My new toy.

[Raygun]

Not much. It's an Iranian-made, direct impingement-operated, 5.56x45mm bullpup. Basically a bullpup M16. Or, in other words, not a very good idea. And its name, "Khaybar," apparently reference a battle in which Mohammed and his peeps killed a town full of Jews. Lovely.

[Bonefish]

Not much. It's an Iranian-made, direct impingement-operated, 5.56x45mm bullpup. Basically a bullpup M16. Or, in other words, not a very good idea. And its name, "Khaybar," apparently reference a battle in which Mohammed and his peeps killed a town full of Jews. Lovely.

Why is a bullpup m16 a bad idea, necessarily?

[Raygun]

In short, ergonomically and mechanically speaking, bullpup is pretty dumb. Yes, it makes a rifle with a similar barrel length shorter, but that comes at some costs. Bullpup makes a rifle more mechanically complex, especially so if the same kind of functionality as a rifle of traditional layout is desired.

First, as the trigger is mounted far forward of the action, it must be linked to the rest of the trigger mechanism, located behind the action.

Second, the trigger's operating controls (safety selector) must either be mounted behind the action (preventing fast and easy access as they are nowhere near the firing hand, as is the case on the KH2002) or the mechanism must be further complicated by including either more linkages to those controls or a progressive trigger (like the Steyr AUG: a half pull of the trigger fires semi-auto, a full pull fires full auto). Incidentally, the KH2002 also includes a useless and unnecessarily complex burst mechanism in addition to semi- and full-auto.

Third, as the action and ejection port is right under your face on a bullpup, weak side transitioning is prevented (unless you like to have brass ejecting right into your ear and your face getting stuck in the action), making cornering indoors and in urban environments problematic. FN and Kel-Tec have solved this problem with forward ejection (on the F2000 and RFB rifles), but this further complicates the ejection mechanism, in addition to the more complex trigger mechanism.

Complexity is to be avoided in firearm design where possible, particularly in those developed for military use. One can avoid a lot of complexity by sticking with a traditional, action-foward layout.

None of the above is particular to AR-style direct impingement operation. Bullpup is just a bad idea all around. But if you're making a new rifle, particularly one designed to be used mainly in a desert environment where things get dirty particularly easily, direct impingement is probably not the best way to go. Especially the AR type, which blows propellant fouling right back into the action. My personal opinion is that the AR type operation is not optimally suited for military use. It works great if you have the opportunity to keep it reasonably clean, but the AR is pickier that others that way.

[3278]

This must be how people feel when I'm talking.

[Raygun]

Dunno. How do you feel?

I should also probably point out that the FN P90 pretty well addresses all of the problems of the bullpup design. It's completely ambidextrous and it ejects downward. It's the best design execution of that layout thusfar, but it all comes down to the relatively short length of the cartridge it fires and the fact that the magazine rotates the cartridges 90 degrees from storage and into loading position. Purpose-built for indoor use against armored people.

[UncleJoseph]

I recently became the inheritor of the following firearms:

J.C. Higgins (Sears & Roebuck) Model 29 tube-fed .22 LR semi-automatic

Browning BPS 12 ga. standard grade pump shotgun w/vent rib barrel

Remington Model 29 12ga. shotgun with damaged butt-stock..about 30% bluing

The real prizes:

Colt Frontier Scout Buntline 9.5" .22 LR Single Action Revolver...99% condition (near mint) w/original box/manual

Colt Woodsman Match Target .22 LR, Series 2, with 2 original magazines and 1 Colt OEM magazine...approx 85% bluing.

Other thoughts:

All firearms are fully functional. Spent 4+ hours stripping and cleaning the Colts and the J.C. Higgins. The Woodsman and the J.C. Higgins looked like they'd never been cleaned before. The Remington 29 is in pretty rough shape. This was originally a "put food on the table" workhorse since the early 30's, and was not well taken care of. I'm considering having it restored.

[Raygun]

Colt Woodsman Match Target .22 LR, Series 2, with 2 original magazines and 1 Colt OEM magazine...approx 85% bluing.

This is a really, really, really good piece and is probably worth a good chunk of change as is (over $1k). SDQ has (well, had? Thank you, Ambien...) one of these. I loved it. Wish I knew where it disappeared to. It was an absolute pleasure to shoot.

[Bonefish]

Dunno. How do you feel?

I should also probably point out that the FN P90 pretty well addresses all of the problems of the bullpup design. It's completely ambidextrous and it ejects downward. It's the best design execution of that layout thusfar, but it all comes down to the relatively short length of the cartridge it fires and the fact that the magazine rotates the cartridges 90 degrees from storage and into loading position. Purpose-built for indoor use against armored people.

Continuing on the bullpups, isn't the ability to retain a full length barrel in a smaller than carbine frame something a military should consider, especially with the ever increasing mechanization of warfare? After-all, the M4 using standard ammunition does have a dramatic decrease in performance due to it's barrel length. Special ammunition can be issued, but then that decreases comicality of supply chain, as well not being equally suited for use out of a rifle or squad automatic. In my personal experience with high quality airsoft guns, which while not being real guns, are very close copies in size and weight, getting a bullpup rifle out of a vehicle, or getting out a vehicle with it, is less cumbersome. Every weapon system of the world has always had to make trade offs between different qualities, many of which are conflicting.

[UncleJoseph]

This is a really, really, really good piece and is probably worth a good chunk of change as is (over $1k).

Thought you'd appreciate that one...

The question now is, do we keep them or sell them? I'm keeping the BPS as a hunting gun, since it is a modern design & has choke tubes instead of fixed chokes. Oddly, I have no hunting shotguns of my own...everything I've purchased in the last 20 years has been for tactical/police purposes. But now that I'm hunting again, it makes perfect sense to keep it.

However, the others are the question. My wife and I are building a new house, so the cash from the Colts would help with down payment and closing costs. They were given to us to help with those costs, if we choose to sell them, and they have no sentimental value for any of us. However, the Woodsman in particular is a prize that I'm not necessarily inclined to part with. I really, really could use the money from the guns, however, and the Woodsman would yield the biggest payoff. We're just barely scraping together our down payment, and still have closing costs to pay in about 5 months.

I'm considering restoring the Remington Model 29 (eventually) so that it can be passed on to my kids, and kept in the family. Of all of them, that one had the most sentimental value to the original owner (my wife's great-uncle), as it was given to him by his grandfather. It is really beat up, though, so repairing/restoring it would seem prudent, and we have a shop that specializes in restorations of classic arms.

