+1
Guys I tested the light at 3000 at startup and it still had 2850otf at 30sec. It was barely dropping after 15sec., so that power level was about where it was staying for awhile. Thats 650 more then my U2 SRK put out testing the same day. That 2850 equals 950otf per emitter. Thats not too bad. I don’t think the lack of NR lense or the battery carrier is holding it back too much.
I read somewhere 32600 can be used with TK70, just need to have one dummy cell. 2100 mentioned he used 32600 with his TK70.
But I am not sure he is using the 3.2V or 3.7V 32600 though.
I’m really not trying to be critical of the BTU. It is a well made lights in many aspects. I feel they cut corners in a few areas. RDR do you own a 70? I am a big fan of the plunger lites. They have awesome flood. I guess With the higher specs and all the hoopla I was expecting the BTU to blow away the 70. To me, it just doesn’t do that. I still really like both lights. They have advantages in different areas. The BTU with LI Batteries & compacr size. The 70 with its ability to use regular D batteries is a big plus to me. The downside of the 70? The NI-MH batteries don’t fare well in the cold.
Nope I don’t own a TK. I like them, but never bought one yet. I personally didn’t expect it to blow away the TK70. I thought it would likely edge by it in power and do about the same throw. And that’s pretty much what it does. I just wanted a very powerful and throwy light, but compact at the same time. Since the BTU fit that bill I find the price being similar to the TK70 and TK75 to be a fair price. It is after all similar styled and powered. Though its slight edge over both in power and throw in one to counter balances the fact that BTU is an unknown manufacturer. I was trying to choose between it and the TK75 which I like a lot. 400 more lumen, 100m more throw, and much better high after turbo, won me over on the BTU vs the nicer look and fenix name of the TK. But I can certainly understand others choosing the TK’s.
I understand completely. I know the stats of both. My opinion is the exact opposite of yours though. Even though the BTU looks superior on paper. In real time looking at them. It appears to me the TK has the slight edge… I will try to get some pictures this weekend.
Hahahah! You know, in all seriousness, the button for it should have been up by the head directly under where the thumb falls when you are holding it. It is, after all, the beauty of the shocker that all points are covered. 
The Whiter of the two is the Fenix. Distance 5 feet. The BTU is on Turbo ( 3000 Lumens ) The TK70 is on (2200 lumens)
Same distance. Side by side. The Fenix’s ‘Hotspot’ is about twice size of the BTU’s. The BTU at 3000 lumens can’t compete with the Fenix’s 2200 lumen. I have no biased here. They are both my lights. I like em both and have no reason to lean either way.
It looks like the TK70 smokes the BTU by those pictures.
I am going to put fresh batteries in the BTU …. Then take a couple more pics.
Dale, can you post a picture where they are next to each other in one picture. (The hotspots i mean)
If you check the previous page… I posted two like that. 
I think the fresh batteries helped the BTU… But IMHO the TK70 is still besting it. The Fenix is set at 2200 lumens… The BTU at 3000 Lumens
Thanks for the label. :P What batteries are you using in the BTU?
I didn’t trust the ultrafires . Man! I really like that i4 charger…
Dale, I'll bet you it will be brighter with the xtars.
It may be brighter. But I seriously doubt it’s gonna upset the 70.
Wanna keep this where it can be seen… LOL
At start of thread…. And Mrs D was holding the light… LOL ( not that you can see her )