Future of weaponlights

[Benito]

Looking around at this forum got me thinking about the future of weaponlights. Given that lights need batteries, and preferably common ones, there are lower limits on how lightweight and small weaponlights can get.
So rather than reductions in size and weight, I foresee the next trend in wepaonlights being transversely mounted batteries. To me it seems like this would alleviate the effects of recoil. It might not make a big difference for high-end quality lights (Surefire, Elzetta), but for cheaper Chinese lights (Fenix, Foursevens, Klarus, etc.) this could make them more viable options.

EO-Tech did this on their XPS2, EXPS3, EXPS3, XPS3 and a few other sights.
It not only deals with the recoil issue, but frees up rail space. Now, I am not sure how, or if, 2 batteries can be run in series in such a configuration (side-by-side vs in-line).

[lobstradomus]

The only issue with a side-loading type light that I can think of would be width. While the length of the common CR123 is only ~2mm longer than the width of two batteries side by side, you would still need extra room for the contact plates/springs and the door assembly. You would probably end up with a light that is at least two inches wide -half an inch wider than the side by side X300/TLR type lights and nearly 1.2" wider than the body of a Scout or E series light.
Running the batteries in series isn't an issue but you would need some extra wiring for the switch to work, probably one lead from the positive end contact plate up to the head and another from the negative contact spring back to the switch. It's do-able, but I think it might be more complicated than necessary for dealing with recoil and certainly not without it's pitfalls (girth and complexity.)

[nova3930]

Side by side presents manufacturing issues as well. Lot more production steps with more machines and tools than just turning parts on the lathe for in line.

I kinda think we might see remote mount batteries. Moving the controls to a tape switch is already established so why not remote mount a battery say in the grip or butt stock basically anywhere with more space so you can get more capacity and runtime.

[Benito]

The only issue with a side-loading type light that I can think of would be width. While the length of the common CR123 is only ~2mm longer than the width of two batteries side by side, you would still need extra room for the contact plates/springs and the door assembly. You would probably end up with a light that is at least two inches wide -half an inch wider than the side by side X300/TLR type lights and nearly 1.2" wider than the body of a Scout or E series light.
Running the batteries in series isn't an issue but you would need some extra wiring for the switch to work, probably one lead from the positive end contact plate up to the head and another from the negative contact spring back to the switch. It's do-able, but I think it might be more complicated than necessary for dealing with recoil and certainly not without it's pitfalls (girth and complexity.)

Good points.

Side by side presents manufacturing issues as well. Lot more production steps with more machines and tools than just turning parts on the lathe for in line.

I kinda think we might see remote mount batteries. Moving the controls to a tape switch is already established so why not remote mount a battery say in the grip or butt stock basically anywhere with more space so you can get more capacity and runtime.

Like this thing:
http://www.wilcoxind.com/Fusion-Amp-Rail-P67C41.aspx
53800G03_1.jpg

or this

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...icatinny-rail/
http://tworxventures.com/

I see a lot of room for improvement. Cost, lack of modularity just off the top of my head.

[nova3930]

Like this thing:
http://www.wilcoxind.com/Fusion-Amp-Rail-P67C41.aspx
53800G03_1.jpg

or this

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...icatinny-rail/
http://tworxventures.com/

I see a lot of room for improvement. Cost, lack of modularity just off the top of my head.

Basically yeah. I see a lot of room for improvement as well. They're definitely not refined designs from an engineering and operational perspective.

[SpeedRacer]

I think for the time being, current light technology has damn near peaked. They'll keep getting slightly smaller and brighter until there is a leap in tech, I don't think we'll see anything game changing until powered rails become a thing.

[militarymoron]

i don't see an advantage to transversely mounted batteries either, as it doesn't take advantage of 'dead space' between rails to tuck lights in as close as possible.
i'm not a fan of remote batteries either, as it requires some sort of connection, whether it be by cable or conductive rail etc. whatever it is, the contacts need to be protected from erosion, damage etc, so IMHO, having a complete, sealed, self-contained light is preferable because it reduces the chances of interface failure. i would avoid placing batteries in the stock where you have to disconnect the power supply from the light whenever you need to separate the upper and lower. unless the stock is fixed, an adjustable stock will need either a flexible cable or sliding contact to transmit power to the light. for electrical reliability and simplicity, i'd avoid cables, disconnect interfaces, or bridging anything that moves.

a single CR123 battery is pretty small already, and the brightness of hand held and weapon-mounted lights as greatly increased over the years. i think we've reached a decent limit of brightness needed on a weapon (maybe 500 lumens), except for other specific uses. i'd like to see the same brightness retained but with more compact batteries, and more direct-mount, non-picatinny solutions.

[lobstradomus]

There have definitely been leaps and bounds in the advancement of LED brightness lately, its rather amazing to think that you can now easily get 500 lumens from less than 2.9 watts - nearly 14 times more efficient than the old incandescent P60's that were considered hot stuff up until 2006 or so. Battery technology hasn't quite kept up the same rate of advancement but there have still been some impressive gains as well. The newest lithium ion cells from Panasonic have an energy density 24% higher than that of a standard CR123, although it remains to be seen whether or not scaling down those same chemistry cells will have a deleterious effect on energy density. Perhaps with the advancements in graphene and the interest in its potential use as an anode we will finally see that next great leap in battery development.