BTU Shocker.. A review for the layman. ( Nightshots, Hotspot shots w TK70 )

223 posts / 0 new
Last post

Pages

Dale
Dale's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 10/19/2012 - 07:26
Posts: 3188
Location: WV
BTU Shocker.. A review for the layman. ( Nightshots, Hotspot shots w TK70 )
I know there are many wonderful reviews of this light. For fun, I thought I would do one for the less technically proficient. Many of these reviews contain highly skilled people doing down to the thousands of a inch measurements. DMM’s, Lumen meters, alien probes and assorted brain busting conclusions. Yeah, this won’t be like that. Upon receiving my BTU, the first thing you notice is the weight. It is a HEAVY flashlight. Some reviews I saw put it at around three pounds. But that’s too involved for me. It’s HEAVY, end of assessment.

As you can see it’s a hunk of metal. To me the beauty is in the simplicity. There are no magnetic rings or anything of that nature. For the technically challenged. The BTU breaks down into four parts. The head, Barrel, Tailcap, & Battery carriage.

The head

The Barrel & Tailcap

The Battery Carriage

Here are a few ‘Hot Spot’ Shots at 3 Feet. It has 4 levels ( Cycled thru by pressing the Clicky)
1. 80 lumens
2. 600 lumens
3. 2000 lumens
4. Turbo 3000 lumens

80 lumens

600 lumens

2000 lumens

Turbo 3000 lumens

My conclusion of the BTU Shocker… Very simple design & UI… The ‘glow in the dark’ clicky makes me feel all nostalgic. The downside? I feel this light is way over priced for what you are getting. I love the light. My feelings are if this light had a substantial price drop they would sell a ton of them.( Thank you JMPAUL ) Being that it runs LI batteries and not NI-MH. It has no problems with the cold . But all and all a very nice light if you can find one at the right price.

  • Disclaimer ** This review is not based on any other reviews. Any similarity is purely coincidental. Names have been changed to protect the innocent.
Edited by: Dale on 12/28/2012 - 18:24
Dale
Dale's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 10/19/2012 - 07:26
Posts: 3188
Location: WV

rikr
rikr's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 1 week ago
Joined: 09/03/2011 - 21:50
Posts: 2163
Location: Fenton, MO
Dale wrote:
Reserved for Night shots.

Good review Dale… Beer Beer

 

 

 New Collection / Old Collection

 
BetweenRides
BetweenRides's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 1 month ago
Joined: 01/02/2011 - 10:34
Posts: 2959
Location: Chicagoland, USA

I like it! Nice review, Dale. How about a pic of you holding it to get an idea of it's size?

Dale
Dale's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 10/19/2012 - 07:26
Posts: 3188
Location: WV

ILIKEFLASHLIGHTS
ILIKEFLASHLIGHTS's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 4 weeks ago
Joined: 08/04/2011 - 23:47
Posts: 5693
Location: southeast MO

Long live the Shocker!

Good job.

Dale
Dale's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 10/19/2012 - 07:26
Posts: 3188
Location: WV

Just kinda goofing off! Thought it might be fun to do a non technical review. LOL

BetweenRides
BetweenRides's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 1 month ago
Joined: 01/02/2011 - 10:34
Posts: 2959
Location: Chicagoland, USA

Thanks, Dale - that thing is huge! Reminds me of the heavy duty plunger we bought for my teenage son...Tongue Out

Dale
Dale's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 10/19/2012 - 07:26
Posts: 3188
Location: WV
BetweenRides wrote:

Thanks, Dale – that thing is huge! Reminds me of the heavy duty plunger we bought for my teenage son…Tongue Out

LOL… Yes it does have that resemblance. Sitting beside my TK70 it looks like a plunger assortment.
JohnnyMac
JohnnyMac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 1 day ago
Joined: 04/12/2011 - 16:03
Posts: 8879
Location: Eastern PA

Nice, easy review, Dale!

