selfbuilt (May 17, 2011)

In response to an e-mail question I had on the absolute value of my lumen estimates in this review:

I do not have access to a calibrated integrating sphere to make exact measurements. As such, I provide only lumen estimates based on a comparison of my lights (in my lightbox) to others measured in calibrating spheres. This is explained in this link from the methods section of my review. 

As always, I make no claim as to the absolute accuracy of the estimates (which are clearly labeled as such in my reviews). As there were few lights in this high output class of LED when I did the estimate analysis, it is possible the correlation correction factor may eventually need to be tweaked as more data comes in.

But the point of the estimate analysis is to provide a _relative_ comparison between lights. In this case, the BC40 scored just slightly below the TK35 in my lightbox. This is consistent with a ceiling bounce test I did in a closet – again, the absolute values are not relevant, but the _relative comparisons_ between the lights are what matter. 

That being said, _I do not consider the minor differences between lumen estimates for these high-output XM-L lights to be significant_. They are all within 5% of each other in my lightbox (or within 7% of each other on my ceiling bounce scores). The effects of beam pattern, beam width, peak throw, etc make it very hard to accurately compare differences between the models (either by eye, or with such simple estimates of output). 

As an aside, it is certainly true that you could make a better integrating sphere than a milk carton lightbox. The point of my lumen estimate analysis was just to allow the vast wealth of data collected in my lightbox over the years to be compared on an approximate lumen estimate basis (again, see the link from the review). 

But due to the difficulties in accurately integrating different beam patterns into a single value (even with very expensive equipment), I suggest you take ALL lumen estimates with a grain of salt. _Also, keep in mind we all talking about n=1 samples here_ - you need a much wider direct sampling of multiple lights to get a feel for the "natural" variation in shipping products. Given that the range of outputs I'm getting across lights are within the expected variation range of a single emitter output bin (not even taking into account circuit tolerances, optics, etc.), there clearly is no reason to believe the minor output differences in my tables are significant. 

As always, I recommend you pick a light based on build, UI, and relative beam pattern.


----------



## ergotelis (May 17, 2011)

You are so right selfbuilt, you measurement could be quite accurate to their performance. But they could have sent you the worst sample of cree xm-l, or there might be some defects that can't be clearly seen,such as the led has not have been reflowed well on the pcb-heatsink,the specific circuit is underperforming etc.
For reference, i measured exactly on mine 807 OTF, on the same way you test, in comparison to a lot of flashlights that i have and you have too that we are getting the same numbers(M31,IFE2,M30,TD15,predator,quarks,catapult etc). Having said it elsewhere too, my tk35 has much greater output than all other, i am measuring it something more than 900 OTF.Can't explain that high number, have to open it to measure currents, but it happens and according to my eye too, it is brighter!!


----------



## WickedBeams (May 18, 2011)

Great review! I am thinking of getting one for work. I have an olight M30, but I hate having to cycle through all the modes to get to the one that I want. this interface seems perfect for me, although i do wish it had a lower low. between 10-30 lumens would have been perfect. The holster looks really nice too, Much better then the crappy one that the M30 came with and that light is double the price.


----------



## candle lamp (May 18, 2011)

Excellent review selfbuilt. Thanks a lot!

The white-wall beamshots do not show bluish or greenish tint. Look like outdoor neutral white and I like it.

I think BC40 is lighter than this class using 2x18650s and easy to use like Backup family.


----------



## selfbuilt (May 18, 2011)

WickedBeams said:


> this interface seems perfect for me, although i do wish it had a lower low. between 10-30 lumens would have been perfect.


Yes, that is the one thing you have to give up with this simple design - no truly low Lo mode.



candle lamp said:


> The white-wall beamshots do not show bluish or greenish tint. Look like outdoor neutral white and I like it.


Note that my white wall beamshots are set to auto white balance, so tint differences between lights would be hard to compare. Subjectively, there is certainly no blue in my BC40 sample that I can see - I would consider it slightly yellowish cool white (but not green). Of course, like the TK35, I would expect to see more variability in tint on a budget light. There really is no predicting what you may receive. :shrug:


----------



## swan (May 23, 2011)

adirondackdestroyer said:


> I'm ready to pull the trigger on this one, but have a quick questions first.
> 
> I noticed that Jetbeam now makes protected 18650 cells that are 2300mah. They have a nipple on the positive end, and are much cheaper (half the price) of similar AW cells. Does anyone know how these compare? Are they just as high quality as the cells AW makes, or are these cheaper quality batteries that are comparable to the ultrafire 18650?


 Im not sure of the other batterys but i have the bc 40 with the jb cells,the batterys last all week using half an hour a night and not going flat. I use the soshine charger and charges in 3 to 4 hrs,also the light is bright with good 200m throw, great light.


----------



## monkeyboy (May 28, 2011)

I've noticed a definite PWM flicker on mine on low mode. High frequency though so it's not too bad.


----------



## selfbuilt (May 29, 2011)

monkeyboy said:


> I've noticed a definite PWM flicker on mine on low mode. High frequency though so it's not too bad.


 So it does. Sorry for my original report that it doesn't use PWM on Low - I can see it now. Don't know how I missed that before. My apologies everyone. 

I have updated the review - I have measured the PWM at 876 Hz. While detectable, it is not too bad, as monkeyboy says. But this does likely explain the lower runtime on Lo, compared to the current-controlled lights.


----------



## recDNA (Jun 5, 2011)

Has anybody gotten a BC40 with ugly green tint? Mine is really a nice white and it makes me wonder. Why do we have to enter the tint lottery with Fenix, 4Sevens, etc with the possibility of a terrible tint when Jetbeam somehow produces a nice one for less money?


----------



## selfbuilt (Jun 5, 2011)

recDNA said:


> Has anybody gotten a BC40 with ugly green tint? Mine is really a nice white and it makes me wonder. Why do we have to enter the tint lottery with Fenix, 4Sevens, etc with the possibility of a terrible tint when Jetbeam somehow produces a nice one for less money?


I would be curious about this too (i.e. how much variability is out there). However, it may just be that Cree is supplying much more for consistent XM-L tints these days. I notice all the recent commentaries in my TK35 thread also point out very premium white tints lately.

BTW, I've done my outdoor 100-yard pics for all my recent lights. A revised beamshot thread, and updates to all individual reviews like this one, will be coming soon.


----------



## richpalm (Jun 5, 2011)

Anyone know how hard the LED is driven?


----------



## selfbuilt (Jun 6, 2011)

I have just posted a new 100-yard round-up beamshot review for 2011, showcasing all my current "thrower" lights. Below are a couple of an animated GIFs showing some relevant comparisons for the BC40. Please see that round-up review for additional pics of other lights, taken under the same conditions.


----------



## recDNA (Jun 6, 2011)

Nice work. For the money the BC40 performs very well IMO


----------



## muskyhunter (Jun 9, 2011)

Where can i buy a JetBeam BC40 in Canada?


----------



## burpee (Jun 11, 2011)

Wow - great review - thanks for all the hard "work"? 

I was studying the .gif shots to try and determine if I would prefer the BC40 over my TK41. When you took these pictures were you trying to really "aim" the light identically? Or are these more of just a "give it your best shot approach?"

The reason I ask is because of the strong difference between the spill shown for the TK35 and the BC40. Was the "aim" different, or are they that different because of the reflectors? The border of the "spill" (lower left of frame) suggests the aim is different.


----------



## selfbuilt (Jun 11, 2011)

burpee said:


> When you took these pictures were you trying to really "aim" the light identically? Or are these more of just a "give it your best shot approach?" The reason I ask is because of the strong difference between the spill shown for the TK35 and the BC40. Was the "aim" different, or are they that different because of the reflectors? The border of the "spill" (lower left of frame) suggests the aim is different.


Yes, I was trying to aim the lights the same way - clearly I was not always successful. But it still gives you a general idea of the spill pattern for the two lights.

The problem is in real life, the corona/spill lights up a reasonable amount in the distance. It is therefore hard to really lock the hot-spot onto the centre target (i.e. where is the centre exactly?). It is only when analyzing the shots afterwards that you can see it clearly (i.e. the camera settings are limited, and really only show the centre hotspot in the distance). At the time, so much is illuminated, it is difficult to visually ascertain when the hotspot really is.

There's also the "random walk" issue of my positioning over 30 or so lights. Over time, I can see I tended to move slightly to the right (i.e. started just left of the camera centre, moved over time). :shrug: Even with trying to keep it consistent, it's very hard not to have a trend in movement over ~40 mins or so.


----------



## burpee (Jun 26, 2011)

I checked a BC40 and found it to be defective. Tail cap switch did not work - bezel switch felt like metal against metal. 

I thought the "QC card" supplied in the light packaging must have to be a sarcastic joke. Perhaps the item I received was built on a Monday morning shift.

The BC 40 appears to be priced economically -and to me, there appears to be a reason why.


----------



## firelord777 (Jun 28, 2011)

burpee said:


> Wow - great review - thanks for all the hard "work"?
> 
> I was studying the .gif shots to try and determine if I would prefer the BC40 over my TK41. When you took these pictures were you trying to really "aim" the light identically? Or are these more of just a "give it your best shot approach?"
> 
> The reason I ask is because of the strong difference between the spill shown for the TK35 and the BC40. Was the "aim" different, or are they that different because of the reflectors? The border of the "spill" (lower left of frame) suggests the aim is different.


