My take on the incan vs. LED argument...

Incandecent will always be easer to focus into a spot. An incan is just a piece of white-hot wire. This wire can be coiled a little, which makes the light-emitting portion only a couple of milimeters.

LED's, on the other hand, use a PN junction of a slab of semiconductor. Generally, more light -> a larger slab semiconductor.

So the LED is at a disadvantage because the light comes from a larger area. When focusing the light, you want the source of the light to be as small as possible (it's a math thing). As the light source grows, the reflector has to grow in proportion. So, for an equivalent spot at 100 yeards, the LED will need a larger reflector to achieve the same beam spread. Of course, you can compensate by using fancer optics (lenses and such), but lenses have the following problems:
1) If the lens covers the entire fron aperature, then you get absolutely no "side spill" light.
2) If the lens only covers part of the aperature, then you get ugly rings on the side spill.
3) Lenses will generally increase the length of the light, and likely the cost and weight.
4) More work to engineer a lensed system.

So, for long-throw applications in the smallest possible package, incandecent wins hands down.

You don't need lenses for focusing to a spot, or producing spill. You simply have to match the reflector design to the emitting characteristics of the LED you're using. Take the HDS lights for example. Tight spot, great spill, one reflector, no lens.

This whole discussion has shades of "Horseless carriages will never completely replace horses". <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Xbanker,
By all means go with the P-61 lamp is a tremendous improvement in brightness and in the area of illumination (The hot spot is bigger) which will aid you when you enter a room to clear it.
The throw remain the same, due to the reflectors been the same (heavily stippled) the reflector is designed to provide a quality beam without holes or artifacts with a very good flood or side spill.
For a weapon light to be mounted in a rifle a smooth reflector will give you more throw.
As an example I have several TACM III mounted on my long guns that have a lot more throw. (70 yards opposed to about 45 for the Surefire) this is due to the reflector been slightly bigger but smooth, not orange peel.
When you get to light with the intensity of over a 100 lumens the artifacts disappear at a few yards range.

You will be happy with the 120 lumens lamp on the 6 P because it is more intense and you will start seeing the white light that Surefire talk about.

The more lumens you put out the more you are going to see and the bigger area that will cover, an P-91 lamp (200 lumens) in a Surefire 9 P or C-3 is a revelation, and from that you will want to go to bigger things like the Surefire M-4 or M-6, (350 lumens and 500 lumens)

Let me show you the relationship in brightness between those lights, lets start with your Surefire with the stock lamp (P-60, 65 lumens)

Surefire P-60 65 lumens



Surefire M-4 350 lumens



Surefire M-6 500 lumens



And now the most powerful flashlight in the world (which I made) the MAG 951 (951 lumens)



NOTICE:
Lumens can be additive and hazardous to your wallet!!

Oh, but it is so nice to have in your hand something that will really blind your opponent!!!!

The biggest advantage is the lack of need of panning the room with your light, a Surefire M-6 at 500 lumens will let you see everything around (more so the MAG 951, that have the advantage of been rechargeable as well as double the lumens).
Both are fantastic lights to use against dogs that chase joggers, the critters are scare of the light and will be blinded by it.
The normal reaction on them is to stop and not move; because they are positively blinded they don't move as they can not see where they are going.
More or less same reaction than deer exhibit when you approach them with your car in the middle of a road.

regards
black bear

BlackBear-

Thanks for your insight.

My decision's made (but thanks to you, my attempts to save money by avoiding Candlepower Forums just went up in smoke <img src="/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />).

Eh. It usually takes a generation or two before the holdouts are completely gone. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

The goal is to convert energy into photons with maximum efficiency. Heating a wire until it glows currently (heh) has two advantages: The emitted spectrum is close to sunlight, so it looks good, and it's possible to dump massive amounts of energy into it to increase the brightness (with horrible efficiency). The only other advantage is that it's technologically simple. That's it... Once a replacement comes along that produces the same spectrum at the same or greater brightness, and does so more efficiently, incandescents are dead.

What's less clear is whether the replacing technology will be LEDs or something even more exotic. Early work with quantum dots suggests it will eventually be possible to tailor the output spectrum and have near 100% conversion efficiency. Sweeeeeet. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Of course incandescents will still be around. How can you reenact the 20th century if you don't use exact replicas? <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

If they could just come up with a laser that had decent beam spill <img src="/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

<img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />