View Full Version : New Surefire x300 and x400?
Does anyone know if Surefire recently upgraded these x series lights to 170 lumens ouput? Just saw this on there site in the specs, but have not had the chance to call them. Go figure I just bought an x400 at 110 lumens.
K
Don't worry, your '110 lumen' rated X400 is likely every bit of 170 lumens, maybe even more. The issue is with Surefire's old ratings. Bear with me through this long explanation:
For years, flashlight geeks (read: the hardcore dudes on candlepowerforums) have known that Surefire's lumen ratings on almost all of their lights ranged from very conservative to grossly underrated. Taking any of SF's lights and comparing the output with lights from other manaufacturers was always interesting, as it wasn't uncommon for the SF product to appear brighter than another light that boasted 50% more lumens.
The reasons for this takes a while to explain, but if you truly want to understand Surefire's rating system, and the reason for their recent bump in the specs of several lights, read on:
There are two ways to measure lumen output; emitter lumens (the total amount of light produced by the light source, in this case the actual LED), and torch lumens (the actual amount of light that is projected out the front of the flashlight, also known as 'OTF' (out the front) lumens). Since there optical losses happening when the light bounces off a reflector, and passes through the lense of a flashlight, OTF lumens are always less than the emitter lumens. Think of it like comparing the horsepower of a motor at the crankshaft, versus at the drive wheels. No drivetrain is 100% efficient, so the actual useable power put to the ground is always less than the manufacturer's HP rating.
A lot of flashlight manufacturers rate the output of their lights via emitter lumens. Less reputable manufacturers will even inflate the emitter lumens number. Take a look at all the chinese LED drop-in assemblies on eBay that replace a SF P60 bulb. You'll see lumen ratings of 290, 350, 390 etc., all of which are complete bullshit.
Surefire has always rated thier lights with 'out the front' lumens, taking measurements of their products with a calibrated integrating sphere (pretty much a chassis dyno for flashlights, the only 100% accurate way to measure OTF lumen output). On top of this, SF has always rated thier older incandescent lights as OTF lumens on half-depleted batteries. Because of this, the rated output of their incan models was always VERY conservative. For example, a '65-lumen' Surefire G2/6P has been independently tested in an integrating sphere at almost 90 OTF lumens on fresh batteries. A '50-lumen' A2 Aviator has been measured in some cases to be roughly 80 OTF lumens. The '500 lumen' lamp assembly of the M6 has been measured as pushing 900 lumens on fresh batteries.
With Surefire's reputation for underrating thier incandescent lights, they seem to have wanted to continue the tradition, for whatever reason, with their newer LED lights. Most notably, their lights using the TIR optic in conjunction with a CREE XR-E LED (the E1L, E2L, L1, E1B, E2DL, M600C, and the X300 in question).
Ever since these lights were released with the newer CREE emitters, the dudes on candlepowerforums speculated they were more than just slightly underrated. Why does a 120-lumen Surefire E2DL look as bright as a 225-lumen Fenix TK-10? Why does a 110-lumen X300 seem brighter than a 200-lumen Nightcore Extreme?
All of the speculation was put to rest when Candlepowerforum poster MrGman (who has access to a real calibrated integrating sphere) started measuring the actual OTF lumen ratings of these lights. The results were pretty interesting. Several examples of the 120-lumen rated E2DL/ M600C scout light were measured between 170 and 210 OTF lumens. One 60-lumen rated E2L was measured at 110 OTF lumens.
The repuation these CREE-based Surefire lights gained for being so underrated spread pretty fast among the flashlight savvy. It was also pretty confusing for the average consumer, who would compare Surefire's specs with that of less expensive Chinese manufacturers, and decide that Surefires were anemic and overpriced. As a result, Surefire seems to have started to rate these lights a lot more accurately.
When the 200-lumen LX2 Lumamax was released, and most examples didn't really appear much brighter than the 120-lumen E2DL (if they appeared brighter at all), flashlight geeks suspected that Surefire was finally starting to put accurate ratings on their lights that truly represented the actual output. A few months later, the E2DL and M600C Scout light now boast 200-lumen ratings, and the formerly 110-lumen X300 is now rated at 170.
The general consensus among the serious flashlight users at Candlepowerforums is that the new lights with the upgraded specs don't seem much brighter, if at all, than the lights with the older ratings. Some do claim to see a significant difference, and others don't. It's a difficult thing to quantify without actually measuring them in an integrating sphere. Personally, I have an older 120-lumen E2DL, and couldn't see any difference at all when comparing it with a newer version rated at 200 lumens. I also see barely any discernable difference between my older 110-lumen X300 and my 200-lumen E2DL.