 
The TK41 is a much better thrower. The BC40, well , is a bit floodier. Go to fonarik and compare the beamshots of TK41 and TK35. The throw of the BC40 is a bit better than the TK35.

It is lighter, and comes with a holster, however (I am forced to EDC tk41 in pocket) and it is an excellent bargain for the price, so I assume you'll like the purchase more than usual.


----------



## Summer Heat (Jun 30, 2011)

Anyone try Redilast batteries in the BC40? Do they fit well and make good contact?

I'm looking to buy a BC40 and those new Redilast 18650 batteries with 3100mah.

Redilast specs show their 2600mah, 2900mah, and 3100mah all have the same size dimension. 

So if anyone has tried any of those batteries in the BC40 can you let me know if there is any issues.


----------



## selfbuilt (Jun 30, 2011)

Summer Heat said:


> Anyone try Redilast batteries in the BC40? Do they fit well and make good contact?
> Redilast specs show their 2600mah, 2900mah, and 3100mah all have the same size dimension.


Redilast 2600mAh and 2900mAh both work fine on my BC40 sample.

FYI, these cells are not the same size - as you increase capacity, size is bound to increase (i.e. the 3100mAh is likely to be a bit longer or thicker). You can see my Redilast battery mini-review here, or HKJ's extensive battery round-up comparison (which includes detailed dimensions).


----------



## Summer Heat (Jun 30, 2011)

Oh yes, you are right. I misread the battery specs. 

But anyway, I just ordered 2 of the new 3100 batteries. I'm excited to see what kind of runtime I would get on the BC40. 

According to your runtime chart, you got 70 minutes (1hr 10 min to 50%) on high with 2200mah batteries. I'm guessing theoretically then probably 100 minutes (1 hr 40 min to 50%) with 3100 mah? Does this sound right.


----------



## brightnorm (Jun 30, 2011)

Do you think it would be safe to charge the 2600 and 2900 redilasts in the latest Pila charger?

Brightnorm


----------



## Summer Heat (Jul 1, 2011)

I don't know but does this help? 

http://www.cpfmarketplace.com/mp/showthread.php?235778-Redilast-Li-ion-Battery-sales!-High-quality-Made-in-Japan-Korea!&p=2676507&viewfull=1#post2676507

On a side note: dangit... just found out they might not fit in the Ultrafire WF139. Looks like I'm gonna have to get a new charger. Oh well, I sure hope the extra runtime is worth it. I'll be taking the BC40 night fishing out on the reef and I generally like lights that have around 2 hours of runtime on high to catch bait and it make it back safe.


----------



## selfbuilt (Jul 1, 2011)

Summer Heat said:


> According to your runtime chart, you got 70 minutes (1hr 10 min to 50%) on high with 2200mah batteries. I'm guessing theoretically then probably 100 minutes (1 hr 40 min to 50%) with 3100 mah? Does this sound right.


Hard to know, since the 3100mAh haven't been tested by anyone yet, but that seems like a reasonable estimate to me. Note that true mAh capacity is dependent on discharge rate (i.e. the rated capacity is only true at relatively low discharge rates). At higher discharge rates, effective capacity drops (and the "high capacity" cells can be more affected by this than the lower ones, relatively speaking). 

Based on HKJ's extensive testing of the AW 2200mAh and Redilast 2900mAh, it looks like 2900mAh cells have at least ~30% more capacity at 1A discharge rates (which is probably close to the maximal discharge on the BC40). 



brightnorm said:


> Do you think it would be safe to charge the 2600 and 2900 redilasts in the latest Pila charger?


I hope so, since I've been using it on them for months. 

Seriously, the Pila charger is probably the best commercial charger you can use - it is perfectly fine with all brands. As for length, my redilast 2900mAh fit fine. The longest cells I have are the button top GREER 2400mAh, and even they fit (although they are a bit tight).


----------



## leon2245 (Jul 11, 2011)

Am I reading the graphs right in that the only penalty for using cr123a's instead of 18650's is 10 minutes less runtime? It's not any less bright?


----------



## Walkerdark (Jul 11, 2011)

Am I the onlyone, who did not get a holster with this light ?


----------



## Summer Heat (Jul 11, 2011)

@ leon you are reading the graph right. There shouldn't be any noticeable brightness differences from using 2X18650 cells or 4XCR123 cells. The only difference will be runtime. If you want the most runtime possible, get high capacity 18650 batteries (2900mah or 3100mah). Even if you choose lower capacity 18650 cells (2200mah or 2600mah) you will still get more runtime than 4XCR123. Also, I believe CR123 batteries are generally around 1500mah if I recall.