I'm on the fence about it all. I am not particularly inclined to sell any of my guns normally. The Woodsman in particular is an outstanding inheritance. I guess we'll see.

[Raygun]

Continuing on the bullpups, isn't the ability to retain a full length barrel in a smaller than carbine frame something a military should consider, especially with the ever increasing mechanization of warfare?

Well, for mechanized use, they should consider a package that can at least be made particularly compact. That's what folding stocks are for. All of the advantages and none of the problems presented by bullpup. Well, a folding stock is a more complex mechanism, but it's one that doesn't affect the primary operation of the rifle should it fail. This is why recent assault rifle designs, like the SCAR, ACR, XCR, and ARX-160 all include them.

The other glaring fault of the AR design is that due to the recoil spring, buffer, and buffer tube being located in the stock, the stock can't fold. (At least not without major redesign or functionally disabling the rifle.)

After-all, the M4 using standard ammunition does have a dramatic decrease in performance due to it's barrel length.

That is something you do have to factor into the equation. Personally, I'd rather deal with a little bit less range than the host of other problems bullpup introduces. But making a weapon system modular and configurable to different tasks mitigates those issues nicely. This is something the SCAR, ACR and XCR designs are particularly well suited to.

Every weapon system of the world has always had to make trade offs between different qualities, many of which are conflicting.

Yes, but you can make a rifle more compact without either resorting to so much complexity or compromising other functionality, as you do with the bullpup layout.

Another fault with bullpup that I forgot to mention was that should a catastrophic failure occur, the chamber is directly under your face, rather than being half a foot in front of it.

Thought you'd appreciate that one...

The question now is, do we keep them or sell them? <snip>

I'm on the fence about it all. I am not particularly inclined to sell any of my guns normally. The Woodsman in particular is an outstanding inheritance. I guess we'll see.

Yeah. Don't make any decisions until you get the chance to shoot them. I don't think you'd get a whole lot for the non-Colts. The 29 might be worth something restored, but if it's sentimental, it might be worth more to you than you'd get for it. And if you ever think about selling the Woodsman, please LET ME KNOW. I would like the opportunity to buy it from you.

[paladin2019]

Continuing on the bullpups, isn't the ability to retain a full length barrel in a smaller than carbine frame something a military should consider, especially with the ever increasing mechanization of warfare?

Well, for mechanized use, they should consider a package that can at least be made particularly compact. That's what folding stocks are for. All of the advantages and none of the problems presented by bullpup. Well, a folding stock is a more complex mechanism, but it's one that doesn't affect the primary operation of the rifle should it fail. This is why recent assault rifle designs, like the SCAR, ACR, XCR, and ARX-160 all include them.

You forgot the 55x

HK's A3/A5 collapsing stock is built for the same purpose.

That said, the biggest complaint against bullpups is ergonomics, not mechanics. It's simply easier to design a good mag change if the mag is clear of obstructions and you can access it without interfering with sight alignment.

After-all, the M4 using standard ammunition does have a dramatic decrease in performance due to it's barrel length.

That is something you do have to factor into the equation.

If you change ammo, you pure-fleet. The end-state is for all Marines to use Mk262 in all 5.56mm weapons and the Army is cycling in M855A1 to replace all M855 rounds in service. As for decrease in performance, I've never had a problem with terminal ballistics, only range.

[Bonefish]

Paladin: I've read different things about M4s having issues with not fragmenting or yawing i ntargets past 50m with the m855.

Actually, this is making me question something: Is the 16" barrel of my AK sufficient to stabilize the M855 as well as provide enough velocity for the fragmenting/yawing effect?

[Raygun]

You forgot the 55x

Yeah, it too, and a host of older rifle designs (FAL, FNC, AK5, Beretta AR70/90, G36, AK-100 series, Imbel MD series...)

HK's A3/A5 collapsing stock is built for the same purpose.

Yeah, exactly. That type is even more compact than a folding stock. The cool thing about modular platforms like the ACR and the SCAR is that you can do either. FN has both types (folding and HK-type collapsing) for the SCAR.

That said, the biggest complaint against bullpups is ergonomics, not mechanics. It's simply easier to design a good mag change if the mag is clear of obstructions and you can access it without interfering with sight alignment.

Well, I think it would depend on whether you're asking the guy who uses them or the guy who designs them. I'm interested in both, which is why I mentioned both. But yeah, mag changes are definitely more difficult with bullpup too.

[paladin2019]

Actually, this is making me question something: Is the 16" barrel of my AK sufficient to stabilize the M855 as well as provide enough velocity for the fragmenting/yawing effect?

It depends. Is your AK derived from the -47 or -74? If it's -47, no amount of barrel length will properly stabilize M855 ball. If it's -74 derived, you've got a good chance the bullet won't leave the chamber, with all the fun stuff that leads to. That's assuming, of course, the M855 even fits in the magazine.

(M855 is a 5.56x45mm round. M43, et al, is 7.62x39mm. M74, et al, is 5.45x39mm.)

RE: fragmenting and yawing, meh. It often doesn't matter one way or the other. Of course the M855 isn't designed to fragment. It's designed to penetrate a stell pot at 600m. And if the target doesn't drop from the first shot, it's not like I don't have 29 more and the rest of my life to re-engage.

[Raygun]

Actually, this is making me question something: Is the 16" barrel of my AK sufficient to stabilize the M855 as well as provide enough velocity for the fragmenting/yawing effect?

It depends. Is your AK derived from the -47 or -74? If it's -47, no amount of barrel length will properly stabilize M855 ball. If it's -74 derived, you've got a good chance the bullet won't leave the chamber, with all the fun stuff that leads to. That's assuming, of course, the M855 even fits in the magazine.

(M855 is a 5.56x45mm round. M43, et al, is 7.62x39mm. M74, et al, is 5.45x39mm.)

He's aware of that. His AK is a Romanian Md.63 variant chambered for 5.56x45mm.

Bone, yes. Your barrel will certainly stabilize M855. 1/9" twist (which your barrel likely has) will properly stabilize bullets up to ~72 grains. M855 is 62 grains. And yes, it will provide enough velocity to initiate yaw and fragmentation with certain types of ammunition. But M855 doesn't reliably fragment even when fired from 20" barrels. It's not something that should really be depended upon for wounding effect, at least not from that bullet. Also, not all M855 is the same. I stick with the Lake City (actual US military production) stuff.