So basically, don't feel cheated that you bought a model with an older rating, as it's likely the only thing that changed is...the rating.
Nice explanation! I always select my lights by UI and features, not by absolute brightness alone. However, it does make sense for SF to finally tell the truth and claim their rightful place.
Dennis.
I always select my lights by UI and features, not by absolute brightness alone.
IMO, that's how it should be done, as the user interface is hands down the most important aspect of a light that will be used in a serious 'social' situation.
The newest LED emitters that have hit the market recently are so efficient, and produce such immense output at such low drive levels, that the whole arms race over which manufacturer makes the brightest possible light is getting positively ridiculous (for any serious application that doesn't involve impressing your friends w/ how bright your light is).
Though the X300 really kicks ass outdoors, and is my preferred handgun-mounted light, it's excessively bright IMO for an indoor HD role. This notion was further reinforced after taking my first low light handgun class a couple weeks ago. It was very interesting to see and hear everyone's reactions when first lighting up their targets (white on black Viking Tactics targets at 3-4 yards) after being in complete darkness for 15 minutes. A lot of shooters were running whiz bang facemelters like an X300, LX2, TNVC drop-in, Malkoff M60 etc., and it became immediately clear that these were borderline RETARDED at across-the-room distance, on a white target, with dark adapted eyes.
JW_777's low-light basics, where he writes that the 65-80 lumen output of a SF G2/6P/6P LED is pretty much ideal really hit the nail on the head.
There were a TON of other interesting revelations I had regarding low light shooting/ gear, but that's for another thread.
K223: note that the advertised runtime of the 170 lumen X300/400 is 2.4 hours, the exact same as the older version rated at 110 lumens. The fact that they're both being driven at the same power levels should be a clue. Unless Surefire has started using VASTLY more efficient bins of CREE XREs in their X300s, then there's no possible way the newer version is actually 50% brighter.
Yup, UI is everything. Well, after assuming a certain level of quality and reliability. :)
I would have to both agree and disagree with your points about low light shooting indoors. I agree that from fully dark adapted eyes an X300 can be excessively bright, and that is why I keep the super floody and not that bright X200B on my bedside gun as well as Malkoff Flood LED's in my bedside original SF 6P & 6Z (old school!). There is very little chance I will be exiting my house during a nighttime encounter so I am OK with super floody lights with less throw.
However, for the vast majority of duty LE use, your eyes will NOT be dark adapted and the extra power is very helpful for indoor and of course outdoor searches. I have cleared many many tiny ghetto homes with my X300 and been very happy. I generally don't shine my light on walls and usually aim at the floor wall corner mostly due to my high/low ready searching position and the reflected light is more than enough to ID with. If someone needs to be shot, odds are they aren't wearing a mirror or shiny white shirt so the extra light should help there as well. In fact, I sometimes use my Olight M30 at full 700 lumen (ok, 400ish OTF) in small rooms shining on the ceiling so everyone can see everything on an entry/clear.
I wouldn't choose equipment based on static paper targets, in fact I qualify every other month on paper targets at night starting at 7yds with no issues with a G17/X300. As always, your mission drives your gear and if you don't trust anything until you try it out yourself.
Enjoy and Stay Safe!
Dennis.
Thanks 750, you said a mouthful and I couldn't ask for a better response. Not to mention the input from everyone else. That 2.4 hr runtime was throwing me off as how can they up the power and still have the same runtime and wondering if there new ratings on the site were in Err or they revised there old. Lights, engines, Amplifiers, CPU's and so many other things that carry the all mighty rating that consumers use to say yeah or nay too over another brand have always been played around with. I knew Surefire if anything had there ratings on the lower side of the scale. I was pretty amazed when I received my X400 and powered it up. With lights on in the house, I said if this is 110 lumens then I could only imagine a 200 lumen torch, talk about a meltdown. The laser on this light is also pretty amazing and astonished me. Pretty wide beam, so very bright in the dark and even when shining it on an outdoor surface in daylight say out to 25 yards, there is no searching for it. I think at this point I can rest assured my unit is basically the same as the new one's. Being I am mounting this on my M4, I like the ability of it to be a little on the bright side as I know I have some reach out distance with this rifle, more so than a pistol. I still may buy an X300 for my G21. Very Nice peice!
K223
Does anyone make a good offset weapon mount for the SF LX2? Also, is there a click on/off 2 mode replacement tail cap switch available that fits the LX2?
Thanks.
Does anyone make a good offset weapon mount for the SF LX2? Also, is there a click on/off 2 mode replacement tail cap switch available that fits the LX2?