@walker sorry to hear you didn't get a holster with your BC40. Some dealers will include holsters others will not. I ordered a BC40 from a dealer who has offered free holsters. My light hasn't shipped yet because at the moment my dealer is out of stock on the BC40s and will receive a new shipment soon. I myself am hoping that these new shipments of BC40s will also include holsters like before. I sure hope the free holster deal wasn't just a one time thing. I guess I will have to wait and see. I wont be receiving my BC40 from the newer shipment probably until the end of July.


----------



## houtex (Jul 11, 2011)

Walkerdark said:


> Am I the onlyone, who did not get a holster with this light ?[/QUOTE
> 
> You're not alone. They forgot mine too.


----------



## selfbuilt (Jul 11, 2011)

leon2245 said:


> Am I reading the graphs right in that the only penalty for using cr123a's instead of 18650's is 10 minutes less runtime? It's not any less bright?


As Summer Heat pointed out, you are reading the graphs correctly. However, I use the older lower capacity 18650s for all my runtimes, for consistency and comparison to older reviews. Newer high capacity 18650s will give you proportionately longer runtime for the same output.



Summer Heat said:


> @walker sorry to hear you didn't get a holster with your BC40. Some dealers will include holsters others will not.


That's right, it seems to be very much a dealer-specific factor whether or not you get the holster. My light and holster were supplied directly by JetBeam, so that's what I had to go on at the time of the review. If it matters to you, you should make sure to confirm with the dealer before ordering.


----------



## nodoubt (Jul 12, 2011)

Walkerdark said:


> Am I the onlyone, who did not get a holster with this light ?



going gear is doing holsters......
just sayin........


----------



## SDOT (Jul 13, 2011)

quick inquiry -

The box for the BC40 I got today lists the XM-L T6 as the LED. However, the BC40 Operation Manual inside lists the XP-G R5 under specification and performance. Does anyone know what is up with the discrepancy?

Thanks


----------



## selfbuilt (Jul 13, 2011)

SDOT said:


> The box for the BC40 I got today lists the XM-L T6 as the LED. However, the BC40 Operation Manual inside lists the XP-G R5 under specification and performance. Does anyone know what is up with the discrepancy?


:welcome:

The BC40s are all XM-L emitters. There was never a XP-G version, so that must be a manual misprint.


----------



## Summer Heat (Jul 14, 2011)

The XML T6 is still very popular. How come JetBeam not using the new XML U2 in their lights yet?


----------



## recDNA (Jul 14, 2011)

Great review. I love my b40. Great value imo and I really like the tint. Much better tint than fenix.

Rebuilt - may I make a suggestion? I usually visit on my cell phone using tapatalk. I'm sure many members do. The bottom of every picture (containing the all important label of what beamshot I'm looking at) is cut off by thumbnails of other pics shown on the bottom of the screen.

If you put the beamshot label on the top corner instead of the bottom corner we could.identify which beamshot is which. I know I could download the pic but it doesn't seem like labeling on the top would be any harder.


----------



## selfbuilt (Jul 14, 2011)

recDNA said:


> I usually visit on my cell phone using tapatalk. I'm sure many members do. The bottom of every picture (containing the all important label of what beamshot I'm looking at) is cut off by thumbnails of other pics shown on the bottom of the screen.


I wasn't aware of that (don't have tapatalk yet, maybe on my next phone).

Problem is the existing images are all saved JPGs, so any editing/re-posting of them would be extremely time consuming on my end. I could start doing new ones at the top, but then this will look strange in comparison to the old ones. Can anyone else confirm this issue with tapatalk?

FYI, I'm going to be on holidays the next few days without internet access, so will check back in on all my threads on Monday. :wave:


----------



## HKJ (Jul 14, 2011)

selfbuilt said:


> I wasn't aware of that (don't have tapatalk yet, maybe on my next phone).
> 
> Problem is the existing images are all saved JPGs, so any editing/re-posting of them would be extremely time consuming on my end. I could start doing new ones at the top, but then this will look strange in comparison to the old ones. Can anyone else confirm this issue with tapatalk?



The problem depends on the height/width of the picture, but it is easy to zoom out or move the picture to read the text.


----------



## recDNA (Jul 14, 2011)

HKJ said:


> The problem depends on the height/width of the picture, but it is easy to zoom out or move the picture to read the text.


 
That doesn't work on my phone.
I'm only suggesting making this.change on FUTURE pictures.


----------



## Summer Heat (Jul 15, 2011)

I just got my BC40 (arrived alot earlier than expected). Anyway my new Redilast 18650 3100mah batteries aren't working. I believe there seems to be some kind of contact issue with the battery positive terminal and the spring inside the head. My AW 18650 batteries work fine in the BC40. With the Redilast batteries I am able to use the low setting. The low setting works because the head isn't completley screwed down. When I screw down the head for high output nothing happens.