RE: fragmenting and yawing, meh. It often doesn't matter one way or the other. Of course the M855 isn't designed to fragment. It's designed to penetrate a stell pot at 600m.

I can't imagine the guys at FN could have ignored all the reports from Vietnam about the close-range effectiveness of M193 and probably studied what went into causing that effect when they were designing the SS109 bullet. Fragmentation likely wasn't a primary consideration, but it was probably a secondary one. They certainly weren't trying very hard to prevent it!

[UncleJoseph]

In short order, I will be acquiring a new AR-15 for duty use. We will be purchasing these new rifles ourselves, but are being given an interest-free 2-year loan to purchase the weapons through our work purchase program. This is being done because it will outfit more officers with patrol rifles, and our current stock of issue rifles is aging and in fairly rough condition. Ultimately, this will save my employer money, and I will own my patrol rifle.

The options I selected are as follows:

Colt LE6920 Magpul MOE edition, without vertical foregrip or P-Mag , with fixed front sight & Magpul BUIS flip-up sight)
Streamlight TLR-1 LED rail mounted light
Trijicon Reflex 1x42 optic (co-witnessed with iron sights).
3-point sling (aren't allowed any other sling type, but I can choose the brand) - I already have a Specter Gear CQB M4 sling that will be compatible with my furniture, but I'll have to move the light back on the rail a bit...wish I could use a single point.

These were the best of the options for me. Other options included EOTechs, a couple of ACOGs (too expensive and all had magnification, which I didn't want), Aimpoints, a couple of different light options and 2 other rifle options (all Colt). Optics were not required.

Not sure how I feel about the Magpul BUIS rear sight...I'd rather have co-witnessed fixed sights (and I like the Centurion Arms C4 Diopter rear sight with 3 aperture sights and a notch sight), and I've seen better flip-ups than the Magpul. The Magpul sight just happens to be what comes with that gun. I like a couple options from Troy and Daniel Defense.

[Raygun]

In short order, I will be acquiring a new AR-15 for duty use. We will be purchasing these new rifles ourselves, but are being given an interest-free 2-year loan to purchase the weapons through our work purchase program. This is being done because it will outfit more officers with patrol rifles, and our current stock of issue rifles is aging and in fairly rough condition. Ultimately, this will save my employer money, and I will own my patrol rifle.

Sweet.

The options I selected are as follows:

Colt LE6920 Magpul MOE edition, without vertical foregrip or P-Mag , with fixed front sight & Magpul BUIS flip-up sight)

If you can upgrade the stock to the CTR rather than the MOE, it has a QD mount for a 3-point sling built right in, which makes taking the sling off really easy. But if you have a strap adapter that goes around the top of the stock, that'll work fine too.

Streamlight TLR-1 LED rail mounted light

Good light. I'd buy one. Where are you mounting it?

Trijicon Reflex 1x42 optic (co-witnessed with iron sights).

EXCELLENT choice. This is a really good optic with a huge field of view. If you have the choice of dot size, go with the bigger one. I think it's 6 or 7 MOA.

3-point sling (aren't allowed any other sling type, but I can choose the brand) - I already have a Specter Gear CQB M4 sling that will be compatible with my furniture, but I'll have to move the light back on the rail a bit...wish I could use a single point.

I have one of these and it's great. Attaches to the mounting slot of the MOE handguard. It'll mount behind you light with room to spare, if that's how you're doing it. This guy also makes a rear QD mount for the MOE stock if you can't get the CTR stock instead.

These were the best of the options for me. Other options included EOTechs, a couple of ACOGs (too expensive and all had magnification, which I didn't want), Aimpoints, a couple of different light options and 2 other rifle options (all Colt). Optics were not required.

If the Aimpoint T-1 is an option, you may want to consider it. Small and very lightweight. The Trijicon would likely be a smidge faster in acquisition (twice the glass and a bigger dot), but the T-1 is half the weight. I recently bought a knock-off of it (Primary Arms MD) as a secondary optic for the Grendel.

Not sure how I feel about the Magpul BUIS rear sight...I'd rather have co-witnessed fixed sights (and I like the Centurion Arms C4 Diopter rear sight with 3 aperture sights and a notch sight), and I've seen better flip-ups than the Magpul. The Magpul sight just happens to be what comes with that gun. I like a couple options from Troy and Daniel Defense.

I don't like the Magpul sights. I think in order to be near as tough as metal sights, they're bulky and ugly. But they work. You can always upgrade that later. Troy makes the best flip rear sight IMO, but Midwest makes one that's very similar. Both are knock offs of the PRI rear sight. I have a GG&G MAD on mine and I like it.

[UncleJoseph]

If you can upgrade the stock to the CTR rather than the MOE, it has a QD mount for a 3-point sling built right in, which makes taking the sling off really easy. But if you have a strap adapter that goes around the top of the stock, that'll work fine too.

The CTR was not an option for us to purchase under the loan program.

Good light. I'd buy one. Where are you mounting it?

Side mounted, outboard. I'd prefer to mount it under the handguard (and would've gone with the TLR-1 High Intensity light instead, but the sling option I have available at the moment precludes mounting under the handguard (however, your sling mount suggestion might bring me back to that choice).

EXCELLENT choice. This is a really good optic with a huge field of view. If you have the choice of dot size, go with the bigger one. I think it's 6 or 7 MOA.

Yes, I went with the 6.5 MOA...4.5 is a touch too small for my application.

I have one of these and it's great. Attaches to the mounting slot of the MOE handguard. It'll mount behind you light with room to spare, if that's how you're doing it. This guy also makes a rear QD mount for the MOE stock if you can't get the CTR stock instead.

Good suggestion. My Specter sling wraps through the front OEM sling mount, but then has a strap going all the way around the front of the handguard.This is why I wasn't going to under-mount the light. I love Specter's quality, but they don't play nice with under-mounted lights. Even a side-mounted light will be pulled back more than I'd like. Your sling suggestion will put the rifle back into the configuration I want.

If the Aimpoint T-1 is an option, you may want to consider it. Small and very lightweight. The Trijicon would likely be a smidge faster in acquisition (twice the glass and a bigger dot), but the T-1 is half the weight. I recently bought a knock-off of it (Primary Arms MD) as a secondary optic for the Grendel.

I don't remember which Aimpoints they were offering. I went with the Reflex because I did not want an electronic sight. Lots of guys are going with the EOTech. It's just my personal preference not to have electronic.