Thanks.
The 2 mode switching will not work with a clicky switch. Not a bad idea, but they just don't exist yet.
Dennis.
Does anyone make a good offset weapon mount for the SF LX2? Also, is there a click on/off 2 mode replacement tail cap switch available that fits the LX2?
Thanks.
You could try an E2DL. Same light with different housing and slightly different UI. They fit the vtac mount also.
G34Shooter
05-09-10, 21:37
Good information here! :cool: And when I've compared my LX2, x300 and Nitecore Extreme R2 rated at 220 Lumens they all seem nearly equal in brightness indoors at 30 feet with just a slightly different beam shape. The 110 rating of the x300 was a joke that works out in our favor :D
I forgot to add that my old E2DL Defender was only a tad less bright than my LX2.
Wow, thanks for that. That did answer some questions that I have had for a while.
Don't worry, your '110 lumen' rated X400 is likely every bit of 170 lumens, maybe even more. The issue is with Surefire's old ratings. Bear with me through this long explanation:
For years, flashlight geeks (read: the hardcore dudes on candlepowerforums) have known that Surefire's lumen ratings on almost all of their lights ranged from very conservative to grossly underrated. Taking any of SF's lights and comparing the output with lights from other manaufacturers was always interesting, as it wasn't uncommon for the SF product to appear brighter than another light that boasted 50% more lumens.
The reasons for this takes a while to explain, but if you truly want to understand Surefire's rating system, and the reason for their recent bump in the specs of several lights, read on:
There are two ways to measure lumen output; emitter lumens (the total amount of light produced by the light source, in this case the actual LED), and torch lumens (the actual amount of light that is projected out the front of the flashlight, also known as 'OTF' (out the front) lumens). Since there optical losses happening when the light bounces off a reflector, and passes through the lense of a flashlight, OTF lumens are always less than the emitter lumens. Think of it like comparing the horsepower of a motor at the crankshaft, versus at the drive wheels. No drivetrain is 100% efficient, so the actual useable power put to the ground is always less than the manufacturer's HP rating.
A lot of flashlight manufacturers rate the output of their lights via emitter lumens. Less reputable manufacturers will even inflate the emitter lumens number. Take a look at all the chinese LED drop-in assemblies on eBay that replace a SF P60 bulb. You'll see lumen ratings of 290, 350, 390 etc., all of which are complete bullshit.
Surefire has always rated thier lights with 'out the front' lumens, taking measurements of their products with a calibrated integrating sphere (pretty much a chassis dyno for flashlights, the only 100% accurate way to measure OTF lumen output). On top of this, SF has always rated thier older incandescent lights as OTF lumens on half-depleted batteries. Because of this, the rated output of their incan models was always VERY conservative. For example, a '65-lumen' Surefire G2/6P has been independently tested in an integrating sphere at almost 90 OTF lumens on fresh batteries. A '50-lumen' A2 Aviator has been measured in some cases to be roughly 80 OTF lumens. The '500 lumen' lamp assembly of the M6 has been measured as pushing 900 lumens on fresh batteries.
With Surefire's reputation for underrating thier incandescent lights, they seem to have wanted to continue the tradition, for whatever reason, with their newer LED lights. Most notably, their lights using the TIR optic in conjunction with a CREE XR-E LED (the E1L, E2L, L1, E1B, E2DL, M600C, and the X300 in question).
Ever since these lights were released with the newer CREE emitters, the dudes on candlepowerforums speculated they were more than just slightly underrated. Why does a 120-lumen Surefire E2DL look as bright as a 225-lumen Fenix TK-10? Why does a 110-lumen X300 seem brighter than a 200-lumen Nightcore Extreme?
All of the speculation was put to rest when Candlepowerforum poster MrGman (who has access to a real calibrated integrating sphere) started measuring the actual OTF lumen ratings of these lights. The results were pretty interesting. Several examples of the 120-lumen rated E2DL/ M600C scout light were measured between 170 and 210 OTF lumens. One 60-lumen rated E2L was measured at 110 OTF lumens.
The repuation these CREE-based Surefire lights gained for being so underrated spread pretty fast among the flashlight savvy. It was also pretty confusing for the average consumer, who would compare Surefire's specs with that of less expensive Chinese manufacturers, and decide that Surefires were anemic and overpriced. As a result, Surefire seems to have started to rate these lights a lot more accurately.