I really like the Shocker but you are right, it is way over-priced for what it is.  Can't get much simpler but it sure as heck performs!  $80 is about all I'd be willing to pay for one.  Maybe one day they will be that inexpensive.

FlashPilot
FlashPilot's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 hours 14 min ago
Joined: 05/10/2010 - 16:07
Posts: 4906
Location: USA

Id say that was a very descent review. Thanks Dale!

As for the price, it will probably dramatically drop if it remains in production. If it disappears, you just might have a very collectible light… so take good care of it.

Dale
Dale's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 10/19/2012 - 07:26
Posts: 3188
Location: WV

Her thoughts were $80… I thought for profit margin the could prolly charge $100 and still make a killing.. We all know they don’t have $180 worth of materials.

MRsDNF
MRsDNF's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 12/22/2011 - 21:18
Posts: 13473
Location: A light beam away from the missus in the land of Aus.

Thanks Dale. You hand shot really puts things in perspective.

 

djozz quotes, "it came with chinese lettering that is chinese to me".

                      "My man mousehole needs one too"

old4570 said "I'm not an expert , so don't suffer from any such technical restrictions".

Old-Lumens. Highly admired and cherished member of Budget Light Forum. 11.5.2011 - 20.12.16. RIP.

 

Dale
Dale's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 10/19/2012 - 07:26
Posts: 3188
Location: WV
MRsDNF wrote:

Thanks Dale. You hand shot really puts things in perspective.

YW… for someone with a small hand. I imagine this thing would be too big.

indenial
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
Joined: 06/01/2012 - 12:36
Posts: 483
Location: San Jose

That’s my kind of review!

Yeah, RIC, if you’re reading this, it’s over-priced! I’ll be first in line at $100. w/free shipping.

My name is indy, and I've been a flashaholic since 2004.

warmurf
warmurf's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: 01/15/2012 - 06:15
Posts: 280
Location: Brisbane Australia

Like to hear what the feel for the light is from a users perspective.

I still struggle with the 3 minutes on high. Too short.

Dale
Dale's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 10/19/2012 - 07:26
Posts: 3188
Location: WV

The 2000 lumen mode is more than sufficient. This sucker throws a lot of light. Turbo at 3000 lumens is just showing off. Three minutes is more than enough time for beamshots & big cheesy grins. Wink

rikr
rikr's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 1 week ago
Joined: 09/03/2011 - 21:50
Posts: 2163
Location: Fenton, MO
Dale wrote:
The 2000 lumen mode is more than sufficient. This sucker throws a lot of light. Turbo at 3000 lumens is just showing off. Three minutes is more than enough time for beamshots & big cheesy grins. Wink

+1 :bigsmile:

 

 

 New Collection / Old Collection

 
Tecmo
Tecmo's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: 09/30/2011 - 09:00
Posts: 1470
Location: Indiana

Nice! Now we just need a review for the Rayman.

Dale
Dale's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 10/19/2012 - 07:26
Posts: 3188
Location: WV

That one to you :bigsmile:

rdrfronty
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: 05/05/2012 - 11:45
Posts: 938
Location: Texas

Nice review Dale.
Ok, you guys stump me. I’ve seen it mentioned several times that some think this light is overpriced. Why? I agree it is a simple design and that the components themselves likely don’t justify the price. But the thing everybody seems to look past is the unmatched performance of this light. There is no other LED light on the market that matches the power and throw of this light. And on top of that you get a relatively compact design. Were talking about a 3000otf & 700m throwing light. Sure many manufactures could make a light with this setup – nice triple led using u2’s in deep reflectors and drive them fairly hard. But nobody is. Only close ones are the TK75 and the TK70. The first is a nice light, but is lacking in both power and throw. The second is lacking power, has fairly similar throw, but is twice the size. Lights like the king are a great deal in the $60 range. But your talking 800 less lumens and less than 1/2 the throw. Lights like the new blackshadow quad xml might match the power, but won’t even be in the ballpark with throw. SR95 might beat the throw, though barely, but it lacks 1000 lumens and costs over 2 times the prices. The Olight X6 will actually beat the power and even slightly beat the throw, but its 3 times the price and has an external battery pack. And I think that’s about the only light that even matches its numbers. So, same basic story with other manufactures – all either lack the power or lack the throw. I might be wrong, but I’m not aware of any.
So I personal think the light is well worth the price considering this light is THE current leader in the market when power, throw, and size are all considered. Simple design or not. These lights are BEASTS!
Sorry Dale, my little rant is over Smile