I don't like the Magpul sights. I think in order to be near as tough as metal sights, they're bulky and ugly. But they work. You can always upgrade that later. Troy makes the best flip rear sight IMO, but Midwest makes one that's very similar. Both are knock offs of the PRI rear sight. I have a GG&G MAD on mine and I like it.

Yeah, I'll see how I do with it for now...I'll probably end up upgrading later.

[Raygun]

upgrade the stocks later. The CTR was not an option for us to purchase under the loan program.

Ah. In that case, I'd either go with the Magpul STR or the Vltor IMOD stock. They're both pretty similar in that they have the QD sling mounts, storage built-in, rubber buttpads and are a nice shape to put your face on. I put the Vltor IMOD standard on mine and it has absolutely no faults. An extremely well-designed stock.

But that IWC rear QD mount will give you everything but the storage and would save you about $60 from a new stock.

Side mounted, outboard. I'd prefer to mount it under the handguard (and would've gone with the TLR-1 High Intensity light instead, but the sling option I have available at the moment precludes mounting under the handguard (however, your sling mount suggestion might bring me back to that choice).

I don't think the TLR-1 HP would mount under the handguard very well anyway. The reflector on that thing is huge and the bottom of the handguard has a stop lip that would probably get in the way. It would have to hang over the end of the handguard, which means you'd have to use Magpul's MOE Illumination Kit rail on one side or the other. The non-HP version opens up your mounting options a bit and should be plenty bright anyway.

I have one of these and it's great. Attaches to the mounting slot of the MOE handguard. It'll mount behind you light with room to spare, if that's how you're doing it. This guy also makes a rear QD mount for the MOE stock if you can't get the CTR stock instead.

Good suggestion. My Specter sling wraps through the front OEM sling mount, but then has a strap going all the way around the front of the handguard.This is why I wasn't going to under-mount the light. I love Specter's quality, but they don't play nice with under-mounted lights. Even a side-mounted light will be pulled back more than I'd like. Your sling suggestion will put the rifle back into the configuration I want.

Yeah. The push button QD swivels make sling mounting very easy.

Another option, if you're fine with permanently modifying your MOE handguard (they're cheap to replace if you mess up), is a flush-mount QD swivel attachment point that Noveske makes. You can drill a 1/2" hole in the back end of the top handguard and mount it in there. It's cheaper and more discreet than the IWC one. I put a couple of these in the stock on the Grendel for a back end 3-point mount and they work great.

I don't remember which Aimpoints they were offering. I went with the Reflex because I did not want an electronic sight. Lots of guys are going with the EOTech. It's just my personal preference not to have electronic.

Well, at least in the shortish run, a nuclear-powered optic does give you one less thing to worry about! But tritium does degrade. I think Trijicon has a 12-year warranty on the tritium capsule. Do you know how much it costs to have them replace it?

[UncleJoseph]

Ah. In that case, I'd either go with the Magpul STR or the Vltor IMOD stock. They're both pretty similar in that they have the QD sling mounts, storage built-in, rubber buttpads and are a nice shape to put your face on. I put the Vltor IMOD standard on mine and it has absolutely no faults. An extremely well-designed stock.

I really like the MOE stock, but didn't realize its shortcomings compared to the CTR or any others. The rifles come the way the come, and any custom modifications after I obtain the weapon will come out of my pocket. The only other stock choices were the T6 stocks on the other 2 rifles. We don't have a lot of custom options. As long as we carry this gun for a duty weapon, any modifications will have to be approved by our rangemaster. That shouldn't be a problem for most applications.

I don't think the TLR-1 HP would mount under the handguard very well anyway. The reflector on that thing is huge and the bottom of the handguard has a stop lip that would probably get in the way. It would have to hang over the end of the handguard, which means you'd have to use Magpul's MOE Illumination Kit rail on one side or the other. The non-HP version opens up your mounting options a bit and should be plenty bright anyway.

They didn't have the accessory rails available for the MOE mounted on the foregrip for us to see about interference. On the Colt 6940, with the aluminum quad rail, the HP did not really have any obstructions, although the very lowest part of the gas block partially obstructed the beam (this wasn't an issue in practical terms...we tested the effectiveness of the beam and you really couldn't distinguish any difference in lumens).

The HP versus standard TLR-1 was minimal. The HP has a tightly focused beam in the center of the cone. This was only really noticeable at close ranges. Down long, dark hallways, it was a non-issue. I'm glad we tested it, because we all thought the opposite would be true. I still would like to mount the light under the barrel so it isn't hanging off to one side or the other (thereby giving a slight disadvantage when negotiating corners, depending on the side it's mounted on), but it really was a minimal issue. The larger reflector of the HP made side mounting a problem, as it increased the profile of the gun when "cutting the pie" around corners.

Another option, if you're fine with permanently modifying your MOE handguard (they're cheap to replace if you mess up), is a flush-mount QD swivel attachment point that Noveske makes. You can drill a 1/2" hole in the back end of the top handguard and mount it in there. It's cheaper and more discreet than the IWC one. I put a couple of these in the stock on the Grendel for a back end 3-point mount and they work great.

I have absolutely no problems permanently modifying anything, as long as it's a solid modification that doesn't interfere with reliability or operability.

Well, at least in the shortish run, a nuclear-powered optic does give you one less thing to worry about! But tritium does degrade. I think Trijicon has a 12-year warranty on the tritium capsule. Do you know how much it costs to have them replace it?

I don't know the replacement cost, but I suspect it is close to the retail cost of the sight. I have 14 more years before I can retire with my pension if I stay in law enforcement at my current employer that long. I'm not too worried about the longevity of the radioactive sight, since my retirement time and sight longevity time are so close.. I have a set of tritium night sights on my Colt Series 80 Combat Commander that I had installed about 16 years ago. They really only started to degrade to "ineffective" status about 3-4 years ago, putting the12-year Trijicon service life about right. Speaking of which...it's about time to replace the sights on my Combat Commander.

Oh, and Paladin, despite our last conversation regarding my shoulder bag for active shooter situation, I would appreciate your input on this equipment. I value both yours and Ray's opinion on such matters. I have limited choices for the initial weapon purchase, but custom options after I put the rifle to field use are more flexible. I promise I won't act like a bitch this time if you care to chime in.

[paladin2019]

RE: ACOG reflex sights, that would be my hoice, too. They're dual-illuminated, fiber optic and tritium. If the fiber is too bright in daylight, you can slap some tape over the receptor (on the front for the reflex sight.) I've used an M150 on my service rifle and always kept all but a half-inch of the fiber tube covered.

