1,000 Lumen X300U

[Grey]

The specs in the Recoilweb article says 11,300 candela, so i'm sure it'll still punch pretty hard



for comparison, I recently moved from the 500 lumen EB2 handheld to the 1200 lumen EDCL2-T. At first i thought it didn't project as hard a beam as the 500 lumen model, but I'm thinking that it's still punching through as hard, but because there is more flood as well, my perception is that the center beam isn't as tight.

You're right, I got this confused with the XH35!

[Norville]

Just an FYI. I looked into this light, its only 3000 candela which means its very much a flood light and not a "good" defensive light by the standards of some SMEs. For reference, the X300U B is 16,500 candela, and the TLR 1 HL is 12,000.

The spec sheet in the linked article says 11,300 candela with a 213m beam distance. That’s based on some obscure test to a reflective target, but I don’t think it’s a pure flood light.

[Gio]

The spec sheet in the linked article says 11,300 candela with a 213m beam distance. That’s based on some obscure test to a reflective target, but I don’t think it’s a pure flood light.

You always have to take manufacturer’s specs with a grain of salt, but I do think surefire and streamlight tend to be fairly accurate in their claims. Streamlight lists 15,000 candela for the tlr1 HL, which should indicate slightly more throw than this upgraded x300U.

[Erick Gelhaus]

Good move on Surefire to keep the same footprint/housing.

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.

[orionz06]

You always have to take manufacturer’s specs with a grain of salt, but I do think surefire and streamlight tend to be fairly accurate in their claims. Streamlight lists 15,000 candela for the tlr1 HL, which should indicate slightly more throw than this upgraded x300U.

I've seen some of what Surefire does to get their numbers and how they compare to the Chinese companies... I'd trust SF well before anyone else.

[s0nspark]

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 of the strobe feature that cannot be permanently disabled there is very little chance I’ll buy any more of their lights.

Ditto on both!

I'm an "all the lumens" kind of guy but I am also very fond of the X300U from a usability (and familiarity) standpoint. Neither the TLR-1HL nor the XH35 swayed me...

Also, I freaking hate strobes on any kind of carry light. This ain't a disco! ;-)

[Gio]

This was a good comparison video between the TLR-1 HL, XH35, and XH30:

[s0nspark]

The updated X300U models are now available in the Surefire web store...

[Mirolynmonbro]

Does anyone think streamlight will be updating the TLR1HL next?

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[NH Shooter]

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.