StreamLight M3

[WA-K9]

Found a fairly inexspensive light for my AR. Mounted an M3 on the upper right forearm. Shot several hundred rounds with no problem from the light (or rifle). Have it positioned so it can easily be operated by thunb. Been carrying it as my patrol rifle and has been working great. One of our guys got the complete surefire forearm mounted light. VERY nice, but also heavy. Anybody else using an M3 have any problems?

[MrUREasy]

I have used one for years on an AR with zero problems - bright little light for sure....

[Skintop911]

We've had M3s on the road for a few years now. Performance is underwhelming but minimally acceptable when one balances all variables for all users. Streamlights are good for a compromise of quality, cost, and features, but don't do any particular thing particularly well.

Obs my inventory:

-lots of beam flaws, yellow hue
-warped, clouded, cracked lenses
-burnt reflectors with moderate to extended use
-shock sensitivity, light inop with recoil
-spontaneous bezel loss (thread quality/uniformity, QC?)

Of course, these don't apply to every unit. More recent production is better than early, especially WRT bezel retention and reflector and beam quality (now polygonal conical surface, not flat).

For the most part, the M3s work well enough for general issue to troops who generally don't use them, but insist on having them.

The M3X is considerably improved, and vastly superior to the original M3. Neither are a Surefire. The old axiom of "paying for quality once" is applicable here.

[zoe17]

I too have lost a bezel.

[LSP972]

Originally posted by Skintop911
Performance is underwhelming but minimally acceptable when one balances all variables for all users. Streamlights are good for a compromise of quality, cost, and features, but don't do any particular thing particularly well.


We've been using them (pretty hard use) for SWAT on G35s for over five years, and have found them to be quite satisfactory. We've had a few break, but nothing heinous and that could be blamed on poor design/materials/workmanship. As a white light for a back-up handgun, they do extremely well. If one is heading for a fight, he should have a shoulder weapon anyway. In the SWAT environment, the ONLY time a handgun is called for as a primary weapon is for a couple of types of vehicle assaults.

That said, a lot of the regular road troops have bought these on their own and carry them mounted on their G35s, which are also self-bought. We issue Sig P220/P228, but allow individual purchase of certain other types. Only SWAT is issued the G35. When a guy leaves SWAT, the G35 stays in the unit.

As for the SureFire X-200; well, I was less than overwhelmed when I tried one last year. True, the X-200B version has solved the too-tight/spot beam of the original, which simply does NOT provide enough side-spill light for rapid room clearing. But the push-forward-for-momentary function of the switch has not been altered; and THAT is what I dislike most about the X-200. If one has a short thumb or a very high grip, he has to stretch to get momentary illumination.

But, hey; to each his own. If you're using a handgun for primary use outdoors, and don't mind having to pay real close attention to how you manipulate that switch, the X-200A is a real Cadillac...;)

[USMCsilver]

I tried an M3 long ago. Nope, not for me.

As of now, I have a Surefire M900a. I've also tried a M962 in the past and it was very nice as well.

Honestly, I think there's no substitute for the Surefire, but, well, that's just me and some say I'm crazy.

Try a M900 on for size, and you'll wanna toss that M3 in a lake!

http://webpages.charter.net/usmcsilver/images/green_on_green.jpg

[Morris]

Our patrol rifles have YHM triple mounts and M3X lights. Effective, light, can be easily switched, durable. The increased light output of the X plus the better ability to survive our nasty rainy season made the higher cost justifiable.

PM me if you want a photo of a set-up.

[Skintop911]

Watch for a d/c of the standard M3, and drop in M3X price point.