Introduction
The Surefire X300U launched in August 2018. This upgraded version solidified Surefire’s large light as one of the best in the industry — a benchmark for others to compare against. It’s now July 2021, almost 3 years later, and we want to know if the X300U still reigns as king of the pistol lights. We are going to test the Surefire against competitors from Surefire, Olight, Inforce, and Nighstick to see if it is the brightest, longest lasting, and furthest throwing light on the market.
Let’s delve deeper into the specs for each of the lights, then we’ll start testing.
Weaponlight Specifications
We chose the following lights:
Streamlight TLR-1HL: This light has been a direct competitor to Surefire for years, and is commonly cited as one of the strongest competitors to the X300U.
Olight PL-Pro: Olight is a relative newcomer to the weapon light market, and focuses on high output and provides a unique (to this test group) magnetic charging capability.
Inforce Wild 2: The Inforce APLc was a popular compact light, and Inforce recently came out with a fully-machined full size light.
Nighstick TWM-850XL: Nighstick is probably the least well known of the manufacturers, but they have been working to compete in the weapon-mounted light arena and have made some inroads with certain law enforcement departments.
| Spec Item | Surefire X300U-B | Streamlight TLR-1HL | Olight PL-Pro | Inforce Wild 2 | Nighstick TWM-850XL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Max Output (Lumens) | 1000 | 1000 | 1500 | 1000 | 850 |
| Runtime | 1.25 Hours | 1.5 Hours | 1.5 Minutes (1500), 45 Minutes (600) | 1.5 Hours | 1.75 Hours |
| Max Candela | 11,300 | 20,000 | 19,600 | 25,000 | 15,000 |
| Battery | 2x CR123A | 2x CR123A | Built-in 900mAh, Magnetic Rechargable | 2x CR123A | 2x CR123A |
| Activation | Ambi Push/Toggle Lever | Ambi Throw Lever | Ambi Forward/Side Switch | Ambi Side Switch | Ambi Toggle |
| Weight | 4.1 oz | 4.32 oz | 3.25 oz | 4.7 oz | 5.4 oz |
| Street Price (June 2021) (OpticsPlanet or Direct) | $296.00 | $141.99 | $139.95 | $179.99 | $106.99 |
Looking closely at the spec sheets, a few things stand out. Three of these lights are rated at 1,000 lumens, but the Olight has a whopping 1500. Runtimes are comparable. The Inforce has the largest candela rating, and the Nightstick is the least expensive of the bunch by a wide margin.
Test Methodology
These tests focus on practical usage in dark or low-light spaces, plus laboratory tests utilizing our equipment. We do not cover certain reliability aspects such as battery drain or shock & vibration testing.
Practical Testing: Garage
We tested first in a garage space to determine which light provides the best definition and contrast.
We can make a couple observations from these photos. First is that the Olight by far provides the largest area of flood, which allows the operator to see a wider field of view. Our second observation is that the Inforce seems to have the strongest hotspot. The X300U by comparison has a less strong hotspot, but seems to flood a large area with light that provides good definition of the objects in the garage.
Shining to the rear of the garage, you can more clearly see how the PL-Pro output is significantly brighter than the others, not only in the center, but also at the flood area; the PL-Pro allows us to see all the way to the edges of the garage door opening. These pictures also show the big difference in light color.
Garage test conclusion: The X300U is not the brightest, nor does it provide the widest usable flood area.
Practical Test: Dark Room
With our test subject at 40 feet holding a knife, we used each light on the subject to determine what the light operator can see.
The X300U-B had good light on the subject, plus the best flood, allowing us to see across the area quite well. I found this result interesting, as the X300U did not seem to perform as well in the garage test. The TLR-1HL focsed in on the subject quite a bit more, but still provided adequate flood. The PL-Pro had good light on the subject with a slightly wider & warmer hotspot than the Streamlight. The Wild 2 had the most intense hotspot, but this was at the cost of seeing less periphery. Finally, the TWM-850XL compared closest to the Inforce, but had a slightly wider and less intense hotspot. At this distance, all lights seemed to do their job, but each did so with slightly different hotspot & flood patterns.