RE: MagPul stuff, thanks for supporting a Colorado company

RE: CAR15, are you serious?!?!?!?!?

And I still can't believe your department wants you to do "SWAT work" in a suit and tie

[sinsual]

takes notes

[3278]

In short order, I will be acquiring a new AR-15 for duty use.

You know, you're the expert, and I know you're limited in what you can get under the lease program, but I don't think the AR-15 is the best choice. If it was my money, I'd definitely go with the Ares Alpha: the frame is only two grand, and that's including the under-barrel grenade launcher and Smartlink II and a couple points of recoil reduction. I know Ray's not wild about bullpup, but I've heard good things about their reliability. Worth thinking about.

[Raygun]

I really like the MOE stock, but didn't realize its shortcomings compared to the CTR or any others. The rifles come the way the come, and any custom modifications after I obtain the weapon will come out of my pocket. The only other stock choices were the T6 stocks on the other 2 rifles. We don't have a lot of custom options. As long as we carry this gun for a duty weapon, any modifications will have to be approved by our rangemaster. That shouldn't be a problem for most applications.

The MOE stock isn't bad or anything, it's a good stock. It's just basic. If it works for you, it works! You may not need the extra onboard storage space or the sling mount points. They're just kinda handy, I think.

The HP versus standard TLR-1 was minimal. The HP has a tightly focused beam in the center of the cone. This was only really noticeable at close ranges. Down long, dark hallways, it was a non-issue. I'm glad we tested it, because we all thought the opposite would be true.

From what I understand that's how the high-output lights are supposed to work. The one I have is like that. A bright focused spot in the center for dazzling and pointing, and a larger area of ambient light around it. Was the area of ambient light comparatively larger on the HP?

I don't know the replacement cost, but I suspect it is close to the retail cost of the sight. I have 14 more years before I can retire with my pension if I stay in law enforcement at my current employer that long. I'm not too worried about the longevity of the radioactive sight, since my retirement time and sight longevity time are so close.. I have a set of tritium night sights on my Colt Series 80 Combat Commander that I had installed about 16 years ago. They really only started to degrade to "ineffective" status about 3-4 years ago, putting the12-year Trijicon service life about right.

Yeah, the half life of tritium is a bit over 12 years, so that makes sense. I thought Trijicon would have some replacement program for the tritium, at least on their reflex sights and scopes and such. I recall hearing something like that, but that was a very long time ago. I thought maybe you'd heard something recently. I'm not seeing anything on their site either. Hmm.

Well, I found a forum post where the guy with the Reflex says Trijicon quoted him a price of $168 for this service two years ago. That's probably more than it needs to be, but it's not horrible. Significantly less than a new sight.

[UncleJoseph]

The MOE stock isn't bad or anything, it's a good stock. It's just basic. If it works for you, it works! You may not need the extra onboard storage space or the sling mount points. They're just kinda handy, I think.

Really, the main reason I like the MOE over the T6 is because you're less likely to bump the adjustment lever, and the stock isn't as like to get hung up on shit. With our required 3-point sling setup, and our duty belt arrangements, I often get the T6 stock on our current rifles caught up in my duty belt accessories. The MOE sort of "de-horns" the gun a little more. The CTR, from what I can tell, does the same thing, but adds the extra features you mentioned. Do I have that correctly?

From what I understand that's how the high-output lights are supposed to work. The one I have is like that. A bright focused spot in the center for dazzling and pointing, and a larger area of ambient light around it. Was the area of ambient light comparatively larger on the HP?

Yeah, that's my understanding on how they work too. If I didn't have to side mount the light, I'd be all over the hi output. The ambient light cone appeared to be about the same as the standard light.

Yeah, the half life of tritium is a bit over 12 years, so that makes sense. I thought Trijicon would have some replacement program for the tritium, at least on their reflex sights and scopes and such. I recall hearing something like that, but that was a very long time ago. I thought maybe you'd heard something recently. I'm not seeing anything on their site either. Hmm.

I haven't heard anything recently, but I suspect whatever is currently in place may change by the time my tritium lamp needs replacing. Oddly, Trijicon is right down the road from me.

Well, I found a forum post where the guy with the Reflex says Trijicon quoted him a price of $168 for this service two years ago. That's probably more than it needs to be, but it's not horrible. Significantly less than a new sight.

That's certainly affordable, although you'd think it'd be cheaper. My guess is that the licensing required to be a "radioactive materials handler/manufacturer/disposer" is what makes the price so high.

[UncleJoseph]

RE: ACOG reflex sights, that would be my hoice, too. They're dual-illuminated, fiber optic and tritium. If the fiber is too bright in daylight, you can slap some tape over the receptor (on the front for the reflex sight.) I've used an M150 on my service rifle and always kept all but a half-inch of the fiber tube covered.

That's a great tip! Once the rifle & accessories come in, I'll report back on this.

RE: MagPul stuff, thanks for supporting a Colorado company

Gotta love US stuff. Trijicon is literally about an hour down the road from me too.

And I still can't believe your department wants you to do "SWAT work" in a suit and tie

There's a lot more to it than that, and probably requires a little more explanation. It's not /really/ SWAT work. Many departments are now training to a specific standard meant to address active shooter incidents. The old way was to leave anything outside of normal patrol response to the SWAT guys. However, Columbine changed all that. All the analyses of the school shootings and active violence incidents over the last decade has led to a new, intermediate response concept. The biggest reason for that was due to the excessive delay and further loss of life caused by waiting for SWAT to mobilize, brief and respond to the situation. Usually, by the time SWAT arrived, the incident was over (I'm speaking of very specific types of incidents, such as school shootings).

So, the new standard is to train field officers (mainly patrol and detective level, but it depends on the size of the agency) in rapid, squad-based responses to address these specific types of incidents. With these guidelines, officers, supervisors, command, detectives, or anyone else trained in this type of response, we can respond to something like a school shooting to halt the active violence (the key word is active), until SWAT can arrive or some other intervention (such as hostage negotiation) occurs.

If the active violence situation becomes non-active (i.e. no active killing, such as a barricaded gunman situation), the response squad ceases their penetration into the incident, and switches to perimeter/containment mode until SWAT/negotiator steps in and starts calling the shots.