----------



## leon2245 (Jul 17, 2011)

Thanks S.H. & S.B. i wish more lights were like that as well.


----------



## recDNA (Jul 22, 2011)

I wish a short tube were available to run it with 2 x 18500 or even 2 x 18350.


----------



## t76turbo (Aug 6, 2011)

Summer Heat said:


> I just got my BC40 (arrived alot earlier than expected). Anyway my new Redilast 18650 3100mah batteries aren't working. I believe there seems to be some kind of contact issue with the battery positive terminal and the spring inside the head. My AW 18650 batteries work fine in the BC40. With the Redilast batteries I am able to use the low setting. The low setting works because the head isn't completley screwed down. When I screw down the head for high output nothing happens.




Summer Heat,

did you figure out what was happening with your BC40 using the Redilast 3100's?

I just ordered a BC40 and need to order batteries. I was thinking about the 3100 redilasts or the AW 2900's. (then I need to pick a charger).


----------



## harro (Aug 7, 2011)

Beautiful light. You can see its built to a price, but who cares? Sort of nearly after a fashion gives my RRT3 a run for its money. Reasonably tough, hi and lo, easy ui, whats not to like??
Mike.


----------



## jax (Sep 19, 2011)

muskyhunter said:


> Where can i buy a JetBeam BC40 in Canada?


 
kinda just reading this now,months later but you can buy a jetbeam bc40 if your still interested at www.keenbeam.com this is in canada around ottawa..this is where i got a few of my lights and i noticed the jetbeams are in stock there


----------



## arodaz (Oct 1, 2011)

really like this light,, but found the body of it uncomfortably thin and slick,,a quick wrap of wilson grip tape,,2 bucks or so at walmarthell makes a world of difference


----------



## Chidwack (Oct 2, 2011)

I really do like the way this light feels. It has also quenched my thirst for a long throw light, at least for now. I have one complaint. Turning the head to switch from high to low and back is harder than I expected. It's very stiff and I have to really crank on it to get the high to come on. Anyone else have this problem?


----------



## hamhead (Oct 3, 2011)

yes, and my tailcap can come loose to easily.......
still love the light


----------



## Chidwack (Oct 3, 2011)

Good to know. Otherwise I would be thinking about sending mine back for repairs. I was expecting this light to be very heavy on throw with not very much spill. I was shocked at the total amount of light output with plenty of spill. Tail standing in the bedroom really gives an impressive amount ceiling bounce. I'm going to really enjoy this light.


----------



## Hellequin (Oct 4, 2011)

Thank you for an excellent review, I'm new on the forum but had seen this during my search for a suitable lamp to mount to my riflescope for night time shooting and it certainly influenced my decision.

I decided on the JETbeam BC40 'shooting bundle' which comes with mounts/remote switch etc. and ordered it direct from the (UK) website. It should be with me today so once I've set up and tested it I'll add my thoughts on how it performs.


----------



## minnstars (Oct 4, 2011)

Great review! Why pay more?


----------



## recDNA (Oct 4, 2011)

Fits perfectly in the door pocket of my car. With primaries I can leave it there are year round. If stolen my world won't come to an end because it can be replaced without breaking the bank. Perfect for the car imo.


----------



## benckie (Oct 9, 2011)

BC40 is a great torch 

a question for those who have removed the bezel has any one measured the reflector depth an width ?


----------



## minnstars (Oct 17, 2011)

This is the first High Output flashlight I have ever owned and I would not have bought it, but for the fact that it only cost $65. Some comprimises had to be made to get a high quality XM-L based flashlight to meet the low price point, but IMO the BC40 delivers where it's most important. All I can say is WOW! :thumbsup:


----------



## Chidwack (Oct 19, 2011)

One small complaint that I have with the BC40 is the small diameter battery tube on the light. I bought some Callie Kustoms 3100 batteries and they will not fit in the tube. I had to peal the CK label off the batteries to get them in the tube but they are still tight. Not sure if this is the problem with the BC40 or the CK batteries. These batteries fit in all my other 18650 lights.

After using the BC40 for a couple months now, I'm really starting to appreciate it more and more. First all I saw was the throw but now I'm seeing just how much spill it gives. It really lights everything up well while still giving an impressive amount of throw. The light in the bathroom went out last night and I have to go to town to get another one today. I put the BC40 in the bathroom and we just tail stand it and there is plenty of light for the bathroom. My wife was doing her hair this morning in there and she couldn't believe how much light the BC40 produced. Now she is happy that I bought it where as before she could really have cared less.


