XML-T6 LEDs STlLL in a bunch of torches.......

LED Flashlights – General Info
1

I have a lot of lights with the good ol’ XML-T6 still in them with some U2’s here and there. I gotta tell ya they may not be 12 cylinder Torch Ferrari’s in this era of Master Blasters butt they still impress me.

Am I hopelessly antiquated? Maybe there should be an Old Fart BLF. I mean having an XML-T6 around here is almost like driving a Model A in the fast lane. I’m gonna get honked and then waved at with one finger. :open_mouth:

So does the venerable XML-T6 really get blown out of the water these days? :student:

2

3

Hey I resemble that remark! :blush:

4

And it only took me five years to make fun of your user name.

I'm a quick one.

5

On topic, XM-L puts out a lot more light than its predecessors.

And XM-L2 and XP-L aren't that much brighter than XM-L.

So I think that XM-L isn't that bad.

Anything much brighter is usually more expensive, or uses more than one Li-Ion cell.

So I stick to the "lesser" emitters.

6

So what you’re saying is that I’m Still Happening??!

Woohoo!!!

(Remember that scene in Dumb & Dumber where Jim Carrey gets told by the babe that there’s one in a million chance they’re gonna get together?)

:heart_eyes:

7

Honestly if you’re buying a new light today with an “XM-L T6” in it, then you’re probably actually getting a latticebrite clone that isn’t very good. Obviously that doesn’t apply if you’ve had the light for half a decade, and if that’s the case then the original XM-L T6 is still a fine emitter, assuming lumens is all you’re after. The real reason to consider newer emitters really isn’t about output, its about tint. The older XM-L T6 lights were most often low-cri and very cool white. No thanks.

8

Yeah butt even if they are low-cri for the most part I don’t see green or purple tints in mine so they got that going for them.

Overall considering how old this emitter is it’s still pretty impressive. They’re kinda like older (1970 & under) chevy big blocks (rats). They can still kick some azz.

9

I’m not sure if if was the t6 or older then that but the older xml2s could take more current. XML to xml2 was only 15 percent brighter for the first ones. Now the u3 and u4 bins are a lot brighter. But honestly. If you put a xml2 next to a XML and said which beam is which people probably couldn’t tell you. There nice and cheap emitters to practice dedoming on. And when gifting a light to someone. I like the beam the XML leds put out and still use them sometimes even with today’s better options. Mtn sells them for S couple dollars a piece under the bargain bin leds. Ones removed from other lights.

So your still in. You might be losing a few hundred lumens. But the eye cant really tell that much unless it’s in the lower linen range.

10

LH351D is brighter than any of them and quite cheap.
Still, not hugely better.

11

I still have several and I like them. That’s probably because I’m a huge CW fan.

12

You mean I can prolly get a couple bucks for mine? Woohoo!

I’M RRRRRRRRICH!!!

:money_mouth_face:

13

Recent latticebright’s are not so bad. And make some very inexpensive torches. Even when they are advertised as “XML-T6” etc, with which they are comparable.

http://www.latticebright.com/En/cpzs/cpzs1.html

I’d better duck now.

14

Now Maw kin git that op-ur-ay-shun…

15

Actual LB LEDs really ain’t that bad, all things considered, but they’re used as cheaper/lesser alternatives to real Crees.

The problem is that nowadays the cheapest lights don’t even use LB LEDs, but some craptastic no-name LEDs that don’t even try to look like LBs.

Ironic, ain’t it?

16

All this brings back mammaries. Big mammaries.

Remember the Defiant Superthrower? I still have 4 stock ones with XMLs.

And ya know what they still kick proverbial buttkus to this very day.

Garry Bunk who had a big part in starting flashamania…and what a Home Depot salesman. That company stock owes him! :laughing:

Per the link………