ThruNite TW10
ThruNite is a Chinese company that makes flashlights, including the one we are currently looking at — the TW10. We received this light from ThruNite for review.
Since this light fits into the full-size category, and because we recently completed our full size light comparison, we decided to compare it against the most likely competitors, the Olight PL-Pro, and our current favorite full size light, the Streamlight TLR-1HL.
| Spec Comparison | ThruNite TW10 | Streamlight TLR-1HL | Olight PL-Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Max Lumens | 900 | 1000 | 1500 |
| Runtime | 195 Seconds (900), 130 Minutes (427) | 1.5 Hours | 1.5 Minutes (1500), 45 Minutes (600) |
| Max Candela | 3,960 | 20,000 | 19,600 |
| Battery | 18350 1100mAh USB-c Rechargeable | 2x CR123a (~1550 mAh each) | Built-in 900mAh, Magnetic Rechargable |
| Activation | Side button | Ambi throw lever | Ambi forward / side switch |
| Street Price (OpticsPlanet or Direct) | $50.35 | $139.95 | $141.99 |
On paper, the ThruNite has a few interesting specs. First is that it has much lower candela than the others in this comparison. The next is that the runtime is the longest of the bunch. Finally, the battery capacity is higher than the Olight, but lower than the CR123a batteries of the TLR-1HL.
Also significant is the price point. Rather than being in the $140 range, it’s all the way down at $50 or less using coupons. While affordable, this puts the light in an awkward spot. You ever search Amazon or Ebay for lights in the $20-50 range? There are a ton of them.
In the hand, the TW10 feels to be of reasonable quality. The body appears to be machined aluminum and the bezel threading feels clean. The switches feel positive. There is a USB-c port on the rear that is covered with a rubber flap. The bezel does have a lens that helps with diffusion. It’s apparent ThruNite chose to favor a wide area of light rather than focus the light into any particular spot. This may be due to the common myth that “you’ll blind yourself with a strong flashlight.” However, our experience is that proper light management is the preferred method to keep from blinding the operator. We want as much light and candela as possible to identify and control threats.
Light Attachment, Battery, & Activation
The TW10 has a screw type rail attachment that seems to be similar to the TLR-1HL. However, the screw head is different. It’s a bit of a pain to get the TW10 fully mounted onto the pistol. We couldn’t snug down the attachment by hand and none of the tools we had around seemed to fit. Eventually we settled on a square key head and it worked — sort of. Either way, we marred the head some getting the light on and off the pistol a half dozen times.
ThruNite specs state that the battery is a 18350. This is one of the most interesting features of the light. 18350 batteries provide two key benefits. First, they provide higher current capability, allowing a brighter light. Second, they allow removable recharging, allowing the user to keep one or more batteries on a charger, and swap batteries out as needed.
Modlite and Cloud Defensive have both announced their pistol lights using 18350 batteries. These lights promise higher output, more candela, and potentially higher runtimes than the Streamlight TLR-1HL and Surefire X300U. We were hoping to see the ThruNite providing something similar here so we could get a glimpse into the future of full size pistol lights.
The TW10 battery removes easily from the front by unscrewing the bezel, similar to the TLR-7. We like that. However, once you get the battery out, you cannot charge it. The battery will not charge on a standard charger built for 18650 and 18350 batteries. The button top on the ThruNite battery does not allow contact. So we were thinking maybe we could run a standard 18350 battery in the light. We have a Trustfire 18350 battery here. Threw it in, and it didn’t work.
So, you must use the built in USB charging on the back of the light and you must use the ThruNite battery. That means you have to remove the whole light assembly from the pistol every time it needs a charge. Removal and mounting less than optimal. Once off, we had no problem charging using the USB-c port on the light. But the main advantage of a 18350 light is that you can easily swap batteries to keep your weaponlight up and running.
The light has ambidextrous momentary and constant activation utilizing “press inward” type side buttons. The buttons are significantly smaller than the PL-Pro, which took some The light has momentary and constant activation utilizing “press inward” type side buttons. The buttons are significantly smaller than the PL-Pro, and positioned a little ways down the body, which took some getting used to. My fingers had a hard time finding the button. To my surprise, I was able to shoot with momentary activation on, and the light did not flicker. While we prefer paddle style switches on the rear of the light, these switches always activate when you hit them. But their small “streamlined” size makes them harder to find and activate than either of the two lights we compared against.
Practical Tests
We ran this light through an outdoor test, searching the environment for threats. We compared directly versus the TLR-1HL and the PL-Pro, running each through the same test in the same evening run. I ran through the lights with the TLR-1HL first, then PL-Pro, then the TW10. This gave me the opportunity to baseline against the TLR-1HL. When I got to the ThruNite, the first thing that stood out to me was the wide angle of illumination. It was a wide area of bright light, illuminating the ground, any adjacent walls, trees & bushes, etc. The other thing I noticed was that it didn’t throw as far as either of the other two lights. It didn’t reach to further out trees or across the pond, both of which I could see with the other lights. Finally, it was apparent that this light did drop off in output even during a short run outside.
In our warehouse space, at 40 feet, we captured the Thrunite against the same lights from Streamlight and Olight. We also added the Streamlight TLR-8 for comparison. Focusing on the subject, the ThruNite was the worst of the full size lights, and seemed slightly better than the TLR-8. As we’ll see below, it simply doesn’t have the candela to provide any illumination at distance. What it does provide is a wide & bright flood. You can see in the pictures that the Thrunite provides a wide angle of throw, as good as, if not better than, the Olight PL-Pro.
