Thank you for the kind words. Appreciate it.
Although I did not encounter any serious issue with the tail switch, I do think they need improvement on how far the switch needs to travel to actuate, IMHO, they got it right with the M2T. I think this is why some users don’t feel comfortable with the tail switch or some users might actually have a glitchy switch. For the legs, they can make the tail of M2R Pro Warrior compatible with MCC charger with an indent in the center of the switch, it’s a design decision. The 3 legs as it is now unable to support the weight of M2R Pro Warrior in a stable manner.
In terms of beam pattern, due to TIR lens, most of the lumens/output are being “collected” to give us a bigger brighter hotspot, so comparatively (to a reflector-based light, e.g. M2T Warrior), the spills is less bright and practically non-existent when our eyes are overwhelmed with the big bright hotspot, which in this case, it achieve its intended application: Tactical, but in situation where need a balance of both spills and spot, this is not the light, the Warrior-X and M2T Warrior will be more suitable.
Olight is taking in the inputs and suggestions about the bezel, and may have something planned in the pipeline. We shall wait and see.
They initially planned to support the use of standard battery as some members in our forum had pointed out, my “guess” is along the prototyping and engineering process, some design elements did not make it to the final production light. The changes of how M2R Pro Warrior carry the electric signal/current has over the older M2R Warrior could be the cause of this compromise.
Olight’s been made aware of the reported DOA issues posted at their facebook group couple of days ago when the poll was created. They are looking into the QC process and their customer service is handling all the reported cases. I don’t think Olight will come out and explain about their design but let’s see how it plays out over the next couple of weeks.
Thanks for reading. 