When the 200-lumen LX2 Lumamax was released, and most examples didn't really appear much brighter than the 120-lumen E2DL (if they appeared brighter at all), flashlight geeks suspected that Surefire was finally starting to put accurate ratings on their lights that truly represented the actual output. A few months later, the E2DL and M600C Scout light now boast 200-lumen ratings, and the formerly 110-lumen X300 is now rated at 170.
The general consensus among the serious flashlight users at Candlepowerforums is that the new lights with the upgraded specs don't seem much brighter, if at all, than the lights with the older ratings. Some do claim to see a significant difference, and others don't. It's a difficult thing to quantify without actually measuring them in an integrating sphere. Personally, I have an older 120-lumen E2DL, and couldn't see any difference at all when comparing it with a newer version rated at 200 lumens. I also see barely any discernable difference between my older 110-lumen X300 and my 200-lumen E2DL.
So basically, don't feel cheated that you bought a model with an older rating, as it's likely the only thing that changed is...the rating.
Just called them and they said the new x300/x400 are coming out in a week time. Also asked the guy if it is a different rating system of calling it 170 lumens but he reckons it will actually be brighter then the old ones.
To be honest Im pretty confused...
Just called them and they said the new x300/x400 are coming out in a week time. Also asked the guy if it is a different rating system of calling it 170 lumens but he reckons it will actually be brighter then the old ones.
To be honest Im pretty confused...
A new 170 lumen X300 that you buy might be brighter than the one you bought a year ago rated at 110 lumens. It also might actually be dimmer than your old one rated at 110 lumens :eek:. How is this possible? I'll try to explain this the best I can. This is long, and filled with flashlight geekery, but if you want to really understand what's probably going on here, continue:
Unlike car engines, stereos, or a lot of other products that are measured via a standardized rating, there can be a ton of manufacturing variance between seemingly equal LED emitters that are produced.
You can have a batch of ten CREE XR-E LED emitters roll off an assembly line, and not only will they all produce a varying amount of lumens per watt, they actually may vary a great deal in their output and efficiency. This is commonly seen in pretty much every manufacturer's line of LED flashlights. When you test them in an integrating sphere, different examples of the exact same flashlight, with the exact same LED emitter can sometimes vary in output by 20% or more.
This has been observed in MrGman's integrating sphere tests of several Surefire flashlights. For instance; all of the examples of a Surefire E2DL and M600C Scoutlight (which is essentially an E2DL with no 'low' output mode) varied in output, with the examples tested ranging between 170 and 210 lumens (more than a 20% variance). Even though all of the these lights use a CREE XR-E emitter that is driven at the same current, some of the individual emitters turned out to be more efficient, simply as a result of manufacturing variance.
As LED technology progresses, manufacturers are able to better control production, which produces better and better specimens of a particular LED emitter. Manufacturers group their produced LEDs into subsections called 'bins', which identify the efficiency of specific LEDs that were produced. If you've ever seen a CREE-based flashlight referred to as using a 'Q5' or 'R2', this is simply displaying the 'bin' or efficeincy of the LED emitter. More efficent bins equal more lumens per watt.
For example, when the Fenix TK-10 was released, it used a CREE XR-E 'Q5' emitter, and was rated at 225 lumens. A short time later, the Fenix TK-11 was released, which was offered with the same CREE emitter in 'R2' bin (more efficient). This model was rated at 240 lumens. So the exact same LED emitter was used in both lights, but the second example used an emitter that happened to be more efficient when it was produced, and was thus identified as an 'R2'.
Enter Surefire. SF has never made any advertising claim as to what bin LEDs are used in specific flashlights. Most of their customers have no clue that their L1 uses a CREE XR-E, let alone what an efficiency bin is. Judging by the somewhat large variance exhibited by several examples of the same SF light tested in an integrating sphere, we can conclude that SF uses CREE XR-E emitters of varying bins/ efficiencies in their lights, seemingly without too much regard for if an E2DL or E1L gets shipped with a P4, Q2, Q5, Qwhatever emitter.
This probably has a lot to do with their previously uber-conservative lumen ratings. If you set a rating as a lowest common denominator, worst-case scenario, assuming the use of some of the most inefficent CREE XR-Es out there, then the rating will always be honest. Even if you happen to use a few crappy examples of CREE XR-Es down the line, it will always produce AT LEAST the amount of OTF lumens that Surefire claims.
This 'lowest common denominator' rating means SF didn't necessarily have to always weed out the best bin LEDs for their lights, and the rating would always be adequate. This is somewhat speculative on my part, as SF has never publicly stated "We didn't think it was important to ALWAYS use the most efficient LEDs 100% of the time", but it's really the only reason anybody can think of to explain the hilariously underrated CREE XR-E lights.