----------



## swan (Oct 19, 2011)

Just a quick tip-if u find that it is slightly hard to turn from high to low, its because of the double oring set up. I found if you remove both orings and lubricate between your fingers , lubricate oring grooves lightly and re fit -makes it silky smooth . I use the jetbeam 18650 batteries which fit perfectly and have a really long runtime -it seems to me that a lot of the problems experienced with the nitecore tm11 were because of incorrect battery choice .


----------



## swan (Oct 19, 2011)

Just a quick tip-if u find that it is slightly hard to turn from high to low, its because of the double oring set up. I found if you remove both orings and lubricate between your fingers , lubricate oring grooves lightly and re fit -makes it silky smooth . I use the jetbeam 18650 batteries which fit perfectly and have a really long runtime -it seems to me that a lot of the problems experienced with the nitecore tm11 were because of incorrect battery choice .


----------



## dorgabri (Oct 20, 2011)

This is a very beatiful light, but is very long...then i opted for the Zebralight SC600.


----------



## minnstars (Oct 20, 2011)

dorgabri said:


> This is a very beatiful light, but is very long...then i opted for the Zebralight SC600.



Yah .... Funny how sticking another battery in the tube tends to make a flashlight get longer!?


----------



## leon2245 (Oct 21, 2011)

Obviously the quality will not be on par, but output/throw vs. the xml Hound Dog?


----------



## 300shooter (Oct 21, 2011)

Now my credit card is trying to jump out of my pocket, damnit!


----------



## TyJo (Oct 21, 2011)

Is there anything that competes (price wise) with the neutral version of this light?


----------



## Rat (Oct 23, 2011)

Anybody know the max voltage input. I would guess the voltage range to be 5-12V. But I would like to know 100%

Jetbeam never seem to put the max voltage on there new lights anymore shame as they did in the past.

Who can tell me if I can run my RCR123 3.7v x4 ? total of 14.8V

cheers


----------



## ALWZWFO (Nov 5, 2011)

Just got my BC40. Running with Redilast 3100's, no fitment or operating issues. This puts out very useful light on low setting, can't wait to take it camping!


----------



## FlashlightsNgear.com (Nov 5, 2011)

Hellequin said:


> Thank you for an excellent review, I'm new on the forum but had seen this during my search for a suitable lamp to mount to my riflescope for night time shooting and it certainly influenced my decision.
> 
> I decided on the JETbeam BC40 'shooting bundle' which comes with mounts/remote switch etc. and ordered it direct from the (UK) website. It should be with me today so once I've set up and tested it I'll add my thoughts on how it performs.


That shooting bundle is a great idea, I have one of these on one of my rifles with a homemade red filter, great for hunting varmints (coyote) at night. Ill be replacing it with the BC40 with the smooth reflector later this week, throw seems much better to my eyes. Selfbuilt, should the Smooth reflector look that much brighter than the OP reflectored BC40? Great Review as always, Thank You for posting


----------



## selfbuilt (Nov 6, 2011)

FlashlightsNgear.com said:


> Ill be replacing it with the BC40 with the smooth reflector later this week, throw seems much better to my eyes. Selfbuilt, should the Smooth reflector look that much brighter than the OP reflectored BC40? Great Review as always, Thank You for posting


Probably not much, but it may seem that way at a distance.

Haven't compare the two in this case, but typically smooth reflectors will have more defined hotspots. The effect of the OP is to diffuse the hotspot slightly, giving you a greater corona (which you may not notice at a distance). of course, OP also smooths out any imperfections in the beam ...


Sent from my handheld device


----------



## ALWZWFO (Nov 6, 2011)

I did a runtime test with the Redilast 3100's on high with a fan blowing, 1 hr. 57 min. to shutdown. Too lazy to do one on low but I'm guessing maybe 15 hrs? Sweet! (using 4sevens V3 chargers)


----------



## dannstrait (Dec 1, 2011)

I just received a new BC40W (neutral tint) and it came with a SMO reflector. I wonder if Jetbeam is now making both tint versions with smooth reflectors.


----------



## Jerrycobra (Dec 1, 2011)

i ordered one of these on Saturday, and can't wait to try it out, i got the neutral white version from light junction. Now, just gotta wait for USPS to deliver it, they missed the estimated delivery date

ok, got it today, mine is the neutral white but has the OP reflector


----------



## firelord777 (Dec 13, 2011)

I like neutral tints, btw, how is the throw on the SMO?


----------



## dannstrait (Dec 13, 2011)

firelord777 said:


> I like neutral tints, btw, how is the throw on the SMO?



Compared to a Lumintop TD-15 R5, the beam profile of my BC40W SMO is similar but with seemingly longer throw and brighter spill. I imagine the SMO reflector won't improve throw much compared to the OP version for reasons Selfbuilt has already explained. However, the hotspot is very well-defined on my SMO model. I hope to put up some beamshots for comparison soon.


