I do have a request for product improvement. I have two of the latest versions of the M2, and while they are great in so many ways, there are a few things I’d love to see in the future…
Supply ’pan head’ screws in place of the flat head type for clamping the mcpcb. The original setup forced the LED off center when tightened down and made it impossible to get a good beam. I swapped in some pan head screws and was finally able to clamp the board and have it centered at the same time.
Also, I’d love to see a forward clicky switch and maybe a rubber tactical grip ring for the light. The lack of knurling really makes it a slippery light, especially when combined with the deeply recessed switch that forces your thumb to bend tightly. I might be a minority here but I love the sharp knurling on the C8+ and would like to see more of it, as well as forward clicky options in these larger thrower/tactical lights. Maybe we get an M2+ ?
Can the C8+ with 2700k SST-20 handle the 4.8 amp driver on some of the hotter models? My current one has a 2.8 amp driver and I was wondering if a driver change would make much difference in light or just heat.
So yes, up to 5A can be considered a great turbo mode. In any case, due to the high emitter Vf achieving such current with a linear or even plain MOSFET driver will only be possible under optimal conditions (high battery voltage, low component resistances and etc.).
P.S.: this or that, these are max 5A linear drivers.
I suppose it got confusing whether people like reverse or forward clicky…
The earlier batches of Convoy M21A (SST40) and Convoy S11 (XHP50.2) used a forward-clicky tailswitch (I still have these 2 models with forward-clicky version).
I have since then tried another Convoy S11 (SST40) and this S11 now uses a reverse-clicky tailswitch. (I could interchange the tailswitch of the other S11 to make one forward-clicky or reverse-clicky type.)
I’d like to change my M21A (SST40) from forward-clicky to reverse-clicky, but am not sure if it’s available (the reverse-clicky tailswitch that fits the M21A).
I suppose I’m more used to using reverse-clicky type tailswitch flashlights.
For multi-mode lights, reverse switch makes more sense. And for 95%+ of people it does as well. I understand why it’s the standard. There is however a distinct market and application for forward switches…
Ideally,a forward “tactical” switch should have a secondary method to change modes. Either with head twists or an e switch that only functions as mode switching.
Convoy used to make the L4, which is a form factor very close to what I desire.
If the grip ring was removed from the tailcap and offered as a removable rubber version, and it had a more ‘proud’ tail switch, then the rest is mostly cosmetic preferences.
On that point, less is more, and I rreaally miss the styling of old eagletac, nitecore, 4sevens, and even fenix (original tk11) tactical lights. Sleek, aggressive, attractive, and functional.
Lastly, if a 32mm - 44mm - 60mm head diameter series with deep, quality reflectors and thin bezels (maximizing reflector area per head diameter — like the C8 and M2 exceed at (m21c not so much)) and taking cues from Amutorch designs that keep overall length in check, we could have a winner in my book.
Problem is, you make the bezel too thin (especially Al and not SS), and any good solid bang can bust the glass and ruin the thread. A thicker bezel, especially made of SS, makes the front end of the light almost a hammer-head in ruggedness.
Even in a padded case, I accidentally dropped my camera maybe 2’ (if that) onto the sidewalk, and the oblique-angle hit just the right way not only shattered the clear (“UV”) protective filter, but also bent the flange enough that I can’t even get off the outer ring from the filter.
Well, so much for padded cases…
In a flashlight, if you want it to be “tactical”, you need to be able to crack open someone’s melon with a good hit. So you don’t also want to bust the front glass and bend the bezel, etc.
There are clearly limits to thinness and the tradeoff with ruggedness. I think the m2 has it right though. I think thinner would be an issue but don’t see much practical advantage going much thicker. If you have to chisel your way out of a jail cell then maybe you have bigger problems anyway. I’m personally not willing to experiment with my sample, but I bet the impact would have to be quite severe to render it inoperable.