DENGOH
DENGOH's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 1 day ago
Joined: 10/06/2012 - 05:26
Posts: 2247

I think you are the very few persons think this light is NOT overpriced.
The reason could be you didn’t owned a TK70. If you compare it with TK70 side by side, the reflector, the finishing, the AR lens, the UI, BTU is really not worth the money you paid for it. Of course the only good thing for BTU is 3000 lumens for 3 minutes, but I won’t pay USD150 for it.

You need to take R&D cost and Material cost into calculation. Not just Lumens or Throw or Flood. Again, being budget light doesn’t mean it must copy other lights. BTU should have been done with proper design, its UI should be better, it should be using 4 batteries, and should use a good AR lens with such high price.

cool i'll see you when you get there

Dale
Dale's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 10/19/2012 - 07:26
Posts: 3188
Location: WV

Don’t get me wrong. Yes, it throws well. But not much more than my Tk70. ( Could be the different tints ) The compact design is a big plus. I am disappointed in the battery carrier. Imo they skimped on it. There is no center brace as with the TN31. Now in all fairness to the light… I haven’t been able to get any good distance shots in. The best so far is 100 yards. At that distance it and my 70 are almost equally matched. I guess I am a bit biased. After paying $110 for my TN31. I expected more from the BTU for it’s price. Not there is anything wrong with the BTU… Just perceptions & expectations I guess.

Dale
Dale's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 10/19/2012 - 07:26
Posts: 3188
Location: WV

DENGOH wrote:
I think you are the very few persons think this light is NOT overpriced.
The reason could be you didn’t owned a TK70. If you compare it with TK70 side by side, the reflector, the finishing, the AR lens, the UI, BTU is really not worth the money you paid for it. Of course the only good thing for BTU is 3000 lumens for 3 minutes, but I won’t pay USD150 for it.

You need to take R&D cost and Material cost into calculation. Not just Lumens or Throw or Flood. Again, being budget light doesn’t mean it must copy other lights. BTU should have been done with proper design, its UI should be better, it should be using 4 batteries, and should use a good AR lens with such high price.

I have to agree. Would have loved a 4 battery carrier. The thing that vexes me? The BTU at 3000 lumens is pretty much the same as the TK70 at 2200 lumens. The TN31 will best them both at 1147 lumens….
DENGOH
DENGOH's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 1 day ago
Joined: 10/06/2012 - 05:26
Posts: 2247

Hi Dale, you are the one with TK70 and BTU now.
So far no one do a proper direct comparison. Maybe you can do a white wall shot of two side by side, under expose them so that we can see the differences, or use software to see the differences.

cool i'll see you when you get there

Tecmo
Tecmo's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: 09/30/2011 - 09:00
Posts: 1470
Location: Indiana

So the tk70 is a good deal at $200…. but the BTU is smaller, brighter, and uses 18650 so it’s not worth 75% less?

I agree it should have ar lens and 4×18650.

Dale
Dale's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 10/19/2012 - 07:26
Posts: 3188
Location: WV

The BTU is $150 till the 30th…. It goes back up to $180 after that.

Dale
Dale's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 10/19/2012 - 07:26
Posts: 3188
Location: WV
DENGOH wrote:
Hi Dale, you are the one with TK70 and BTU now. So far no one do a proper direct comparison. Maybe you can do a white wall shot of two side by side, under expose them so that we can see the differences, or use software to see the differences.

