AR Sponsor
Posted: 4/2/2004 4:06:32 PM EDT
|
Quoted: An American soldier inspects a cave complex where the day before they found arms, ammunition, and personal effects of the cave's former inhabitants in Zunchora, near the Pakistani border, Friday, April 2, 2004. (AP Photo/Emilio Morenatti) Thought these might spur the great "how much is enough" debate again [;)] No criticism of the soldiers involved, they are doing with what they have. Im sure battery life has a lot to do with the lack of light, but I know I would like to have a hell of a lot more output. You can reach a point where your light doesnt have enough power to illuminate the area you need lit up, and as such its doing little beyond making you a target. Lumpy, In another thread on this forum I mentioned a discussion on an e-mail list in which Jeff Gonzales [url]www.tridentconcepts.com[/url] replied. For those that may not know, Jeff is a former Navy SEAL and though he's now retired, he did deploy in Afghanistan for a time as a private contractor. He stated that in their application, 65 lumens was adequate for most cases. He also said that SOCOM operators have been after surefire for quite some time to make smaller, lighter lights. A direct result is the X200. Myself, I prefer as much light as possible because for civillian and LEO purposes, target identification is of paramount importance. Those pictures may not tell the whole story. The cave complexes are pretty much pitch black so a 65 lumen light may indeed be satisfactory. BTW, I saw a picture of your rifle in yet another thread, the one with an MU light / click-on tailcap. I was wondering, with the integral base, is the tailcap close enough to activate comfortably? |
|
Quoted: Those pictures may not tell the whole story. The cave complexes are pretty much pitch black so a 65 lumen light may indeed be satisfactory. [img]http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040402/capt.kho10404021532.afghanistan_us_patrol_kho104.jpg[/img] It does not look satisfactory to me in this picture. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Those pictures may not tell the whole story. The cave complexes are pretty much pitch black so a 65 lumen light may indeed be satisfactory. It does not look satisfactory to me in this picture. I agree. I'm not a *photog* but maybe it had to do with shutter speeds, exposure and what not? That picture looks more like they're using a mini mag light than a lithium powered tac light. All I can say is Jeff Gonzales was steadfast in his preference for 65 lumen lights. |
|
Just for comparison, 125lumen on fresh batteries at a distance of about 10 yards in a completely darked out residence with my crapy digicam: [img]http://members.cox.net/vseven/fa7aff53.jpg[/img] [img]http://members.cox.net/vseven/fa7aff4f.jpg[/img] Thats power that will make someone snap their eyes shut, not snap a round off in the direction of your light. |
|
Quoted: He stated that in their application, 65 lumens was adequate for most cases. He also said that SOCOM operators have been after surefire for quite some time to make smaller, lighter lights. A direct result is the X200. Tony, Giles said the same thing last year during one of his talks on lights(I don't remember if it was the June Carbine 1 or the July Carbine 2 class). He had indicated battery run time was more important than super brightness to those folks. -Forest |
|
It looks like they are using mini-maglights in those pictures. Not very bright whatever it is. I think a 65lumen light would be bright enough for what they are doing, but in my experience 65 lumens is a lot brighter than what that guy is shining down that tunnel/hallway. |
|
Quoted: battery run time was more important than super brightness to those folks M96x with LED head? I know they have the older bezel for the M3 handheld flashlight that has 19 leds on it, but don't they also make a newer, single led head that is brighter? I think the M3 head is the same as the M9x-Series of weaponlights. If SureFire won't specifically make a model to suit the need, at least you can mix-and-match (I hope). Would this withstand the recoil? [img]http://i19.ebayimg.com/03/i/01/87/d8/73_1_b.JPG[/img] Runtime: 27 lumens max output for 1.5 hours, followed by 13.5 hours of moderate output, followed by over 50 hours of minimum output. |
|
The SureFire KL6 bezel from the L6 can replace the bezel of the M96 or TurboHead of the M97 WeaponLights. [img]http://www.pk-engineering.com/Size15/images1/al-m3bezels.jpg[/img] It's a single 5W Luxeon in a deep reflector to produce a solid beam. It's not as powerful as the M3's MN10 lamp but has longer runtime. The trouble is that SureFire do not yet offer the KL6 as an individual part or Lamp Module for the MU Series WeaponLights. SureFire's KLx bezels can be mounted on heavy recoil weapons. Al |
AR Sponsor