The active shooter incident response model provides for rapid response by anyone available. It is designed for officers to use the equipment they have available to them (patrol rifle, sidearm, flashlight, spare magazines, etc) all the time, in order to neutralize an active threat. So, under this type of model, it is conceivable that I could be part of a 3-5 person team entering a school during an active shooter incident to neutralize the shooter, or contain the matter until more specialized personnel arrive on scene. It's not really SWAT work at the level we train to. We also don't have the specialized toys like breaching tools and flashbangs at our disposal for this type of response. This type of response is much more dangerous for the officers than what we used to do. I won't say it's a guarantee for officer casualties, but it's about as close as you can get. The alternative, however, would be to simply allow the incident to continue until SWAT arrived. While we don't want to sacrifice ourselves needlessly, we all understand that our lives are secondary to the public's lives. So we train for this type of incident, and we all understand that police casualties are likely with this type of response.

This is the main reason that, while I'm in the detective bureau, a satchel-type deployment bag is most appropriate. It's quite possible that I wouldn't even take it into the scene with me. But if I felt compelled, I could throw it over my shoulder and head into the incident. Most people do not have, nor will they purchase, nor do they want, any sort of "extras" beyond what our employer provides. I'm one of the dwindling few that are willing to spend our own money for some gear, and it took a lot of debating with the bosses to be able to carry some extra stuff.

There's a lot more to it than I can really effectively explain here, but does that clear some of it up a bit?

[Raygun]

Really, the main reason I like the MOE over the T6 is because you're less likely to bump the adjustment lever, and the stock isn't as like to get hung up on shit. With our required 3-point sling setup, and our duty belt arrangements, I often get the T6 stock on our current rifles caught up in my duty belt accessories. The MOE sort of "de-horns" the gun a little more. The CTR, from what I can tell, does the same thing, but adds the extra features you mentioned. Do I have that correctly?

Yeah, pretty much. Stocks for the AR are Magpul's kind of bread-and-butter, so they have several levels of adjustable AR stocks. The MOE is the basic model (rubber battpad, cheek rest mount), then they add features from there. CTR (plus ambi QD sling swivel mount, friction lock), STR (plus two storage compartments), ACS (plus a third large storage compartment), and UBR (different kind of stock that puts the cheek rest on the tube rather than the stock, has a large storage compartment and ambi QD sling swivel mount points for both 3-point and single point slings).

Yeah, that's my understanding on how they work too. If I didn't have to side mount the light, I'd be all over the hi output. The ambient light cone appeared to be about the same as the standard light.

Maybe I'm missing something... In practical terms, what did you notice that was different between the two? You said the difference was minimal, but from what I understand, the difference was that the HP model has a focused spot that was only visible at close range? Is that correct? The reason I ask is because I'm planning on buying another light soon and these two were at the top of my list. If the mounting issue is the only thing keeping you from recommending the HP over the other let me know because I don't think that'll be an issue for me.

I haven't heard anything recently, but I suspect whatever is currently in place may change by the time my tritium lamp needs replacing.

That's true. In researching it I found that that's already happened at least once. Trijicon just goes, "No. Buy a new one." That'd be kind of annoying.

Oddly, Trijicon is right down the road from me.

And EoTech's in Ann Arbor! You Michiganers get all the cool optics manufacturers...

That's certainly affordable, although you'd think it'd be cheaper. My guess is that the licensing required to be a "radioactive materials handler/manufacturer/disposer" is what makes the price so high.

Could be. I wonder about that. They charge about the same premium for a device that's far simpler to manufacture than those of their competitors. How much could that license and the costs associated with handling tritium possibly be? I get the greedy defense contractor vibe from them a lot. But I guess that's what happens when you corner a market. You capitalize.

[UncleJoseph]

Maybe I'm missing something... In practical terms, what did you notice that was different between the two? You said the difference was minimal, but from what I understand, the difference was that the HP model has a focused spot that was only visible at close range? Is that correct? The reason I ask is because I'm planning on buying another light soon and these two were at the top of my list. If the mounting issue is the only thing keeping you from recommending the HP over the other let me know because I don't think that'll be an issue for me.

If I could mount the HP under the barrel, that'd have been the way I'd went. There was only a $5 price difference. In practical terms, the difference was minimal. The center bright cone of the HP was really a big deal at close ranges. It held its intensity at longer ranges and was still just as noticeable, but at longer ranges, overall illumination of the target was about the same. The diffuse cones of each light were the same at distance and close up. The HP center beam was nice, but did not make up for the fact that it sticks out like a chicken wing on a side-mount application. The HP would also be better for blinding the opposition, but the standard does a pretty good job of that too.

Could be. I wonder about that. They charge about the same premium for a device that's far simpler to manufacture than those of their competitors. I get the greedy defense contractor vibe from them a lot. But I guess that's what happens when you corner a market. You capitalize.

Yeah, I think their sights are overpriced too. I mean, a set of Trijicon fixed night sights for a handgun are only $125, and that includes 3 lamps. I can't imagine there's a whole lot more tritium in a Reflex. Now, of course, the Reflex also has an optic and a fiber optic, but really? $650 with mount? Seems a bit high when ACOGs start at $850, and have /way/ better optics, magnification (on most optics), a much more defined reticle, etc. The Reflex is nice, but I think they're overcharging significantly for that one. Still, it is the optic I wanted, and I got it for $100 off retail.

[UncleJoseph]

I have one of these and it's great. Attaches to the mounting slot of the MOE handguard. It'll mount behind you light with room to spare, if that's how you're doing it. This guy also makes a rear QD mount for the MOE stock if you can't get the CTR stock instead.

From what I can tell on the site, these don't come with the QD Sling Swivels, right? They're just the mounts for the swivels? At that price, you'd think the swivels would be included...but it definitely looks to be the way to go.

I found my CAR-15 Specter sling last night and took a good look at it. I can detach the stock wrap-arounds and thread the 1" attachment webbing through the QD sling swivels alongside the rifle for exactly the setup I need. This will allow me to under-mount the light just like I want. Now I'll have to double-check clearances for the HP light...it worked fine on the quad-rail Colt 6940, but because they didn't have the MOE rails in stock for us to check on the MOE furniture, I wasn't able to set up the gun exactly in the configuration I wanted for demo purposes.

[Raygun]

From what I can tell on the site, these don't come with the QD Sling Swivels, right? They're just the mounts for the swivels? At that price, you'd think the swivels would be included...but it definitely looks to be the way to go.