The updated ratings may come in conjunction with SF starting to get serious about ONLY using the MOST efficient bins. I'm not sure anyone's received a clear answer to this that elaborates past "yeah dude, they'll be brighter". What we DO know is that these lights are being driven at the same current (they've all been rated at the same runtime), so they're definitely not upping the power to increase output. In this case, the only way these lights can actually be brighter is if more efficient bins are used.
Like I said in my second post, I don't see how it's going to be possible to see THAT big of an increase versus the older lights. 210 OTF lumens is starting to push the upper limit of what CREE XR-Es are currently capable of, and we already have some old '120-lumen' rated E2DLs that are doing just that! If the new ratings are in fact coming in conjunction with using the best bins more consistently, it will likely only mean less variance in output between lights, with a diminshed/eliminated chance of receiving an underperformer.
Also, keep in mind that we've had the newly rated '200 lumen' E2DLs in stores for a while now, and I don't think I've seen anyone claim that it appears 50% brighter that their older E2DL. Mine doesn't. I can't see any difference at all. Like I said, it's even hard to discern a difference between my old X300 and my 200-lumen E2DL. I guess the only way we'll really know for certain is when/if Candlepowerforums dudes start testing these newer SFs in integrating spheres, ideally with several samples of old vs. new rated lights.
In my opinion, we're only going to find an increase in average brightness across the product line, with lights being more consistently at the upper end of the spectrum, and the less than high-end performers being weeded out.
750. thanks once again for your detailed & easy to follow explanations.
They break things down into a context that makes it easier to understand for us somewhat literate flashaholics.
I've got a late model 110 lumen X-400 and it's about as bright (and warmer color temp) as my Scout LU60 head running the original Malkoff 240 lumen LED.
One reason for the LU60 head was for IR filter over incan bulb, but we're still hoping for a IR CREE LED if anyone is listening.
while on the topic, i had the hardest time getting my x300 to fit on my full size mp9. anyone else have a similiar prob?
G34Shooter
05-14-10, 15:40
while on the topic, i had the hardest time getting my x300 to fit on my full size mp9. anyone else have a similiar prob?
Yes, unload and triple check that it's unloaded then push it with your weak hand into the bezel area while holding the M&P secure with your strong hand and you'll hear it click.
Got an Email from surefire the other day stating that they have bumped the out put on the X300 and X400 from 110-170
http://www.surefire.com/surefire/content/email_images/WeaponLightUpgrade_consumer_051310/WL_upgrade_blast_consumer-cut1.jpg
http://cl.exct.net/?ju=fe201677756d0074771278&ls=fdf91d72706707787415717d&m=ff011577776507&l=febb137970650c7b&s=fe251577736c057b711578&jb=ffcf14&t=
Had just been informed by a mate of mine (who's SF's international rep.) that THEY ARE ACTUALLY BRIGHTER, so guess Ill need to get rid of my old one ASAP!
Sorry no other tech details as I wouldnt know much about them anyway, all I know is brighter or not! :)
while on the topic, i had the hardest time getting my x300 to fit on my full size mp9. anyone else have a similiar prob?
Yes, unload and triple check that it's unloaded then push it with your weak hand into the bezel area while holding the M&P secure with your strong hand and you'll hear it click.
Exactly what I do (on a 5").
I'll taking anyones old X300 if its a good price :D
I run a x300 on my glock and my M4...Looking into putting one on my 590a1. I don't know if they are rated for shotguns anyone know or run one a a shot gun? How do they old up?
I am going to contact Surefire tomorrow but I would like to hear some guys experience with an x300 on a shotgun with high round count.
while on the topic, i had the hardest time getting my x300 to fit on my full size mp9. anyone else have a similiar prob?
I had to swap out the quick-release thingie and install the semi-perm latch in order to fit it on my M&P9
Never figured out how to get it on with the quick-release lol
snakedoctor
02-18-11, 10:38
I had the same problem with my X300 and my fullsize M&P 9. I ended up sending mine back to Surefire and they replaced the back switch plate with a new one. Finally able to lock it on now.
stefon1911
04-18-11, 17:46
Does anyone know if Surefire recently upgraded these x series lights to 170 lumens ouput? Just saw this on there site in the specs, but have not had the chance to call them. Go figure I just bought an x400 at 110 lumens.
K
Just got an email on the lumen question from surefire. They say "The earlier revisions of the X300 weaponlight produced 110 lumens on maximum output. The latest version of this product is now producing 170 lumens.
Please refer to the product-packaging of the item (or listed specifications on the website where you are placing the order) to confirm the revision of your light."
Hope this helps
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.