Picked up the light from the DHL depot at 7:30 PM, home by 8 PM. Pics, testing, moderate tear down, write-up. Went to bed by 2 AM, up by 6 AM for work... 
Your a better man than I. 
Thanks Tom!
Thanks for the review! It seems like they have some polishing to do for the next version…
Hey Tom, can you tell me what’s up with the apparent gap at the very back end of the tail cap? Is that a machined gap or is it something to do with the threading?
It's a heat sink fin 
. Yes, machined in - suppose for style, but also functions to give clearance to a lanyard, lanyard hole on the end cap - no lanyard included though. Just realized the pocket clip wasn't included with mine 
.
Well alrighty then! lol
Seemed odd at first.
Seems odder now.
Thank you, very useful review.
I have the same color also with no dimple on the tailcap.
I got a clip with mine, not sure if Ill use it.
I have some 26650 litto kalas on the way will there be any change in performance with the 26650’s?
Dunno yet - tried a 26350 and it looked decent, not measured yet. Just freed up - hopefully will get some more #'s up soon.
Update: more pics added. I did the testing on a 26350 cell. Will post #'s, not sure when. Basically these are the results:
- on fully charged 26350, lumens and throw is virtually the same as the 26650, but tail amps measures higher: 6.6A on 26350 vs. 6.0A on 26650 LK 5000
- as the 26350 discharges, tail amps goes up. I measurd close to 8A at one point
- discharging the 26350 further, Turbo starts to have problems. At about 3.7v, I noticed a sharp 12A spike initially, then it backs off to lo-lo mode, and the RED indicator comes on. The pull of high amps triggers the driver in thinking it's low voltage, so LVP kicks in. This is not surprising, since the 26350 cells are not high amp IMR - they perform worse than a SONY GA 18650 cell in my testing.
Also did some short runtime tests - 2 mins on turbo, the light gets very hot, confirmed at 2 minutes it drops to hi mode. Backing down to hi mode probably won't cool it off much.
Expecting a 12V boost from an 26350 is probably asking way too much. 
8A at 1.5A on the LED
More updates to the OP. I did some further tests. Clearly the driver is intelligent in trying to maintain constant output as the cell drains, but struggles to keep the max level of output. The 26350 cell has limits in capacity and relatively high internel resistance and lacking high amps drain capability. On a good 26650, it does much better, but still the heat is a limiting factor.
Basically, going from hi to turbo doubles the amps from the cell, but only produces ~50% more output. At 2 minutes on turbo, the light is quite hot - I was concerned if I could hold it to turn it off.
I did a 6 minute test on hi using a 26350 @3.94v: output stabilizes at 935 lumens from ~1-6 minutes, but still gets fairly hot. The 26350 though will draw more amps even on hi then a 26650, and also draws more amps the more it's depleted. After this 6 minute test, the cell was @3.76v and on hi, the tail amps read 3.22A (clamp meter). Turbo worked intermittently on the clamp meter, and when it worked, it measured: 7.38A. When it didn't work, I got the 12A spike and output dropped to lo-lo mode.
As newly added to the OP, no - not different with both cells fully charged, but the LK 26650 is a great cell, so less amps is drawn and Turbo will be able to run a whole lot more on a single charge.
Really appreciate the testing on this one Tom.
I’m gonna have to pass on this light. I don’t like the ~300% boost from a single cell and the reversal of top current from a weak cell as compared to top current from a fresh cell. Output is too low to justify the dangers in my opinion.
For the size of this BTU, I have multiple lights that out perform it in similar or smaller package. Probably just me though…
Yea, it sure is opposite to what we do with FET based drivers, but some like the fact a steady output is maintained over the discharge period - this is common in the supposedly 'better' buck or boost drivers. Unfortunately I didn't do a full discharge test on the LK 26650, so don't know how it will behave when it gets down low, but I'd suspect it will do much better than the 26350. A 12A drain should be no problem on a LK cell, but even so, 12A drain might not be necessary on tke LK, as it is for the weaker 26350 cell.
The boost was from 6.6A (fully charged 4.22v) to 12A (3.76v) only for the 26350 cell, so it was an 81% boost - not sure where you see 300%? I don't "think" this will occur with the LK 26650 cell.
For me this light is much more practical with a 26650 cell. The boost driver is not quite there yet. I would be interested in a driver replacement if RIC can come up with an improved version, but if not, it may be turned into a XPL single, or potential triple/quad XPL, runnig Narsil.
My tested version is the NW HI, though, might be the lowest possible output of the 4 variations offered (no bin info), I really wanted the NW HD...
He just lowered the price, here: http://www.cnqualitygoods.com/goods.php?id=2244
I got the 300% from the XHP-35 being a 12V emitter instead of a 3V, still wrong huh? lol Getting older by the minute, turned 54 yesterday. But still, numbers be danged, this kind of boost is very tough on a cell and at it’s weakest point.
How many amps is the emitter actually seeing? This, in comparison to what the cell is being hit with… I’d much rather push an XP-L hard for that lumens output and have the output drop as the cell dies. Our eyes readily adapt to a falling light source, I don’t usually see a need for continuous output, especially at the price, but that’s possibly just me.
I have a lifelong habit of not asking anyone or anything to perform a task I myself am loathe to do. Carrying the heaviest load when at it’s weakest goes against the grain for me. Like scheduling a serious surgery at the end of the day when the doctor is already tired, no thank you! 
(it’s a personal thing, I know, but whatryagonnado?) [might be an interesting concept, ask the sprinters in the Olympics to run their race, then pit the top three finishers against each other in an immediate re-do, see how they hold up. Bet we wouldn’t see any records broken in that Finals-final. ]
I pretty much agree with you, but I can understand the value of regulated output for many, but you get that regulation for a cost: loss of power, lower efficiency, and of course turbo mode means a high amp draw in a light like this. Could make the same argument with the new Zebra XHP-35: http://www.zebralight.com/SC600-Mk-III-18650-XHP35-Flashlight-Cool-White_p_174.html, but it doesn't have a turbo mode per say, but it knocks down output based on temperature. It's hard to justify the efficiency of an XHP35 vs. an XPL when the boost drivers lose so mich power.
Post #2 added with further info and tweaks.
I was kind of surprised to see you a) put the same non-DTP back in and b) sand the BOTTOM of the centering ring instead of the top. If the centering ring was protruding too far into the reflector the top needs to be sanded. By removing material from the bottom you allow the reflector to sit deeper in the head, perhaps closer to a short on the mcpcb.
a) not sure if I had a XHP-35 MCPCB? Dunno - is it anything special?
b) mostly sanded the top, only little the bottom. You are right - I agree. Bottom was sanded only to assure the surface being flat, no more. kapton tape protects the solder contacts.
Results are pretty good though. Never worked with an XHP-35 - dunno what MCPCB to use.