Yeah, it's another $12.95 for each QD swivel from him. Keep in mind this is one dude in a shop in Colorado cranking these things out, so his output is pretty low, thus the relatively high price. But the part is impeccably finished. He clearly puts a lot of effort into making these things. I like to support the small outfits when given the opportunity and this is a good one. This guy has good ideas and he executes them well.

I found my CAR-15 Specter sling last night and took a good look at it. I can detach the stock wrap-arounds and thread the 1" attachment webbing through the QD sling swivels alongside the rifle for exactly the setup I need. This will allow me to under-mount the light just like I want. Now I'll have to double-check clearances for the HP light...it worked fine on the quad-rail Colt 6940, but because they didn't have the MOE rails in stock for us to check on the MOE furniture, I wasn't able to set up the gun exactly in the configuration I wanted for demo purposes.

I'll get some pictures to show you the potential problem I'm talking about.

[Raygun]

Here's how I normally have my foreend set up. This is the 11-slot rail on the bottom with a Tapco Stubby grip. Just wanted to show you it's possible to have the forward grip and a small light like the TLR-1 both attached on the bottom (minus the remote switch cap on the TLR-1, but with this kind of setup, you wouldn't need a remote switch anyway).



Grip removed. See the space between the end of the rail and the lip that forms a hand stop on the handguard? That's what I'm thinking would cause you a problem mounting the TLR-1HP on the bottom rail.



I thought I had the rail moved as far forward as possible, but I didn't. The 11-slot rail could only move forward about 1/8" more due to the screw in the rear mounting slot, so I decided to try the other rails to see if I could get them any closer to the hand stop. Turns out the 7-slot rail gets you as close as you can get.



Perhaps even closer with some creative filing. So that might actually work with the TLR-1HP, so long as you have it mounted as far forward as possible. Keep in mind that the due to the mounting slots on the handguard itself, the 7-slot rail was the only one that allowed this.

Here's a shot of the IWC QD swivel mount on my handguard. Works prefectly. I do assume having the sling attched this way will accelerate some wear on the handguard itself (particularly where it interfaces with the barrel nut and handguard cap to prevent rotation around the barrel), but mounting it as far back on the handguard as you can should minimize this, and will leave you some room to mount things on that side of the handguard if you want.



Here's a shot of how I have my gigantic-ass tank light mounted. This bitch is heavy, but it'll probably deflect incoming rounds like a fucking lightsaber!



And here's my stock. Vltor IMOD standard. It's hard for me to think of a single piece of gun equipment I'm more satisfied with. Well-designed and well-built. Two removable storage compartments along each side of the tube, an ambi QD swivel mount just behind the lever, and slots for the wrap-around sling adapter if you prefer to go that route.



Noveske QD end plate single point sling mount. It just replaces your stock end plate. I know they don't want you using a single point sling for work, but since it's your rifle, you might as well have the option available.

[UncleJoseph]

Great pics, Ray. Thank you. I won't be using a vertical foregrip, but I am tempted to buy one of each of the accessory rails to fine tune the setup. Right now, I only have the 5-slot rail coming for side-mounting the light. They're cheap enough, so I'm not worried about purchasing the others.

[Raygun]

Great pics, Ray. Thank you. I won't be using a vertical foregrip, but I am tempted to buy one of each of the accessory rails to fine tune the setup. Right now, I only have the 5-slot rail coming for side-mounting the light. They're cheap enough, so I'm not worried about purchasing the others.

To be honest, I'm not real sure why I bother with the 11-slot. I'm never going to mount anything else to the bottom rail, but I guess it's nice to have the option. If I were you, I'd go with a 7-slot rail for the bottom and their Illumination Kit rails for the sides and call it good. The rest of the rails are a bit much. But you're right, they are cheap. Not like you're out much even if you don't use them.

[paladin2019]

RE: rail length, if you do decide you want a vertical foregrip, Magpul's MOE foregrip comes with it's own 4(?) slot rail and MOE mounting hardware.

[Raygun]

They also make a grip that mounts directly to the MOE handguard without the need for a rail (MVG). The reason I didn't go with either Magpul grip is because they don't have watertight storage. The Tapco Stubby does. I keep spare CR2032 batteries for my optics in it.

[Raygun]

So I just kinda cheaped out and bought a Streamlight Polytac LED and VTAC light mount for the Grendel. But since it is a handheld, if it sucks, I'll just use it as an around-the-house light.

[Raygun]

The Streamlight Polytac LED is a very good, relatively inexpensive ($35-40) handheld LED light. 120 lumens, small, lightweight, and tough. Recommended. They also make a 150 lumen model with a bigger reflector that's about $5 more (Polytac LED HP), but I like the size of the smaller one. I think I might buy another one to replace the big-ass light on the carbine.

Though after I bought it I noticed that Surefire is actually starting to seriously compete in this arena, offering some interesting low-cost, polymer-bodied, high output LED handhelds. Particularly their G2X Pro and G2ZX lights. They're also now making an aluminum-bodied, dual-output (15/500 lumens) compact handheld called the P2X Fury, for @ $100.

Not so sure about the VTAC light mount, though. It works and seems pretty stable. We'll see how it holds up.

[UncleJoseph]

I've often thought the tactical lights were way over-priced...good to know there are some cheaper options out there that still perform well. Surefire and Pelican lights are prohibitively expensive, IMO. I started exploring Fenix, and have been pretty impressed. I recommended one of our SWAT guys check them out and he couldn't be happier with his. He carries the Fenix TK12 (now discontinued in favor of the TK15) on his tactical vest. I think the light cost him about $75. A comparable light from Surefire was around $125. I have an older (10-12 years old) Streamlight XL rechargeable that is okay, but the rechargeable battery sticks only perform well for about 3 years, and cost $100. I carried that on my duty belt for years. I also have an older Surefire 6P (I think) that works well, but the Lithium 123 batteries only last about an hour. When I go back to patrol, I'm going to get the Fenix TK15...great battery life and a great light for my duty belt. But now that you've mentioned the Streamlight Polytac, I may have to reconsider....

[Raygun]

I've often thought the tactical lights were way over-priced...good to know there are some cheaper options out there that still perform well. Surefire and Pelican lights are prohibitively expensive, IMO.

Yeah, they are. At some point you have to say, "It's a fucking flashlight, guys. Not exactly the world's most high tech, complicated device." I know they put a lot of time and effort into developing them, making them as efficient and durable as possible, but I'm not giving anyone $500 for a fucking flashlight. That's just stupid. And I think they've finally figured out that they're missing out on a lot of sales that way. (From like, everyone who has to pay for their own flashlight!)

