Coleman 6AA XM-L Spotted at Walmart!

Last night I spotted the following Coleman 6AA XM-L (looks like XM-L to me). Comes with 6 Duracell alkalines (so it's obviously designed to run ok on alkalines). I compared this to the XM-L available at Lowes and that one is $59.97 and requires (3) 123A batteries. This coleman on 6AA's is a whole lot more convenient.

I really like the 6AA format and the specs sound really good (2 mode: 500 lumens for 6.5hours on high, 287 lumens for 27.25hours). Price is kind of steep at $49.88. I no longer see the 6AA Coleman Max Bubba (XR-E or XP-E I think), so I wonder if this is it's replacement. Anyone else spotted this? Anyone game?


More like the replacement for this:

Can almost get a ITP polestar for that.

Interesting. I've never seen that one.


Here’s a thread at CPF:

I seen that one at Walmart the other day. Not a bad light for the US compared to all the other ones we have.

That was my thought. Actually pretty decent output and runtime, although I bet it's not regulated for constant lumen output and just starts at 500 lumens and fades. Still think price is too steep for the common public to buy many. And why is it worth $49.88??? Nothing special about it. Probably a ton of markup on it! They could really give Maglite a run for their money if they wanted to - more output, longer runtime on cheaper cells.


I agree. But it is a start.

OK, just got back from Wallmart….the taillcap current draws from the CT-50 using 6 fresh durraloops is 1.5 amps on high and .36 amps on low.Remember that the light is set up 2p3s and runs just fine with only 3aa’s.White wall hunting the CT-50 appears overall brighter than the PA40 with a much more intense and tighter hot spot.The spill light from both lights appears to be the same.The light is heavily built and tailstands almost as well as the HD2010.Tailstanding on low mode would light up a room very well for a good while….may get to test this next week!-Rick

Thanks for taking one for the team RAW74! So 1.5A on high . . . that works out about right for 500 lumens. Wonder what you get on alkalines (hint hint).

So it's more a thrower than a flooder? Or good blend of both? How's the build quality? Also - how is mode changing done? Half clicks? Full clicks? (Like so many consumer lights)


Ok, Garry…I took some measurements with the Duracells it came with.I get 1.8 amps on high that quickly starts to sag, down to 1.67 in ten seconds!On low it starts at .54 amps, but also starts to sag.Tried just running one of the three cell banks on high and it starts at 1.5 amps but falls off a cliff very quickly, def. gonna need 6 cells if you want to run alkalines for any amount of time. The build is very good, the cells slide into tubes in the body of the light…no seperate carrier(yea!)The only downside some would say is the plastic lense…but I have broken several glass C8 lenses at work so I don’t mind plastic that much.(until it gets badly scratched)-Rick

Thanks Rick! They are probably driving it about as hard as they can get away with for alkalines is my guess.


Nice find Garry

Thanks for the info Rick.

Would love to know or see what the heatsinking is like.

50 is a little steep, imo…but then, no waiting, easy returns, etc.

I’ve had my eye on the B&D copy of the FatMax xm-l spotlight at my local wal mart. I’m hoping it is the same as the stanley, except the orange/black color, which I prefer…

whichever of the three goes on sale for black friday/christmas will be mine :slight_smile:

Ya, I agree they have set the drive current about as high as practical for Alkaline use.I like this light, the beam is very clean with no rings/off tints.It will be a good thrower with useable amount of spill.By the way,Wallmart was very fun this morning!I love watching people panic buy stuff they should already have!-Rick

Hey dthrckt, I am going to run the light an hour or so to see how much heat gets transfered to the body. That should give a clue to the emmiter heatsinking…It dosen’t appear that this guy can be taken apart easily so thats the best I can do.Where are you in NY, I grew up in a small town not far from Skaneateles lake.-Rick

Ok…ran the light for an hour on high with duraloops. Starting temp. was 75F and the head is now at 93F.For a light of this mass with an xm-l driven at 1.5 amps I would have to say this seems to be about right.Heatsinking appears to be good with no diminish in output that I can tell.

This is just the Coleman MC-E “500 lumen” (more like 320 and 125, hi and low), with an XM-L. Specs and packaging and all are the same.

Those lazy-ass ANSI people! I really hate them!

The MC-E one on high does diminish, but it takes more than an hour. Low appears regulated. It should gradually diminish on high after 4 hours. Mom spent $52 on it at the end of 2010 as a Christmas gift. That’s the only reason I still have it — and it’s an AA light. But any DX MC-E drop-in or 1 x 18650 will outperform it.

How is the output? Take beamshots. My MC-E is greenish and fugly.

Hi Rusty, I haven’t evolved to the point of pictures yet but I can say that the ratings seem to be correct if not a bit lower than actual!Compare to my Jetbeam PA40(rated at 468 lum.) it is brighter.The beam has a smooth, tight hotspot with a even spill.Tint is between CW and NW, about the same as the PA40.There are no rings in the beam and the only tint change is the slighly blue spill area, which all of my XM-l lights seem to have.I have to say I am starting to actually really like this light….until my Fenix TK41 gets here!And yes, all my hard driven Li-ion lights will still kick it’s A$$.

Interesting on the heat, Rick.

I’m mostly wondering for mod potential, but if I buy this light it will probably end up a (stock) gift (even though i love AA). so, as long as performance is decent it won’t matter if its easy to mod.

Oh, and I just moved from East Syracuse to Delhi (20 miles south of Oneonta) at the end of the summer.

The local walmart’s flashlight aisle saw a radical makeover recently. 50 bux is really steep for what is probably a direct drive or mostly unregulated light (like RAW noted, no way will 63s2P alkaline AAs hold up long at all).

I laugh a little when I look at most brick+mortar manufacturers’ ANSI specs. If they’re gonna follow ANSI standards, manufacturers should be required to have a disclaimer explaining how tests are conducted (do any of them do that?) Or a plot of runtime vs. output. That would be very sweet.

Test numbers don’t mean that much if they don’t explain how they extrapolate them, so the average person doesn’t quite get the performance they might perceive to be getting.

Looks like a nice light though, don’t get me wrong. I just hate seeing ‘standards’ that really obfuscate the truth.