The lights are still at 40 feet in these pictures, but the camera is zoomed in more. You can see our subject’s face squinting or grimacing more with the brighter & more uncomfortable lights; we’ll discuss more about that below.
Practical Test: Opposing Light
Again at 40 feet, our subject used his Modlight to shine back at a point near the camera.
We are looking for more definition in the subject’s face. For this test, the TLR-1HL, the PL-Pro, and the Wild 2 all seemed to provide more definition than the TWM-850XL or the X300U. Where the X300U seems to shine is in the wider area of flood.
Conclusion: X300U provides some of the best flood, but the hotspot is not as strong as lights such as the PL-Pro, the Wild 2, or even the TLR-1HL. Subject definition in indoor lighting conditions is better with lights other than the X300U.
Practical Test: Effect on Subject
This testing was part of the dark room testing, but it’s important enough to call it out on its own. When shining each flashlight at our test subject, he rated the lights in terms of difficulty to look at. This test was at 40 feet. These lights each were bright enough to not see the light operator, but each light had a different observed intensity. Obviously, if you’re the operator, you’re looking for a “wall of light” effect, where the person you’re shining your light at only knows your general direction, but is unable to determine your exact location or what your hands are doing.
| Light Classification | How this Presents to Subject |
|---|---|
| Painful light | Subject sees a wall of light, but also wants to cover his eyes, turn away, or will be in pain if looking toward the light. |
| Wall of light | Subject is not in pain, but only sees light coming from a general direction, and cannot see the light operator |
| Spotlight | Subject can see the light source, but cannot make out any part of the light operator |
| Strong light | Subject can see the light source and the outline of the light operator |
| Weak light | Subject can see the light source, the light operator outline, and some of the operator’s details such as facial expression or items in hand |
With our scale in mind, here is the ranking of the lights, from most difficult to see through to the least difficult.
| Light | Classification | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| TLR-1HL | Painful light | Subject wanted to look away |
| Wild 2 | Painful light | Subject wanted to look away. Also note that this is the most “cool” light, and that may have had an effect on subject difficulty |
| X300 | Wall of light | |
| PL-Pro | Spotlight | |
| TCM-850XL | Spotlight |
Again, all lights were strong enough so that the subject could not make out the operator. This is a significant improvement versus many of the compact lights on the market, and may itself be a reason to run a full size light, even on a compact pistol.
Conclusion: The X300U is not the best light to control a subject with beam intensity.
Bench: Switches
Switches our are interface to control when the light comes on, and when it turns off. Most lights, these 5 included, have two main modes of switching: momentary and constant.
Momentary mode is one where the switch is pressed, the light turns on, and then when you let off the switch, the light turns off. This mode is typically used rapidly to gain required information, but not so long as to give away the operator’s exact position. These type of switches often use a predefined motion, or require a certain amount of time on on a switch to activate.
Constant mode is one where the light is toggled on, then requires another motion or switch activation to turn the light off. Again, this is typically a particular motion or a quick press & release of the light switch. The constant mode is often used when the operator is not as concerned about allowing others to pinpoint his or her position.
The X-300U has paddles mounted on both sides at the rear of the light. A “press forward” activates momentary mode. The X-300U’s constant mode is activated by turning the switch paddles clockwise or counter-clockwise, where they’ll stay until the operator rotates them back. By having the same controls operate in very different manners, it’s easy to keep the modes separated. Momentary is typically a press forward with the thumb. Constant is often press down (or up) with the thumb. Momentary activation of this light is excellent. The operator can activate for as short as long as desired. The constant activation of the switches is a bit stiff and sticky, making constant mode on or off a bit more difficult than it should be. On the positive side, the “either direction” paddles do allow the user to choose which direction they are more comfortable with.
The TLR-1HL also has paddles mounted on both sides to the rear, also allowing ambidextrous use. However, they’re different from the Surefire in that the paddles are actually connected to each other with the center of the rotation the center of the rear of the light. Momentary is activated by rotating counter-clockwise (operator’s view), and constant is by rotating clockwise. This means that momentary activation is a press down for the reaction side finger, or a press up for the strong side. Constant is the opposite direction. Momentary activation is excellent on the TLR-1HL, able to be switched on for as short a time as desired, and our test team is able to use momentary while firing without flickering as a result of the finger coming off the switch. Constant activation can also easily be made. The Streamlight switches are smooth, definitely the smoothest of the rotation style switches in this test set.
