The inner sleeve issues on the FW3A are both overblown and not unique to it. The KR series was supposed to “solve” the contact issues but my KR4s are just as finicky as my FWs. The only way to make a foolproof tail e-switch is the way Acebeam and Olight do it, with a totally captive inner tube. I don’t know why Emisar, Lumintop, etc. don’t do it this way but also an Acebeam TK18 is double the price of an FW3A.
Most issues can be corrected by gently lapping both ends of the inner tubes on fine grit sandpaper, keeping all contact points clean, and occasional loosening and re-tightening. Some require more lapping, others little or none. My bare aluminum FW3A and my first run KR4 required a good bit of lapping and the KR4 had a perceptible burr on one end of the tube that should not have passed QC. No big deal, easily fixed.
The hate for Lumintop is unjustified IMO. First, recall that they asked permission to put the bunny logo on the FW3A button from the very beginning, were asked not to do so, and agreed with the caveat that they would like to do it eventually, after the first run, as I recall. Aesthetically I’m not a fan of all the billboarding but I don’t fault them for it.
As for Lumintop using lower quality components, is there evidence of a larger scheme to increase their margins? Lumintop was baselessly accused of this early on with the first run of FW3As, swapping the Carclo optics for their own proprietary optics. It turns out the issue was with Carclo’s supply, not with a cost cutting measure from Lumintop. The same was true of an issue with the FETs, where some version had a lower quality FET than the original Infineon. That was also a supply issue. (According to Lumintop of course, who you may choose not to believe if you wish.)
The gradual improvements Lumintop has made to the FW3A also contradict this theory of the case. If they really just wanted to water down the product and increase their margins, why go back to using the Carclo optics + glass as soon as it was available? Why did they add tailcap retaining rings and eventually both a retaining ring and an extra contact ring (as my latest version FW3A has)? Why develop the FW3E at all? (Which I personally think is an unnecessary product that will likely not be successful, but it’s an honest attempt to solve the FW problems.)
Now Lumintop is clearly not blameless, I am quite miffed at the FW1A reflector issue, I have 1 early version FW1A with the good reflector and wish I could get another. But even that I don’t see as outside the bounds of what any other manufacturer would do. The performance difference is minimal especially for the general user, in fact the average user probably prefers the newer reflector as the hotspot is larger and less of a pencil beam. I doubt Lumintop saves much, if any, money from having the FW1A and Pro share the same reflector.
Who knows what the FW3A project would have looked like with another manufacturer, perhaps it could have been better. Nothing is perfect in this world and Lumintop could have, probably still could, QC them more tightly. But the light was 30 or 35 dollars when it came out—there’s no way Lumintop was making a big margin with that low of a price. Even now, I certainly cannot say the FW series is no longer recommended. The price for performance is still quite fine. Of my several dozen EDC flashlights I still carry my 6 FW series lights quite a bit. I do prefer my KRs for pure performance but they are also like twice the weight and bulk, and the clip is much worse for carry.
Just one man’s opinion, for what it’s worth. TLDR, I would not allow concerns about the inner tube fiddliness to dissuade you from buying an FW3A, unless even such a minor mod as a little sandpaper lapping is not within your comfort zone. If nothing else, Lumintop is still using the nicest bins of SST-20 I have seen of a major manufacturer, unless that has changed. If I could only have one EDC flashlight (and it had to be stock, no mods) I think it would have to be an FW3A, for my use case at least.