Our test subject also rated the lights on their effect on him. Our scale is as follows:
| 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 |
The TW10 was ranked as “strong light.” This lags behind all the lights in our full size light comparison. This light would not be our first choice if we wanted to control a subject utilizing (in part) the strength of light in their eyes.
Lab Tests
For this light, we tested max lumens, lumens over time, max candela, candela at angle, and light temperature.
First up is the Lumen test. Using our calibrated integrating sphere, we captured max lumens as well as lumens over time. First up is maximum lumens. It’s nice to see that ThruNite conservatively rated their lumens at 900. We did reach over 1,000 lumens, but this was only at the start of the testing, and would not meet ANSI / NEMA FL1 standards. In short, the maximum lumens meets our expectations and the standards.
| Lumens | TW10 | TLR-1HL | PL-Pro |
| Spec | 900 | 1000 | 1500 |
| Measured Max | 1003 | 1265 | 1912 |
| Measured Max (ANSI) | 983 | 1229 | 1873 |
| Percent of Advertised Max | 109.22% | 122.90% | 124.87% |
We see a different story when looking at how the light manages output over time. It puts out about 2.5 minutes of strong light (725 lumens or more), but is down at 130 lumens by 3.33 minutes. It seems the light has two mods: high for a couple minutes, then low for hours. This is obviously not a strategy that either Streamlight or Olight chose, as their graphs indicate those lights provide a much higher ouput level at the 5 minute mark, and the lights seem to want to try to hold at those high output levels as long as possible.
wpDataChart with provided ID not found!With the data above, runtime is easy to measure runtime. We simply see how long it will run at or above 10% of the spec output. By far, TW10 has the longest runtime of the bunch, exceeding the 130 minute spec sheet rating handily. I suspect this is because ThruNite chose a design that steps down to a low output by 3 minutes. I don’t know why they chose to do this. Yes, they can advertise a huge runtime, but after 3 minutes, the light is barely better than a TLR-6 (I’m only exaggerating slightly). I would have preferred the light to try to stay above 500 lumens as long as possible rather than stepping down. Also note that ThruNite is following this odd trend of advertising runtime based upon 2 different outputs, with the lower output being 427 lumens. Where did they get that number? The light doesn’t seem to try to hold around 427+ lumens; it simply “passes by” on its way down to 130 lumens, where it stays for hours. I suspect this trend is so that the manufacturer can claim runtime at 10% of that lower number, which means the light only needs to put out 42.7 lumens. But ThruNite doesn’t need to do this; they easily meet their runtime using the higher 90 lumens number.
| Lumens | TW10 | TLR-1HL | PL-Pro |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spec | 900 | 1000 | 1500 |
| Minutes of Spec Output | 2.42 | 3.33 | 1.08 |
| 10% of Spec | 90 | 100 | 150 |
| Runtime >10% of Spec | 166.58 | 93.33 | 40.42 |
For candela, we use our testing jig and calibration, which seems to produce a lower candela measurement than what manufacturers provide. That said, the measurements can be compared relative to other lights we have tested using the same equipment. For max candela, the TW10 lags behind the others in this test. This explains the low throw we experienced in our practical test; the light simply doesn’t reach out and allow us to see objects further out.
| Light | Candela | Throw (Meters) |
|---|---|---|
| TW10 | 2657 | 103 |
| TLR-1HL | 13070 | 229 |
| PL-Pro | 14140 | 238 |
We expected our candela at angle test to be more favorable for the Thrunite, as it appeared to provide a strong flood. However, it was close to even with the PL-Pro at angles of 20 degrees or more. This was obviously a design decision from ThruNite, possibly due to the myth of “you’ll blind yourself with a strong light” but we prefer more candela to identify and control threats.
With regards to color, we like colors in the 5000-5600k range. This light is cool and we prefer the warmer light because it provides more brown / green color information, which provides better contrast for skin tones.
| Light | Temperature | Color Cast |
|---|---|---|
| ThruNite TW10 | 6170k | Cool |
| Streamlight TLR-1HL | 5830k | Cool |
| Olight PL-Pro | 4480k | Warm |
Conclusion
So is a $50 Weaponlight worth it? I would currently recommend spending the extra $70 for a TLR-1HL, which is our current favorite full size light. Could the TW10 compete with offerings from Olight and Streamlight? We think it could if ThruNite made some changes.
- Use a standard 18350 battery: This would allow the battery to be pulled out through the bezel without removing the light from the pistol, and then either swapped or recharged. By using a standard battery instead of their proprietary solution, customers can use their home charger plus can purchase spares at a reasonable cost.
- Change their lens to produce a hotspot. At 900 lumens, the light is reasonably bright, but it’s hamstrung by the lens that disperses the light all directions.
- Improve the switches: I prefer a rear lever switch such as the TLR-1HL or Nightstick TWM-850XL. If Thrunite must have a side button switch with rubber over the top, then please make it larger and easier to index on.
- Use a common mount tool: I prefer a screw type mount like this one because it has a low profile and is secure. However, the execution of this one was only 80%. Please provide something that tightens down with a common tool so that I can easily attach or remove the light.
Don’t be worried if better components cause the light to cost more. The $50 space is crowded; stronger light with better components and features at a $60-85 price point would be welcomed.
We are excited to see new lights using 18350 batteries. While this one doesn’t hit the mark quite yet, there is opportunity for Thrunite or other manufacturers to get in to this space before Modlite and Cloud Defensive.