The PL-Pro, on the other hand, has ambidextrous rear side switches that press inward. These switches are identical in function; if you press and hold down for at least a half second, then they operate in momentary mode. If you activate with less than the “gate” time, then they act in constant mode, with a quick press turning them on, then the next press turns them off. This style of switch is fairly easy to activate in a constant mode, but some folks prefer the very quick momentary bursts of light, and this product is not well suited to that. Note that both strobe and lockout modes are also available. The switches feel high quality, and activation is not an issue.
The Wild 2 also uses rear side “press in” side switches. The Wild 2 also adds a strobe mode. Otherwise, it activates much like the Olight. These switches also feel high quality. THe momentary gate feels very similar between the two as well, requiring perhaps a half second press to activate the momentary mode.
The TWM-850XL feels like the TLR-1HL, but maintains a consistent direction between left and right side activation. Down is momentary, and up is constant. If the XLS model, then a double tap down will activate strobe.
Here are how two of us ranked the switches in terms of our preference:
| Rank | Tester #1 | Tester #2 | Tester #3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Streamlight TLR-1 HL: Momentary is easy to use, even under fire. Switches are smooth. Big lever is easy to hit for constant. | Streamlight TLR-1HL: Most straightforward momentary. Same rotation regardless of which hand. Constant is easiest. Can use momentary more often because it’s the easiest. | Streamlight TLR-1HL: Momentary switch allows solid grip. |
| 2 | Nighstick TWM-850XL: Like that both switches are consistent in direction, and that the paddles are large. Momentary seems stiff, not smooth like the Streamlight. | Nightstick TWM-850XL: Momentary and constant feel good. | Nightstick TWM-850XL: Similar to the TLR-1HL |
| 3 | Surefire X300U-B: Momentary forward is cool, but uncomfortable under fire. Switches are reasonably positive, but a bit stiff. | Surefire X300U-B: Momentary press forward is not ideal. | Olight PL-Pro: Best of the side action switches because it’s smooth |
| 4 | Inforce Wild 2: Switches are positive. Not a huge fan of side switches that press in. These switches do not turn on if the force is in and forward; it must be to the side. | Olight PL-Pro: Con for pushing the button to the side, which can disrupt aiming during momentary. | Inforce Wild 2: Is smooth, but has sharp corners on the rear edge, and not as nice to touch as Olight. |
| 5 | Olight PL-Pro: Switches are positive, but not as crisp as the Inforce. Again, not a huge fan of side switches. | Inforce Wild 2: Good momentary gate; very short. | Surefire X300U-B: Momentary activation presses on a point with a fairly heavy action. |
Conclusion: The X300U switches are good, but our testers found them to be “mid pack” in terms of preference.
Bench: Batteries
Four of these pistols use 2x CR123A batteries, and all four of them load the batteries in the rear.
The Surefire, Streamlight, and the Inforce allow tool-less battery changes. We prefer this style because it allows easy changing in the field. The Nighstick requires a Phillips or slotted screwdriver, which may be common, but it isn’t as ideal is not requiring any tool.
The Olight uses their signature magnetic charging pendants. This allows you to charge your battery while the light is on the pistol. Some people prefer batteries, which are easily found and easily changed if they run out — keeping the weapon light up and running for longer periods. Other people may prefer the lower cost of a rechargeable light. We are not testing how many cycles the battery can handle before it won’t maintain a charge, but we recognize that it’s possible (likely) that there will be a day in which the Olight will no longer hold a charge. My guess is that by then, there will be better lights to upgrade to anyway.
Conclusion: The X300U battery system is as good as any others in the test.
