Flashlights for self defense

[black bear]

Modifying a pistol, flashlight or car for better performance and selling the product is completely legal and is done all the time.

What I do is take a regular Maglite 3 D (39 lumens) and exchange some components (and work on it cutting and soldering) to produce a 951 lumens flashlight.

I replace the Maglite reflector and plastic lens with a specially designed parabolic reflector made of heavy walled solid aluminum and Pyrex lens.



I modify and replace parts on the stock switch to run the bi-pin super bulb
Here is the stock switch on left and the special holder on right.



All rechargeable police flashlights use a Ni Cad 6 volts battery for 200 to 250 lumens top.

I use a special battery carrier that takes nine Nimhs high current high capacity batteries for over 12 volts of power for the 45 minutes run time.



And I charge for the modification the outrageous price of $200 to $260 (depending on which of my three carriers the customer choose)

For that price the customers also chooses from four different reflector finish, smooth, Orange Peel, Light Stippled and Heavy Stippled.

How it compares with others Police torches?
Magcharger 200 lumens
Stinger 220 lumens
Tiger Light 250 lumens

Surefire M-4 (20 minutes run on 4 batteries for 350 lumens)
Surefire M-6 (20 minutes run on 6 batteries for 500 lumens)

MAG 951 II RECHARGEABLE 951 lumens to 1050 lumens depending on battery carrier used.

Those custom parts made in small run are expensive. When the Maglite was launched in '79 it was over $60.00. That now is so inexpensive is a miracle of modern high speed production, anybody that have a Maglite and can disassemble it, can see how much quality and ruggedness is inherent in the design.

Best regards to all
black bear

[Michael Ledgerwood]

Blackbear, you seem to not understand what I am telling you. You can modify anything you want and sell it that is fine. What is not fine is taking the exsisting product, modifying it, and then selling it as your own which is what you are doing. You are taking a Maglight, modifying it then selling it as the Mag951. This is called trademark infringement, and is in violation with the US patent laws. Maglight owns the patent for the shape, style, functionality of their product. Additionally the term Maglight is copyrighted by them. What does this mean to you. It means your flashlight cannot be sold and you are subject to legal action. Your flashlight looks like a maglight, functions like a maglight and is therefore copying not only the maglight product but the maglight brand as well. What you need to understand Mr. Blackbear is that your product as it stands now is ILLEGAL. Also, anyone buying your product may be subject to legal action as well. I sincerely hope that you start listining to me, but if you chose not to well you maybe subject to legal action.

[Mr. Security]

I think he understands what you mean. Nevertheless, merely possessing that flashlight in my state does not subject one to criminal prosecution. I may choose to have one because of the incredible light output of this torch. If I remove the bezel and replace it with a factory issued one, I can also use it at my place of employment.

If I use the modified bezel, then I can only use it for self-defense in my own home if my life is threatened. Each member on this forum must make a personal decision as to what they will do. Your position is clear. Others may share a different viewpoint based on the state and local laws in their area.

[Michael Ledgerwood]

I think he understands what you mean. Nevertheless, merely possessing that flashlight in my state does not subject one to criminal prosecution. I may choose to have one because of the incredible light output of this torch. If I remove the bezel and replace it with a factory issued one, I can also use it at my place of employment.

If I use the modified bezel, then I can only use it for self-defense in my own home if my life is threatened. Each member on this forum must make a personal decision as to what they will do. Your position is clear. Others may share a different viewpoint based on the state and local laws in their area.

I more than agree with you. His selling the light is iffy though but its his problem not mine. I won't buy it for self defense or light output.

[OzPatrol]

In Australia, the modifications to the bevel housing would be unlawful to use in the course of a security officers duties. We are restricted in regards to what size of torch / flashlight we can use here already. I am not sure however, if simple possession of such a light would be classed as illegal in any of the territories.

Take for instance, the regularly old 4 D-Cell Maglite. In Australia, you are required by law in most states to have a Baton Licence in order to carry it or anything above 4 D-Cell, as it is classed as, well, yeah, a baton. Not only must you be licenced, but according to the information I have on hand, the company you work for must ALLOW you to carry it in the performance of your duties and if I understand correctly, must be licenced to carry batons itself.

Granted, I do like the look of the upgraded torches, but I would be very wary of using them in Australia, except for personal use only...and that would mainly be for camping or being out in the bush.

There are restrictions here in Australia in regards use of force which seem to be somewhat similar to those in the US. You are allowed to only use 'reasonable' force. Reasonable force is somewhat open for discussion, as another thread on this site states in regards to the Australian security officer using lethal force upon a subject that assaulted her.

Unlike other security forces in different countries, in Australia, you are limited by what you may carry, not only by law, but by the company you work for as well. The one I work for, you are allowed to carry a torch, but the majority of us use the small Surefire type LED's for inside work, and spotlight torches for, well....spotlighting.

I'm sure someone may like to use those for personal use, and hold no grudge against someone doing so, but I would advise caution in using them for professional purposes, unless you are a professional LEO with the ability to use these in the line of duty.

.5 cents spent.

[N. A. Corbier]

That's my look at it. Would I buy one? Maybe. Would I authorize its carry? Hell no, I have enough to deal with without a lawsuit or media exposure over "killer flashlights."

"The ordinary metal flashlight, modified by the company, is now a wicked mace. The bezel attachment is not sold in the US, rather, the company had to import them from England... We asked a local police expert, who said, "The only purpose for that is to injure. We don't use our flashlights as impact weapons, only as flashlights. To put this thing on shows that they were looking to hurt people with those killer flashlights."

[black bear]

In the meanwhile Surefire is selling the L6 Porcupine like hot cakes and at $600.00 a pop.

The body is a gorgeous poem of high class machining, and the crenellated bezel is hard to miss.

[N. A. Corbier]

That is not a flashlight. That is a mace that happens to project light.

WTF is the intended audience for that weapon system?

[Mr. Security]

More Laws?

My concern is that the more flashlight manufacturers produce flashlights that have a menacing appearance, the greater the likelihood that some legislator is going to start regulating the industry. That means the police get the cool flashlights and security will end up with the plastic, safety yellow industrial flashlights.

[HotelSecurity]

I can see that happening here in Canada! Already there's no pepper spray, no Tazers etc etc.

[N. A. Corbier]

My concern is that the more flashlight manufacturers produce flashlights that have a menacing appearance, the greater the likelihood that some legislator is going to start regulating the industry. That means the police get the cool flashlights and security will end up with the plastic, safety yellow industrial flashlights.

You have a point. Look at the assault weapons ban, when it was active. It squarely relied on "features" and "look," not destructive capability.

[Mr. Security]

I can see that happening here in Canada! Already there's no pepper spray, no Tazers etc etc.

Canada is, if I understand correctly, much more restrictive when it comes to citizens owning handguns. The same seems to be true in England. I know that some bad guys there have firearms, but it doesn't even come close to the USA.

Until recently, most Bobbies were unarmed, except for a baton. Even in the USA, LEO's could effectively do their jobs with a revolver until the last twenty years or so. They usually carried 18 rounds. Now they must have semiautomatic side arms w/ 15 round clips and they usually carry 3 of those because the bad guys carry similar guns. And even then, the criminals sometimes outgun them.

I believe that Canada and Britain have a murder rate that is considerably lower than the USA because of their gun laws. I am definitely in the minority on this issue, but I believe the facts speak louder than anything I can say.

[HotelSecurity]

I agree that criminals don't follow laws. We have very strict gun laws here in Canada yet people are still killed with guns. However I think most of the killings happen during crimes. It is more likely that someone will get killed in the US by a student bringing his father's gun to school or by a wife by her husband during an arguement than in Canada. I deal a lot with drunks. I have never had to deal with an armed one. This would worry me if I lived in the US.

