Good machining, o-ring fit and etc.? I was considering one as well as a host for some abject stupidity (https://budgetlightforum.com/t/-/22551).
Appears identical to the Ultrafire-branded ones, except the UF uses XML2 only in the gold version, and XML in the black one.
Any chance for comparison shots, showing its beam next to the older SRK’s beam (preferrably a 3-thyristor driver one)?
What do you think about the lathe work, are the threads of satisfying quality? Has the anodisation been done nicely (no, forget about that, as it’ll become scratched, anyway)? Did they really use XM-L2 leds?
I like my 1st gen SRK very much, and my best friend even loves his with indiscriminate passion. You should see him taking the dog walkies at nights, dashing hither and tither at a staggering walk, giggling like a schoolgirl as his SRK blasts photons in all directions. Mind you, we’re not talking about a barely adolescent dopehead, here; but about a grown man, electrical engineering technician, married and father of two. He recently considered buying a TM26 (at £ 230.00 a pop!), and so I surely have to lead him back to the road of budget. Your recommendation might just be the ticket.
It seems pretty decent to me, but some people might not like it as well. The fins on the base are cut so they are a bit sharp but you don’t notice it when carrying. The anodizing is that rather smooth feeling stuff, if you know what I mean. The O ring is fine and it threads nicely, came pre-lubed. It might give people trouble if they are using the longest 18650’s but I also like that because I run unprotected batteries and they fit perfectly and make great contact.
I sold my other SRK’s the only other small Sky Ray triple I have has been modded beyond recognition. (de-domed and over 3,000 lumens) In all honestly I don’t think you would see any major improvement over the original SRK. I like it better than the Sky Ray 6x because of the better beam pattern, it’s very floody with a large hotspot and smooth beam. But it doesn’t outhrow the original SRK with the good driver and it’s not more lumens either or if it is it’s not by much. What it is is a great flooder that doesn’t heat up as fast as the original.
This looks like a fun one to try dedoming 2 or 3 of the emitters on, to warm it up and increase the throw a bit.
Yep I thought of that too. Probably after that new flashlight smell wears off. 
Yup, it’ll probably be unrecognizable here in a couple days!
What made you get this one over the UF version?
I wanted a black one with XM-L2’s and thought I would try it out. I really had planned on gutting it out anyway.
Thanks for confirming that this version does not have that ring in the beam.
It would be interesting to see what kind of driver this is using and some tailcap amperage draw readings.
When you take it apart please post some pictures with the driver and the insides of this version.
My exact same light is on the way, I hope the driver is mod friendly, i would like to boost the current up a little more.
How do flat top batteries work? Is it a different design then a normal SRK? My Pana NCR18650B’s don’t work at all in my original SRK, I had to solder blob them 
-Jamie M.
Can I have some more information about the low-mode please.
I’ve got an SRK (who knows what version!), and the low mode has a very noticeable PWM - how about this one?
Any comment on the run-time on high?
Thanks
I use Sony unprotected and their positive end is raised up enough to make good contact. The design is the same but the springs are keeping the battery up higher.
I really wouldn’t be the person to ask about PWM I never really notice it unless it’s snowing out and even then I couldn’t tell you if it was “bad” or not. I would assume it’s the same as any of them.
I always wonder when people say that, I can understand not finding it bothersome in general use but a quick wave of the hand through the path of the beam is all it should take to identify obvious PWMing. At least it is for me, if I see strobed images of my hand it’s bad, if it’s smooth as butter it’s good. If I have to work hard and swing my hand very fast to detect any flicker then it’s PWM but at a fast enough Hz that even I don’t really mind it in general use.
The trick is not to follow your hand with your eyes, focus on something in the distance and then flick your hand through the beam. Should be obvious then just like the snow 
Just tried it on a couple lights and I can’t see it, I have do it before with a fan and I can’t see it with them either.
yes, pretty much agree with what Linus wrote.
I see about 20 copies of my finger if I wave across the front of my SRK on low. Which for me is annoying (not to mention scary/dangerous if you’re working on rotating machinery - or car engines)
I have a few other flashlights which presumably control power by PWM - but it’s completely invisible to me.
What I don’t know is if peoples eyes have different thresholds to this sort of thing.
Anyway - any info gratefully received.
STL
Thanks. appreciated. STL
That’s interesting, you must be immune to strobing…any extensive disco/rave experiences in your past? :party:
The fan test can be hit and miss depending on it’s rotational speed and the frequency of the PWM. In the worst case you may not notice anything at all while in the best case scenario it could actually make the fan appear to be completely stopped or spinning at a totally different speed to reality. I find that quite freaky at times.
Digital cameras get really unhappy in the presence of low frequency PWM.
I find the best way to see PWM, aside from a fan, is when walking outdoors. Pan the beam across the grass and defocus your eyes while following the beam, not the grass. A light with PWM will make the grass look like it is digital. It might not make sense until you do it but once you see it you will say "yeah, digital is exactly what it looks like". A light without PWM will leave the grass in the beam spot a blurr.