This ^^^ was significant for me. The new XH series lights require new holsters for on and off duty. That alone becomes an issue.
As for the Streamlight products, I’m fine with their output. However because of the strobe feature that cannot be permanently disabled there is very little chance I’ll buy any more of their lights.
Last edited by Erick Gelhaus; 08-04-2018 at 01:44 PM.
"A man's character is his fate."
This was a good comparison video between the TLR-1 HL, XH35, and XH30:
The updated X300U models are now available in the Surefire web store...
"A man's character is his fate."
Does anyone think streamlight will be updating the TLR1HL next?
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
I am definitely NOT in the "all the lumens all the time" camp. In many ways, the current marketing race to "more lumens" is counter-productive, especially if you plan on using this newly "upgraded" X300 for home defense. Something to consider: with dark-adapted vision (like waking up to a bump-in-the-middle-of-the-night), indoors 1,000 lumens will blind you too.
I have spent a lot of time testing different lights for the exclusive use indoors for self defense with dark adapted vision. I have a collection of lights that range from sub 1-lumen to over 1,200 lumens. My experimentation takes place in the middle of the night with vision adapted to the very low level of ambient light inside our house. With my vision adapted to those levels, I find something in the 10 to 20 lumen range provides enough light to positively identify a potential adversary without blinding myself in the process. Even 60 lumens creates a momentary "sting" to my vision that takes a second to adapt to. If I fire up my 1,000 lumen Malkoff Wildcat in that same scenario, I am out of the fight from total, squinty-eye blindness for way too long due to the intense splash-back of light.
Here's another experiment, this one outdoors at night: our backyard is perhaps about 100 feet deep by 100 feet wide, completely surrounded by woods. About 300 feet away is a pond that is visible through the woods. With night adapted vision, I can see the reflections from the surface of the pond and the outlines of the trees between my back yard and the pond. Using that same 1,000 lumen light, the immediate woods looks like daylight but everything beyond that goes total black. In other words, my vision adapts to the high level of illumination provided by the light, but at the expense of being able to see anything beyond. If I do the same with up to about 60 lumens of light, I can clearly see detail in everything that is illuminated and at the same time, maintain the limited "night vision" of the trees and the pond.
It has been through this process that I've come to appreciate the utility of lower-lumen light sources that are less likely to disrupt my low light adapted vision.
This is NOT to say that high-powered WMLs do not have their place, as they most certainly do. If one is going from bright light into low light (like stepping into a dark warehouse from daylight conditions), more lumens is most certainly better. If the light itself is to be used as a close-range weapon to disorient an adversary, then more lumens is better. But with any high-powered light that is used intermittently comes the disadvantage of temporarily compromising dark-adapted vision between those bursts of intense light.
I'm sure SF will sell plenty of the latest, more powerful X300 but for my use on a pistol for indoor home defense in low light conditions, the inability to select a lower output level greatly limits its utility. Depending on how you use an artificial light source, more is not always better.