BTW are assault weapons still legai in the US? I thought they had been banned after that bank robbery in California where the bad guys were armed with AK-47s.

[Mr. Security]

...
BTW are assault weapons still legai in the US? I thought they had been banned after that bank robbery in California where the bad guys were armed with AK-47s.

I believe there is a grandfather clause for those who legally owned them before the law went into effect. In Connecticut, they have to be registered with the DOPS. They still make and sell them here, but they are only semi-automatic. The problem is that it is not difficult to get the parts needed to convert them to fully automatic. Not a good situation.

[N. A. Corbier]

The "Assault Weapons" ban sunsetted, and with good reason. Here's the deal about assault weapons.

I have, sitting next to me, an airsoft M4A2. This is the shorter carbine version of the M16, the seminal "Assault Weapon."

Under the old law, if this were a real firearm (I would not have a real M16 sitting next to my computer desk...) it would violate the law because it has three or more of the following elements on it. It can have up to two of them at a time, and not be considered an assault weapon.

1. It has a bayonet lug. This is a device that allows the M9 Bayonet to be attached, and turn the 1,000+ plus weapon into a close quarters weapon. The M9 Bayonet itself is not banned, only the lug is.

2. It has a "pistol grip stock." If you ever wondered why a lot of military looking rifles have a small piece of plastic running from the stock (the part you put your shoulder) to the grip (the part you grip onto), this is why. If the grip is not attached to the stock, its considered an element of an assault weapon.

3. It has a detachable box magazine with more than ten rounds (Hi-Cap Mag) This simply means that the weapon carries more than 10 rounds in it, at a time. The M16/AR15/M4 magazines come in 10, 20, 30, and 100 varieties. By itself, having a high-cap mag was not illegal via the federal ban, but may still be illegal in some states (California).

4. Collapsible Stock. The stock is the "assault" type that collapses, one of the hallmarks of the M4 carbine. This, by itself, is not illegal, but adds to the conditions of an "assault weapon."

I think there's more, but I can't remember if M1913 Weaver Rails are assault weapon modifiers or not.

Here's the thing. The fact that it has these elements, and the weapon looks scary, do nothing to lessen the amount of firepower on the street. By simply removing the bayonet lug, replacing the stock and grip with a "sporter" stock, etc, I have changed the M16 to be a "sporting weapon," yet have not changed the lethality of the weapon.

The AK-47, as well, was purposefully "post-ban" imported with sporting options such as the sporter stock with integrated grip. Here's a news flash, the "sporter stock" was actually from the AK-74 Sniper System. It made it even more accurate. Bayonet lugs were cut off, but who needs to attach a knife to a weapon that can hit the target with a 7.62mm round at 500+ meters?

Then we get into sniper weapons systems, such as the Remington 7xx series of sniper rifles. Match grade weapons, bolt action, extremely long range, extremely accurate. Their lethality is seen every time a police sniper (that uses the Remington platform) takes a critical shot to end an encounter.

The famed Barrett M82 .50 caliber sniper rifle, as well, is extremely accurate and extremely powerful.

You can buy the Remington in "Match Grade" at your local Wal-Mart. Your local gun shop will probably have an M82 they can order, unless your state banned .50 caliber rounds, then they can order you the .478 Barrett version which isn't banned.

If your going to ban guns, ban guns. Don't play the "this gun looks bad" game. Its silly, and it does nothing to stop the lethality of weapons.

Something else most folks don't know:

If you can pass a criminal background check, get your "chief law enforcement officer" to sign an ATF form attesting that you passed it, you can own a fully automatic weapon, a short barreled rifle or shotgun, or any other ATF restricted weapon. Why? Because they're restricted via a "ATF Tax." The weapon is contraband if the tax hasn't been paid. Most state laws preventing the ownership of "machine guns" and other such things contain a clause that states, "unless the owner is authorized by the laws of the United States to possess such automatic/short barreled/suppressed weapon."