----------



## Jerrycobra (Dec 15, 2011)

dannstrait said:


> Compared to a Lumintop TD-15 R5, the beam profile of my BC40W SMO is similar but with seemingly longer throw and brighter spill. I imagine the SMO reflector won't improve throw much compared to the OP version for reasons Selfbuilt has already explained. However, the hotspot is very well-defined on my SMO model. I hope to put up some beamshots for comparison soon.



where did you purchase your bc40w from? as i posted above i bought one from light junction around the same time as you but it cam with the OP reflector


----------



## dannstrait (Dec 15, 2011)

Jerrycobra said:


> where did you purchase your bc40w from? as i posted above i bought one from light junction around the same time as you but it cam with the OP reflector



BugOutGearUSA


----------



## dannstrait (Dec 15, 2011)

Please delete, duplicate.


----------



## dannstrait (Dec 15, 2011)

*duplicate*


----------



## dannstrait (Dec 15, 2011)

Here are some beamshots for comparison. Please don't compare brightness because my camera has no manual exposure setting :ironic:




BC40W SMO on Hi at about 13' distance (Daylight White Balance, Auto Exposure at 100 ISO)





Lumintop TD-15 R5 on Hi, same distance/settings as above


----------



## Breathing Borla (Dec 22, 2011)

noticed one thing in the table, the catapult v2 doesn't have a sst-50, it has a xm-l which was tested to 46K lux in selfbuilts test. 

anyway, the bc40 looks like a good bank for the buck light. Jetbeam makes some nice stuff


----------



## selfbuilt (Dec 23, 2011)

Breathing Borla said:


> noticed one thing in the table, the catapult v2 doesn't have a sst-50, it has a xm-l which was tested to 46K lux in selfbuilts test.


I didn't include all the variants in the table, but the original Catapult V1 and the first editions of the V2 both had SST-50 emitters. The V2 was subsequently upgraded to XM-L, where I did indeed measure 46K lux @1m. My V3 (which is also XM-L), measured just over 40K lux @1m. Overall output is equivalent between my V2 XM-L and V3 XM-L, so I presume it is just a minor difference in focusing between the samples. I would expect the "typical" XM-L-based Catapult to be in the low 40K region for lux @1m.


----------



## Force Attuned (Jul 3, 2012)

I got one of these today and am very impressed with the output for the price.

This will take over from my Malkoff infused 3D Mag as my primary spotter.


----------



## firelord777 (Jul 3, 2012)

Glad you like it


----------



## brightnorm (Jul 3, 2012)

I enjoy my Jetbeam, but for general use I prefer the Lumintop X15 with 2x18650's. It's shorter, smaller, lighter and casts a wider beam which I find better for all-around use. However the Jetbeam an excellent light, especially considering its modest cost.

Brightnorm


----------



## chaparral (Jul 4, 2012)

I've had mine for about 8 months now and it's given me no issues. The threads had a coarse feel to them when it arrived but a little grease cured that. It's my go to light when the dogs start barking aggressively at night so I like the simple interface. I've run Ultrafire 4000 mAH 18650s, Tenergy 3.0V RCR123s in it with no issues other than a shorter run time. I have 2600mAH 18650s in it now and all batteries have fit inside with no problems. It was a very well spent 65 USD.


----------



## phips (Aug 2, 2012)

I was thinking about recommending/gifting this light to a family member together with a Xtar SP2 charger and some Panasonic 3100 cells.
Imo it has a balanced form factor with a nice gripping area and a generally simple design/operation... and it is cheap of course.
Seems perfect for people not too crazy about flashlights.
However I refuse to buy flashlights with such poor efficiency.
While the high mode seems good enough, the low mode is simply a failure imo.
I know Jetbeam tried to keep the cost low on this model but how much can they possibly save by forgoing a current regulated output?
A poor design choice that I will not be rewarding with my money.

Thanks again for the review selfbuilt!


----------



## Jerrycobra (Aug 23, 2012)

hey anyone here have issues with batteries fitting inside this light? i used cheap ultrafires and they fit fine in the light. now i switched to button top tenergy batteries, that are about 1mm longer than the UF, at 69mm. when i close the cap, the springs bottom out, and actually dented the bottom on the cell, anyone else have this problem? and to solve this will flat tops work?


----------



## sbbsga (Aug 23, 2012)

Mine is using AW protected 3100mAh but I once tested it with Intl-Outdoor protected 3100mAh and they were too long. I remembered tightening the head and the button top shaved a bit of the reverse polarity disc near the spring. No dent on any of them though.


