Here's Some 200yd XM-L Thrower Beamshots

Decided to take some 200yds beamshot comparisons with my better XM-L throwers just to see the outcome at a farther distance. These were taken on 9x optical zoom and a shutter speed of 1.5" and a focal of 4. ISO was 200. And we are looking at the trees behind the last electric pole just so you know.

Sunwayman T40CS 200yds

Olight M3X 200yds

Fenix TK41 200yds

Crelant 7G5 200yds

ThruNite Catapult V3 200yds

Jetbeam BC40 200yds

Olight SR51 200yds

Good Pictures ILIKE. I dont think you have your BC40 anymore. It would be good to see it in there if you do. Thanks.

Just for you I'll post it.

And I can honestly say that the 7G5 didn't come out on top on this one.

Thanks mate. I have one on order but yes it is out of stock.

Looks like the M3X comes out on top

T40CS and TK41 are next and they look the same pretty much.

7G5 is next

Catapult is next and the BC40 is last.

If you look at the trees in the background and slightly to the right you can tell a slight difference.

The Catapult and the Jetbeam are a step and a step and a half behind the others which are all very close.

Good Job on the photos.

Well it's close, but to me the Sunwayman T40CS is the winner and the Olight M3X is 2nd.

Ok that's too close to call.

Let me go get a more focused shot with the M3X to make it fair.

^ Yes, it's definetely close... Perhaps someone will create an animated mouseover-gif of T40CS and M3X soon so we all will see the small difference from the taller tree behind the third electric pole.

Well that one will have to stay. I took 6 more and not 1 was any better. So it's between the M3X and T40Cs. And I just don't know.

Now I wonder why the 7G5 didn't win? I even took a bunch more to give it a fair shake with the 7G5 and not 1 would beat the M3X or T40CS. So I'm guessing I can't say the 7G5 is my best XM-L thrower. This really suprised me.

I even think the SR51 beat the 7G5.

And you know, I just wanted to say that it was a post form Rockspider on here that made me go do this. I guess he was right.

Here's what he said in my other thread.


Don't take me wrong, I have no intention to bash this thread. I really thanks ILF for all the job done with this thread.

But if this is a throwers game, judging by a mere distance 60yds isn't too close to really eveluate throw, don't you think?

I've never taken beamshot pictures, so I admit do not know if there's any limiting factor due to how camera sees and evaluate light compared to what eyes can see.

ILF, you need to look at the 3rd white pole of the M3X vs 7G5.

The white fence of the M3X is brighter. But the white pole (which is farther) of the 7G5 picture is very slightly brighter than the one in M3X. Uh oh...

60 yds is already pretty representative and let the beam spread out. It is the HIDs/short arcs that need really long distances. I have also mentioned quite a few times that the tint/WB of the cam/LCD plays a huge part. In fact i was looking at pictures in my office's LCDs and it was so different on the notebook and 24" LCD, some daylight pictures are brighter on the LCD but some nighttime pictures are brighter on the notebook.

So what gives? There is no constant at all...

Just buy a meter and be done with it. :)

2100, I see what you mean. But I'm also looking at the woods behind it. Seems to me that the woods is lit up better on the T40CS and M3X shots. But I know your smarter than I am on this. But I just did this for fun. It gets me out of the house as well.

Lux measurements on CPF:

Was it you "2100" who posted these just over a month ago? Do you really think the order will be much different if ILF bought a lux meter of his own although the readings may vary a bit of course?

Hmm... deeper reflector (?), different reflector texture (?), harder driven (?), just a bit more lux measured from 8m distance - perhaps the theory and perceivable practice are still a bit different... On the other hand it's good that not so many of are able to see the details in 200m distance at least with our bare eyes - not even in daylight. When using binoculars etc. it's a bit different story of course.

Thanks for the pic ILIKE. Your pics put a good perspective on the different lights at 200 meters. Cheers.

Hey no problem. I enjoyed doing it. It's all in fun, and 2100 like I said is one smart dude. And I do see what he is saying about the last electric pole on the 7G5 being brighter. I just find it odd that I took I don't know how many pictures with the 7G5 trying to get a better outcome here on the light on the trees and it just wouldn't light it up as good as the M3X or T40CS. Now I'm not saying they are the clear winner here, but those trees are farther than the last electric pole. Just something to think about.

^ Maybe it's simply (like you just said in other words) that the two seem to throw a bit further (?) - or what else could it be? Sometimes it's all about the maximum throw, sometimes just seeing the last electric pole is enough.

Its always hard to tell at 200yds. Even a tiny difference in aiming point can destort the perceived result and no matter how rigidly mounted is the tripod or whatever one is using different body styles make perfect alignment impossible. For me the Crelant wins due to brightness at the third poll. But that could be down to the Crelant being aimed more towards it. Personally I feel that when comparing throw a small target is required (such as that pole). Whichever light illuminates it best wins as regards pure throw.

Its getting hard these days (since birth of the XM-L) to ever compare throwers because folks now seem more interested in what I would call "flood-throw" rather than pure throw and the two are very, very different. Folks now expect a thrower to literally flood a distant target.

I have no doubts that my Trustfire USA168 (a HS-802 clone) with its XR-E R2 insanely overdriven at 2.2A, would light the third pole far, far better than any of the above lights but does that make it a better thrower than any of them? I would say, Yes, if we are using the term throw. But due to its pencil beam it does not make it the best "flood-thrower". I really think its time that we started using the two different terms because these days just using the term thrower is far too vague.

Since I acquired the TrustFire X9, I've learned the importance of image clarity (contrast & sharpness) within throwing performance. Even if the target may be bright enough, the spill can spoil image quality, reducing the overall recognition of the distant target, which, after all, is the primary goal for a thrower.

Now that I'm aware of this phenomenon, I can differentiate even my XR-E throwers on that basis.