Lab Test: Max Lumens
Our test for max lumens and lumens over time is the same. Utilizing new Panasonic batteries, we put the light into an integrating sphere with a custom-produced adapter. We start recording output on our light meter, and turn on the light. We will typically run the light until it has reached 10% or less of its advertised lumen rating. To determine the maximum, we select the value that is the highest, which is almost always the first full reading. We will compare versus the spec, and determine if the manufacturer overstated the maximum lumens or not.
| Lumens | X-300U | TLR-1HL | PL_Pro | Wild 2 | TWM-850XL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spec | 1000 | 1000 | 1500 | 1000 | 850 |
| Measured Max | 1395 | 1265 | 1912 | 1029 | 943.1 |
| Percent of Spec | 139.50% | 126.50% | 127.47% | 102.90% | 110.95% |
| Minutes of Spec Output | 1.67 | 3.33 | 1.08 | 0.08 | 4.00 |
From here we can see that the Surefire lives up to it’s reputation of having a higher output than called out on the spec sheet — by almost a whopping 40%. We can also see that the Wild 2 only barely exceeds the advertised output. It’s also interesting to note that the Olight is the winner of the overall highest output at 1912 lumens; it’s a super bright light. Looking at minutes at or above the spec output, we see that none of these lights provides its advertised output for more than 4 minutes. This fact may be important for those who need to clear larger areas or want to have the ability to maintain a high output.
Conclusion: The Olight handily beats the X300U in terms of raw lumen output, but the Surefire does come in second.
Lab Test: Runtime
Manufacturers will tell us runtime, but don’t include information on how they measure it in their spec sheets. All lights come on strong, then start to dim. We want to know how long the light will last. Our measurement determines how long the light can provide 10% or greater of its spec sheet lumens. For instance, if the spec sheet says 1,000 lumens, then we see how long the light will provide 100 lumens or more. This criteria should tell us how long we get useful output from our lights. Runtime may be important for those times when you need to clear a larger area or hold a person of interest.
| Runtime | X-300U | TLR-1HL | PL-Pro | Wild 2 | TWM-850XL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spec Lumen Output | 1000 | 1000 | 1500 | 1000 | 850 |
| 10% of Spec Lumen Output | 100 | 100 | 150 | 100 | 85 |
| Runtime (Minutes) (Minutes at or above 10% of spec sheet output) | 80.00 | 93.33 | 40.42 | 72.33 | 106.83 |
Three lights tested to meet or exceed their manufacturer’s specification for runtime: The X-300U, TLR-1HL, and the TWM-850XL. Obviously, the Nightstick has the longest runtime, but it also has the lowest output spec, making this test easier.
The PL-Pro should have at least 600 lumens for 46.5 minutes (45 minutes at 600, 1.5 minutes at 1500). However, it doesn’t make it to 25 minutes total runtime total before dropping down to 345 lumens. This isn’t necessarily bad in itself, but it’s nowhere near the light’s spec. This is also a good time to note that this is the second PL-Pro we tested; the first light we tested (brand new out of the box ordered direct from Olight) maxed out at 373 lumens. Yes, we know that Olight has a lockout to a lower output mode, and yes we know how to change modes. This light would never get out of the low output mode. This one fact issue us question Olight’s quality control.
The Wild 2 advertises 90 minutes of runtime. We got less than half that. Ours turned off at almost exactly 90 minutes providing 43 lumens before doing so. Perhaps Inforce defines runtime as putting out any amount of light?
Conclusion: The X300U is again mid-pack here, with the TLR-1HL beating it by almost 15 minutes.
Lab Test: Lumen Data Over Time
Although the max lumen and runtime data tell much of the story, we get a little more information from this chart. Note that the lumen leader — the PL-Pro — only maintains its lead for the first minute. After a minute, the X-300U leads at 1320 lumens. But the X300U is also falling fast. After 1.5 minutes, the TLR-1 leads with 1138 lumens. The TLR-1 stays in the lead between 1.5 minutes and 5.5 minutes, where it drops below the X300U again. For consistent, long-running, high output, the X300U leads, with the TLR-1HL a bit behind.
One item not shown here, and not tested explicitly, was heat. We noticed that during our testing, the Wild 2 got hot — hot enough to significantly deform the adapter we use to mate the light to our integrating sphere. We didn’t notice that level of heat with our other lights; we may need to measure temperature of the lights in the future.
Conclusion: For the first 45 minutes, the X300U is the best in terms of lumen output.
Lab Test: Max Candela, Candela Hotspot & Flood
Here is our max candela data:
And our charts for hotspot and flood:
What do these charts tell us?