I started exploring Fenix, and have been pretty impressed. I recommended one of our SWAT guys check them out and he couldn't be happier with his. He carries the Fenix TK12 (now discontinued in favor of the TK15) on his tactical vest. I think the light cost him about $75. A comparable light from Surefire was around $125.

I'd never heard of them. Hmm. Some of these look pretty fantastic. TK15 and TK21 especially. Thanks!

I have an older (10-12 years old) Streamlight XL rechargeable that is okay, but the rechargeable battery sticks only perform well for about 3 years, and cost $100. I carried that on my duty belt for years. I also have an older Surefire 6P (I think) that works well, but the Lithium 123 batteries only last about an hour. When I go back to patrol, I'm going to get the Fenix TK15...great battery life and a great light for my duty belt. But now that you've mentioned the Streamlight Polytac, I may have to reconsider....

I dunno, that TK15 looks pretty good! 5 output modes, 337 lumens max, aluminum body... I like the fact that there's a separate switch to select the mode you want and the tailcap just turns the light on and off. I don't think you're going to beat that for $80. But yeah, you could still get two Polytacs for that money.

[UncleJoseph]

I dunno, that TK15 looks pretty good! 5 output modes, 337 lumens max, aluminum body... I like the fact that there's a separate switch to select the mode you want and the tailcap just turns the light on and off. I don't think you're going to beat that for $80. But yeah, you could still get two Polytacs for that money.

The Fenix lights are really impressive. My buddy's TK12 is the one I was going to get until they replaced it with the TK15. We did some testing when he first got the light, and there's no question in my mind that they're built just as well as the competition, and perform as well or better. They also make remote pressure switches for them, too, so weapon mounting wouldn't be a problem.

My worry, being that they are a Chinese company, is that supply issues and quality control issues might surface. Although even the other major name brands aren't built entirely of U.S. made components, Fenix is entirely Chinese. I also worry that, as their demand increases (they're relatively new on the scene now), so will their price.

For the price of the Polytacs, I might grab a couple of them just to have for back-ups/kits.

[sinsual]

Damn...

I was going to ask a smart question, then decided to see what it would cost to match my 2AA Mini Maglight, if I were to buy one today off the shelf, then add the upgrades...

I paid $9 for the mini 15 years ago. $10 for the Xenon bulb and buttswitch upgrade about 10 years ago. When the Xenon bulb died, I paid $10 for the triple LED upgrade...

Today? $20 for the mini, $25 for the LED upgrade, $15 for the buttswitch? WTF?

[Raygun]

Double post.

[Raygun]

My worry, being that they are a Chinese company, is that supply issues and quality control issues might surface. Although even the other major name brands aren't built entirely of U.S. made components, Fenix is entirely Chinese. I also worry that, as their demand increases (they're relatively new on the scene now), so will their price.

Yeah, there is that. I think overall, quality control has noticeably improved on Chinese products like these, but supply is still definitely an issue. I think this is more due to US importers than Chinese manufacturers.

For the price of the Polytacs, I might grab a couple of them just to have for back-ups/kits.

It's a good light, definitely. Would be perfect to keep in a car. Does use CR123As though, so the batteries may be slightly more difficult to get a hold of than AAs or AAAs.

Damn...

I was going to ask a smart question, then decided to see what it would cost to match my 2AA Mini Maglight, if I were to buy one today off the shelf, then add the upgrades...

I paid $9 for the mini 15 years ago. $10 for the Xenon bulb and buttswitch upgrade about 10 years ago. When the Xenon bulb died, I paid $10 for the triple LED upgrade...

Today? $20 for the mini, $25 for the LED upgrade, $15 for the buttswitch? WTF?

Jeez. Honestly, I'd forgotten all about Maglite. For a while they weren't even bothering to really compete in the LED market, but it appears they've stepped up their game a bit since last I checked them out.

Instead of the Mini Maglite, they've got newer 3 AAA LED lights, the XL series, with all the features you mention. They range in output, modes, and price. The XL50 is a 104 lumen LED that runs about $25. They have a 174 lumen model (XL200) that's the same size but about $10 more. All of the XL lights have 1" diameter bodies, which makes mounting them to a rifle is pretty easy (either with an dedicated offset mount for lights or a cheap 1" Weaver scope ring from Wal-Mart). They're all also multi-mode lights, but they only have the tail switch to switch between modes. I want to check these out now.

Last time I thought about Maglite, I was looking for a high-output LED bulb to replace the Xenon bulb in my 2D light, but they were mostly either prohibitively expensive or not a huge improvement in output. I found a decent compromise from TerraLUX, but even their LED bulb costs as much as a whole new LED Maglite!

[sinsual]

For the C/D size lights there are LED kits that use 6/12/24 LEDs for insane outputs. Of course, your looking at dropping $100+ for the kits.

[paladin2019]

For those in the market, http://www.botachtactical.com/talipa15.html

[Raygun]

For those in the market, http://www.botachtactical.com/talipa15.html

Streamlight have always been a go-to of mine for lights. They're pretty much who I always go to first when I'm looking for this kind of stuff. That one definitely gives the Fenix we were looking at a run for its money. Not sure how I missed this one. Maybe it recently dropped in price?

Has anyone ever ordered anything from Botach? I have heard mixed reviews.

[paladin2019]

Botach is okay (hence why I get all the sale emails from them). I've only bought a couple of things on closeut from them.

[paladin2019]

Botach is okay (hence why I get all the sale emails from them). I've only bought a couple of things on closeut from them.

[UncleJoseph]

Has anyone ever ordered anything from Botach? I have heard mixed reviews.

There are a couple of trustworthy YouTube channels (Sootch00 or Equip2Endure,I think) that give props to Botach Tactical all the time. Both of them have great channels, and do tons of gun & gear reviews, and I believe Botach occasionally ships one of them (or both?) gear to review. Their prices seem to be competitive....I wouldn't hesitate to buy from them.

[Raygun]

So did anyone order that setup from Botach yet? That seems like a damn good deal.

I did finally go ahead and order the TerraLux LED bulb for my 2D Maglite. HUGE improvement. Not sure that it's actually 140 lumens, but it's close to the output of my Polytac (120 lumens) and far, far more output and useful light than the Xenon bulb (which if I had to guess was putting out about 30 lumens). If you've got an old incandescent Maglite lying around and you'd rather use it than buy a whole new LED Maglite, this is a great way to go.