Was there an optional driver for the BTU? Or is this it with the high power driver installed?
I give up on this conversation with you. You don’t like the BTU - fine, that’s your given right. I know its a good light and I’m the one who owns one. That’s all that matters. Done.
700m throw and 2880otf, great spill, nice fat spot - why do you feel it didn’t live up to its hype?
I wonder is it you have misunderstanding what is bench press.
Only 1% of people around me can bench press their weight, and only 3% of gym guys I have met can bench press their weight.
And maybe only 5% of people around me can bench press 90% of their weight.
I keep observed about this as I am kind of proud to be able to do that.
Cool down bro. It is just discussion. Fine with me if you think BTU is better. But I won’t keep quiet if I see something wrong about it.
The BTU. White target is 295m. Trees at the end on the side is 200m. The channel is about 15m wide. The BTU lights the entire field all the way to the target and then some by illuminating the trees easily on the side with its fat spot.
I'm sure the BTU is a fantastic light. I just don't like the style. I never liked the Fenix TK70 either. They both share (looks to share) the same ugly head.
I’m not upset. It’s just foolish statements that state a light driven at 3.8a x 3 LEDs, putting out 2880otf - “something is wrong with it”. That’s a foolish and incorrect statement. So nothing else I say will matter in this little tit for tat with you.
I own the BTU and prefer the BTU over the TK75. But I’m not foolish enough to claim its a better light than the TK75, or make a silly claim that the TK75 is weak and it only throws 600m. That’s because I know the TK75 is an excellent light. Both lights have their pluses and minuses. Both are great lights and very equal in what they give you for your dollar. And I fully respect and understand that most people here will likely prefer the TK75. Light weight, name brand, side clicky are great selling features. But anybody that thinks the BTU is bad, something wrong with it, whatever along these lines, are quite simply clueless on flashlights and what it takes to make them perform at the extremes these lights operate at.
Agreed. The BTU is kinda like a bulldog in my eyes. People either think they are ugly or so ugly they are adorable. The fat, squatty, hefty light appeals to me. Just like the SRK appeals to some and not to others.
Maybe it is your love for BTU have blinded you that you refuse to look at it objectively. I am just stating the fact driven at 3.8A per led, BTU output must not get below TK75. Else most probably it means problems below:
1.Heat sag
2.Battery voltage sag
3.BTU is not really U2, but T6
XML-2 U2 
Ok, sure your right 
Dale, no one can be 100% sure. Yours can be XML2 T5. They need to be properly measured to confirm.
From U2 to T5, every led can have a saving of 3 dollars. 3 LED will be 9 dollars saving for seller. This is not new scam for XML flashlights.
I had this modded… I know exactly whats in it .
Dale I wish you had a way of checking the output on your XML2 upgrade. Would like to see how much the change really makes. I know yours looks really good. A 10 percent increase would be very nice. Not sure if it would be worth me upgrading from a U2 though. NW T6 to XML2 U2 should be close to 20-25% jump. That’s really cool there.
Does anybody have the actually rated numbers of the U2 vs the xml2? Is it like 5-10-15% increase?
That is cool. Just to highlight potential scam especially flashlights not performing as it should be.
BTU problems :
1.Heat sag >>> IMO BTU transfer heat better than TK75
2.Battery voltage sag >>> Yes, 3.8A to LED while Vbat load about 3.5V- and Vled about 3.4V-
edit : plus Vdrop at Circuit and resistance at tailcap switch, springs (That why I like BTU with 4x18650s)
-IMO solder wires to springs to reduce resistance, I did almost my flashlights
3.IMO BTU is really U2
4.REMEMBER that Reflector(TK75 is better ) and lens(not AR) cut off OTF 5-10%
I know I just last week I got a couple C8’s modded with XML U3’s. 3.8a drivers mounted on brass pills. Tailcap reads about 3.74a range on both lights with the same 3400mah protected Keeppowers. Both lights tested yesterday right at 960otf after 30sec. That is exactly what the BTU does - 960otf per U2 = 2880otf = the exact number we got. So yes I’m confident the light has U2’s and is performing just fine.
Since most owners are convinced heat sag and LED bin are not issues, then it might be 3*18650 and reflector and lens causing lower OTF. These three things are picked up before but claimed to be not an issue. But now it has high potential to cause BTU not performing. If possible, I suggest to do things below before testing to see real performance of BTU:
1.Use 3 good unprotected batteries
2.Solder wires on spring
3.Remove the lens
“BTU not performing” - you do understand the difference between the two lights is less than 1.6 %? That’s like saying a single xpg cr123 light running at 288otf because your friend has one that does 292otf. Seriously, do you think even name brand ANSI lights don’t vary more than that? I KNOW they do. I’ve tested 50+ lights for a total of perhaps 3-400 lumen tests. Any given light will vary more than that from one test to the next.
The BTU is performing properly. The TK75 is performing properly. Both are dead on for what U2’s should be doing at the amperage they are driven at.