The first one tells us how well the lights do at the maximum brightness area — the center. It shows how close our readings are to the manufacturer’s spec sheet, and how close each one is to each other. If you want maximum throw, or maximum brightness in your opponent’s eyes, then this is the reading to watch.
The second chart is a way to visualize how the brightness falls off as you get further from the center of the light. We measure at every 5 degrees using a specifically built gonimeter and specifically built light mounts.
The first thing to note is that our equipment measured between 20% and 44% less than the manufacturer’s spec sheets. Our equipment is new and calibrated, so perhaps there is something we don’t understand about measuring candela, or our equipment is improperly calibrated, or the manufacturers consistently overrate their products. Regardless, these numbers are comparable to each other, allowing you to get a quantifiable relative feel for where these lights stand.
We were not overly surprised that the Wild 2 performed so well here. Inforce apparently chose to make a very bright hotspot. That does come at the expense of the flood part of the beam. Look at the garage pictures up top; you can see great definition within the tight hotspot, but the hotspot is narrower, and the flood has less intensity than many of the other beams, underperforming many of the other lights at 10+ degrees off of center.
Conclusion: For raw candela output, the X300U is the worst. The X300U provided good flood illumination, but if we’re grading for flood, then the PL-Pro is the best of the bunch.
Lab Test: Wavelength Analysis
We test wavelength because warmer lights tend to show a little more contrast, allowing the eye to pick up green and red tones better. This means that when the spectrum is shifted to the right, we tend to prefer the light. We also know that warmer lights tend to punch through environmental conditions (fog, smoke, rain, snow) a little better; the analogy is that good fog lights tend to have a warmer tint. To measure color, we use a spectrometer and our integrating sphere, then we normalize the output to allow the graphs to be compared relative to each other.
In terms of warmth, the Olight PL-Pro came out on top. This is shown in the graph above, with the smallest peak on the left side, and having the right side spectrum shifted a little more to the right than the others. We could also visually confirm the warmth of the Olight. The Wild 2 and TWM-850XL were toward the cool end of the spectrum, and though the Nightstick was definitely cooler in the spectrometer, to the eye, the Inforce appeared cooler. Similarly, while the X300U has a higher bump in the cooler end versus the TLR-1HL, to the eye it was warmer. Out of these lights, our favorites were the X300U-B, and the TLR-1HL.
Our temperature measurements seem to confirm the results we saw. For reference, 5500k/5600k is considered neutral daylight, with measurements over those values looking more cool, and under 5500k looking more warm. Our two warm lights are the PL-Pro and the X300U-B.
| Light | Temperature | Color Cast |
|---|---|---|
| Surefire X300U-B | 4980k | Warm |
| Streamlight TLR-1HL | 5830k | Cool |
| Olight PL-Pro | 4480k | Warm |
| Inforce Wild 2 | 6460k | Cool |
| Nightstick TWM-850XL | 6370k | Cool |
Indoor Conclusion: In our view, the light closest to 5500 on the warm side is going to be the best, and for this test that was the X300U.
Reliability
We must address reliability before closing. We did not test these lights for parasitic drain issues, water tolerance, recoil, vibration, heat output, or a myriad of other potential tests. All those vectors are important. We don’t want the reader to geek out on candela, lumens, and runtime without understanding that the best specs don’t matter if the light doesn’t work when you need it. Look for us to perform more testing in the future, but for now understand that the testing here is not complete.
Conclusions
Is the X300U still king? For us, no; most of us in the shop are running the TLR-1HL because it combines a light beam that is uncomfortable for our target, great switches, and the stamina to deliver over 1.5 hours of illumination. And the light is half the cost of the Surefire. We would like the light to be a little warmer, but otherwise, it’s one of the better lights on the market.
However, if you need a wide flood of good quality light, and need it to last up to 45 minutes or longer, and if you prefer its switches, then the X300U is still a good choice. And it’s backed up with a great reputation for reliability. If you prefer a paddle style switch, and want more candela, then you want the TLR-1HL. If you are good with rear side switches, and want the strongest hotspot, or the highest lumen output, then you want the Wild 2 or the PL-Pro (respectively). Finally, if you’re budget minded and want a decent light with paddle switches, then you might want the TWM-850XL.
Now it’s up to you to decide what you will run.
Did we miss something? Do you disagree? Comment below!