I just came back from inside. There’s really no difference at 100 yards.

DENGOH
DENGOH's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 1 day ago
Joined: 10/06/2012 - 05:26
Posts: 2247

Tecmo wrote:
So the tk70 is a good deal at $200…. but the BTU is smaller, brighter, and uses 18650 so it’s not worth 75% less?

You can get TK70 at $175, and DALE got his at $150, of course that will be one of the lowest price.
But I must say that you can’t compare unknown BTU with Fenix which is a well known established reliable brand. Brand alone Fenix can already sell 25% more expensive than unknown brand because Fenix really put more cost into R&D to have good quality and reliability. But if you look at their newest TK75 with much better material and UI design, it is selling for USD170 during christmas sale. Can you imagine a unknown brand BTU selling at USD150 while an established brand selling at USD170?

By the way, between TK75 and BS Terminator, the latter is much better value to me.

cool i'll see you when you get there

rdrfronty
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: 05/05/2012 - 11:45
Posts: 938
Location: Texas

DENGOH wrote:
I think you are the very few persons think this light is NOT overpriced.
The reason could be you didn’t owned a TK70. If you compare it with TK70 side by side, the reflector, the finishing, the AR lens, the UI, BTU is really not worth the money you paid for it. Of course the only good thing for BTU is 3000 lumens for 3 minutes, but I won’t pay USD150 for it.

You need to take R&D cost and Material cost into calculation. Not just Lumens or Throw or Flood. Again, being budget light doesn’t mean it must copy other lights. BTU should have been done with proper design, its UI should be better, it should be using 4 batteries, and should use a good AR lens with such high price.


I do own a SR90 & an S18. In fact most of my other lights are not budget lights. In fact I only own about 4 or 5 “budget” lights, with the rest being, Olight, 4sevens, Eagletac, Thrunite, etc. And I find the quality on the BTU to be in the upper half of my “name” lights.
The finish on this light is perfect. The reflector is perfect. The interface I find to be very good for a powerful light. Better than my other power lights like the SRK, Ryobi HiD, and even my SR90. This light at least has a low you can actually use. The only negatives I can find, one Dale pointed out – the battery carrier is a little flimsy, and a AR lense would be nice. But the lense is a moot point when the existing one still outperforms everything else on the market.
And why 4 batteries? That would just add bulk or length. 3 is perfect. I have 3ea 3400mah batteries. I’m not going to use the light for search and rescue for hours on end. The 10,200mah worth of battery capacity it allows will give well over an hour on turbo and high. I have no desire or need to ever use 3000lumens for over that period.
And about the 3 min. only on turbo. Sure, but the 2200 lumens it drops to isn’t exactly weak. And this light I’d hearty enough I wouldn’t hesitate to kick it back on turbo as many times as needed. Which again with a high of 2200, I don’t think the need will happen to often.
So when I say this light is worth the cost, I truly believe it is. In fact I personally wouldn’t trade it for ANY other light on the market at any price. And no I’m not crazy. I just like it that much and I think it’s that good of a light.
rdrfronty
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Joined: 05/05/2012 - 11:45
Posts: 938
Location: Texas

Dale I would think your NW BTU to be very similar to throw and just slightly ahead or even in power to your TK70. I’m assume you lose perhaps 300otf or so with your T6’s vs the U2’s. So your likely in the 2400-2500otf. That I assume using the 2850otf I got at 30sec with my CW. The TK70 is 2200otf isn’t it? Of course variations in bins could but your TK up some and your BTU down some to make them about even.
But again I’m not knocking the TK70. I’ve always liked it. It is and always will be one of the best performing lights of the current era of LED lights. But I already had one monster sized light, the SR90, and didn’t want another one so large.
And I’ve had the BTU out playing in the 500-600m range. It’s no problem with this light.

Pages