----------



## Sonomaholiday (Dec 8, 2012)

HIDblue said:


> Excellent review selfbuilt!
> 
> I'm a big fan of the Jetbeam BC series. I just picked up the BC40 and BC10 and I was really surprised how great the lights were given the price point.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kokopelli (Dec 9, 2012)

I have two BC40s and one of them doesn't work if I put on the cigar grip. It tightens really tight and I guess it breaks the contact between body and cap. Anybody had this?


----------



## Nightbird95 (Jan 25, 2013)

12345


----------



## Fykantrollet (Jan 29, 2013)

I've had the BC40 for some months now. My impressions:

Positives:
+ Great range for the price.

Negatives:
- It has a definitive bright ring on the edge of the spot. I find this annoying.
- The low mode is not good. When I twist the head it often flickers between high and low. I need just a slight twist to enter low mode, but at least a quarter turn to have it stay safely in low mode. And then the head is wobbly, and if you touch it it can go off or in high mode. Not good, but maybe it's just my unit.
- It is too large when compared with the latest comparable lights.

It's an ok light, but I would not buy it again.


----------



## lumenjedi1 (Mar 16, 2013)

I thought bc stood for basic carry


----------



## lumenjedi1 (Mar 16, 2013)

I have the bc40 when it first came out.been using for 2 years now.great light I now have the bc40w with smooth reflector and white light.this light is a work horse the beam has more of tight spot in middle class a light,I droped my old one a zillion times no prob what so ever


----------



## shaq (Aug 5, 2013)

lumenjedi1 said:


> I have the bc40 when it first came out.been using for 2 years now.great light I now have the bc40w with smooth reflector and white light.this light is a work horse the beam has more of tight spot in middle class a light,I droped my old one a zillion times no prob what so ever



my clicky switch failed .couldn't find replacement anywherefor a few months finally installed a similar switch from fasttec


----------



## Capolini (Aug 18, 2013)

Great review SB and a great light, especially for the price and the quality that comes with it. I got mine for $60.00 in November of 2012. It was my first decent light, which is now getting more use again!

*Ciao,,,,,Roberto,,"Capo di Capo" "KEEP LIGHTING UP THE DARKNESS"*


----------



## Shuutr (Aug 18, 2013)

Got mine a few days ago. $50 on amazon. Partially due to the good review here. Thanks guys. 

No holster with mine, but I don't plan on carrying.


----------



## Danbo (Sep 20, 2013)

Ordered one of these this morning, for under $50 shipped at going gear. Don't believe I'll regret it. Seems like a lot of light for not a lot of money.


----------



## Snooker (Oct 30, 2014)

*BC40 SE review ?!...*

Hi SB 

:thanks: great job for all the reviews, that helped me a lot to understand the world of LED lamps and so choosing my lights :goodjob:

You think make a review of the "BC40 SE" ?

I ordered this lamp and I wait impatiently the delivery but I think autonomy is really a giant leap from the previous version.


----------



## selfbuilt (Oct 31, 2014)

*Re: BC40 SE review ?!...*



Snooker said:


> You think make a review of the "BC40 SE" ? I ordered this lamp and I wait impatiently the delivery but I think autonomy is really a giant leap from the previous version.


Sorry, no plans to review that light as yet. Not sure what you mean by autonomy though.

My recent review of the BC25 SE might give you some idea what to expect from build.

And :welcome:


----------



## Snooker (Oct 31, 2014)

*Re: BC40 SE review ?!...*

OK thank you very much (for all ), I will read this review with interest. 

About autonomy I just compared the FL1 manufacturer data between BC40 (XM-L2 2x18650) and BC40SE (XM-L2 2x18650 too).












From 1,50h to 3,95h more than double 

That's why I looking forward to reading your test...


----------



## selfbuilt (Oct 31, 2014)

*Re: BC40 SE review ?!...*



Snooker said:


> From 1,50h to 3,95h more than double  That's why I looking forward to reading your test...


Ah, I see. I hate to disappoint you, but the most likely explanation is that they have added a step-down feature to the Hi mode. They are using the same emitter and same battery source, so there's not going to be any significant efficiency gains on that front.

Note that my guess would be consistent with this promotional material phrase I just saw on one website: "Advanced power management circuit maximizes runtime and well [SIC] protect the flashlight from overheating". That usually means a step-down to extend the runtime. As you will see in my BC25se review, there are in fact two distinct step-downs on that model.


----------



## Snooker (Oct 31, 2014)

*Re: BC40 SE review ?!...*

OK I see, I suspected that there was an electronic trick, but I never imagined that manufacturers are lying so many.

Because if the standard has not changed (between this two lamps) and there is no 980 lumens emitted during 3:54 it's just a marketing lie. This FL1 standard has as many credibility than used car salesman.


Too bad, I thought he had developed this standard to gain credibility...

In any case I should be satisfied with my purchase because I did not own this type of lamp and I paid it only 35€ delivered 

Thx for explanation


----------

