Inforce Wild 1: Sleek Compact Light

2/8/2022: The article has been updated with Inforce’s input. See near the end of the article.

Let me first explain why I love Inforce. Back in 2017, we were developing our CNC based holster molds. Around that time, the Inforce APLc and APLc for Glock came out, and we developed our holsters for it using precision tools. The holsters, though not as feature rich as today’s offerings, served customers well and helped focus our business on designing and cutting molds in house. In short, Inforce’s product helped push us to be the company we are today.

That isn’t to say that the APLc was perfect. Some people didn’t like the press-inward side switches. I also heard of battery drain issues. Even so, the design seemed to match the Glock aesthetic, and the light was the right length for the G19, so people bought tons of these little lights.

Fast forward to 2021, and Inforce released the Wild 2. We tested the Wild 2 in our full size light comparison, and it fared pretty well. We also beat the heck out of it and it was nearly indestructible. The Wild 2 has a great all-aluminum body & switches, and provides great candela. But we had to wait to see what the Wild 1 would provide.

And now the Wild 1 has arrived.

Inforce Releases the Wild 1

In January 2022, I finally could purchase the Wild 1. So I bought a number of them. The $139 Inforce Wild 1 has competitive specifications. It has 500 lumens, which is competitive with our benchmark compact light, the TLR-7A. The Wild 1 has the same inward-press aluminum switch design as the Wild 2, but the single battery installs through a removable bezel rather than the unique sliding mechanism in the Wild 2. The light attaches with a single screw, and uses rail keys compatible with popular pistols such as those from Glock and Sig Sauer. Just like the APLc, the Wild 1 looks great on a Glock G19.

Competition

In today’s competitive compact light market, people will likely be choosing between the Wild 1, the aforementioned Streamlight TLR-7A, the Olight Baldr Mini or Baldr S, or the Nightstick TCM550XL. Yes, there are a lot more lights than these mentioned, but these are the most likely competitors to the Wild 1 in the $139 price range. I think the market for the Wild 1 will be those who want a premium light that looks great on their pistol.

Shooting Impressions

The Wild 1 secures well onto the pistol. I do prefer it’s more common flathead screwdriver attachment mechanism to the hex attachment found on the Surefire XSC for instance. While I like tool-less options, I think most people will set the light up and leave it there, so frequent switching isn’t necessary. The Wild 1’s sleek design doesn’t have extra levers that add bulk to the holster. The rail keys attach securely, keeping the light from ejecting off the pistol under fire. I like the removable bezel for battery changes; batteries can be replaced without removing the light.

The ambidextrous switches feel great. The switches press inward, and can be positioned within reach of my reaction side thumb. The switch moves a small amount, then has a tactile click, with no perceptible overtravel. If the switches are held down for about .5 to .75 second, then let off, the light turns off. This is the momentary mode. If the switches are pressed for a shorter time then let off, the light stays on in constant mode. This is similar to many of the lights on the market, and I think it’s a good system; it is intuitive and works the same for each side switch.

Though I’m not a big fan of press inward switches, these switches work well.

Lab Tests

I tested in the lab to see if the light met manufacturer claims.

My first test provides both max lumens, as well as the output curve and runtime. As a reminder, max lumens are averaged based upon samples between 30 and 120 seconds. We sample every 5 seconds. Runtime is the measurement of how long the light stays at or above 10% of its rated output. In this case, that’s 50 lumens. We utilize an integrating sphere with custom 3d printed inserts to capture all the light and give us accurate readings.

We also test max candela. This also requires 30 seconds of warm up time before taking any samples. Our current equipment is calibrated for 1 foot, which is too close per ANSI / PLATO specs. We have new equipment coming calibrated at 1 meter. Regardless, I’ve been getting comparable maximum candela numbers on the meter, so I think these results are reasonably accurate.

I fit the the Wild 1 into our integrating sphere, turned it on, and the meter read a bit over 370 lumens. I was hopeful that the light would warm up and increase output before the first 30 seconds elapsed, but it didn’t. The light measured 228 max lumens per the ANSI / PLATO FL-1 spec. I was a bit surprised at this, so I fit up a second light with another new battery, and measured it. It came out to 235 lumens. In comparison to our benchmark TLR-7A which measured 588 lumens in our most recent test, the Wild 1 doesn’t perform. By comparison, the TLR-7A has double the output of the Wild 1 for 45 minutes.

For runtime, the first light almost met the two hour spec at 1:53:05, and the second light clocked in at just under 90 minutes at 1:24:29.

Candela for the Wild 1 came in at 3,117. This did come closer to the TLR-7A’s 3,441 cd. I couldn’t find a spec from Inforce on the light’s candela, so I don’t know how that compares to their spec.

If you want to see how other compact lights perform, see our data from the compact light showdown.

Spec	Wild 1 Claimed	Wild 1 Measured (Best Results of 2 Different Lights)
Lumen	500	235
Runtime (Minutes)	120	113:05
Candela	?	3,117

I don’t know if we got two bad units, or if this is what we should expect in terms of performance. My experience is that manufacturers are still not acclimated to an independent lab taking and posting data using calibrated equipment. I think manufacturers often follow one of a few paths when creating their specs. First possibility is that they don’t take their own measurements, instead relying upon theoretical performance published by LED manufacturers. But those specs don’t take into account how the light electronics are configured and pull current from the battery, and the specs don’t take into account any loss from the reflector, lens, etc. Another option is that manufacturers simply have a target spec, so they pick a marketing number that has no lab data to back it up. Be aware that we recently sent a set of 3 other lights out to UL for their testing, and they tested all the lights slightly lower than our measurements. I do not believe we are measuring low.

As of 01/29/2022, I sent an email to Inforce inquiring as to my results. If I receive information back, I’ll provide an update.

Light Quality

Our eyes can only see colors that are sent by lighting. If a light doesn’t project the red spectrum, reds will not appear vibrant, and could appear “greenish”. That is why we measure light quality, or CRI. To test each of these items, we gather “CRI” or “Color Rendering Index” and light temperature. For reference, studio lighting should be at least 95 CRI average (called “RA”), and i prefer a color temperature around 5600 Kelvin.

Here is the CRI and temperature of the Wild 1:

While the CRI is only 72.7, this is in the “better” range of weapon lights we have seen. On the other hand, 7100k is pretty cold, even for a weapon light. I would like to see the light be warmer, but these results are ok.

Practical Test: Warehouse

As usual, we test in the warehouse.

As you can see in the comparison images, the Wild 1 compares closely to the TLR-7A. The hotspot on the Wild 1 appears more focused, but the outer edges of the frame appear to have a similar brightness. My guess is that the lumen difference between the two lights manifests in the hotspot. This also means that the operator has similar brightness to work with in the center hotspot, and similar brightness in the flood; the TLR-7A simply provides a wider hotspot. If you can live with this, the lower lumen output of the Wild 1 may not matter that much to you.

You can also see the difference in reds between the Wild 1 and TLR-7A above. The cooler light of the Wild 1 washes out a lot of the red in the shirt. Skin tones are slightly more muted with the Wild 1 as well.

Battery Drain?

I had to test battery drain. I have previously tested the Wild 2, and found that it completely discharged its battery within a month. This is the first time I’ve mentioned that it, but we did recently see Inforce release a light with battery drain issues. At the time of this writing, I was only able to test the Wild 1 for two weeks, and battery voltage dropped, but output (max lumens with a ten second run) didn’t. I’m not sure exactly how to interpret these results, so I’ll measure results again with a new battery, and put the light on a shelf for a month and see. Check back in March for results.

Date Tested	01/14/2022	01/22/2022	01/28/2022
Battery Volts	3.122	3.082	3.064
Max Instant Lumens	324		324

Holsters

Werkz now has M6 IWB and M7 OWB holsters for the Wild 1 on the Glock smaller frame family of pistols (G19, G17, G34, etc). These holsters are precision fit to the pistol with the Wild 1, and provide tactile and audible confirmation upon holstering.

Inforce’s Input

2/8/2022 update: I want to thank Inforce for taking the time to speak with me today. A key difference in testing is that Inforce uses max lumens (time zero) to measure their output; Inforce does not use the ANSI / PLATO FL-1 spec where the light has to run for 30 seconds before sampling. This is key because another new light I tested gave me 447 max lumens at time zero, dropping to 390 lumens at 30 seconds. That light gave me 263 ANSI / PLATO FL-1 lumens. They key higher level item to understand is that not everyone in the industry is using the same specs for measurement, so it is difficult (to say the least) to reliably compare claims. I’m sending that light to Inforce for their testing, and we’ll see if they get the same results.

Summary

The Inforce Wild 1 is likely to have a following. It does have a slick design. I appreciate the aluminum machining, battery loading through the front, and the switches have good feel. I’m concerned about the output, and the jury is still out regarding battery drain.

Positives	Needs Improvement	Unknown
Robust aluminum body	Lumens do not meet spec	Battery drain?
Battery changes do not require removal	Not as strong as a TLR-7A or TLR-7Sub
Tactile side switches