Has Surefire abandoned the Chem-kote process?

[mfrey]

The last E2DL I bought from a recent production run does not appear to be Chem-koted. The inside of the body and threads appear to be bare aluminum, lacking the bronze color indicative of the coating.

Anyone else notice a similar absence of Chem-kote on theirs? Is this a QC issue for this individual light or has Surefire abandoned the coating as a cost-saving measure?

 

[copperfox]

I purchased an E2E-HA at a local brick & mortar less than a month ago. It does have the bronze color on the inside. :shrug:

 

[lebox97]

have you asked surefire?
:shrug:

... Is this a QC issue for this individual light or has Surefire abandoned the coating as a cost-saving measure?

 

[Penguin]

my E2DL also lacks a bronze coloring on the threads and inside of the tube... I noticed something different about the E2DL versus my other E-series but I couldn't quite put my thumb on it, glad you pointed it out!!

 

[Yapo]

oh so that's what the bronze colouring was from...I always wondered why surefire threads looked shiny bronze instead of greyish like threads of other lights thinking they used a different alloy.

 

[1996alnl]

The last E2DL I bought from a recent production run does not appear to be Chem-koted. The inside of the body and threads appear to be bare aluminum, lacking the bronze color indicative of the coating.

Anyone else notice a similar absence of Chem-kote on theirs? Is this a QC issue for this individual light or has Surefire abandoned the coating as a cost-saving measure?

That's strange that your light isn't Chem-koted. I just bought my ED2DL a few weeks ago and an L4 last week and their both done so i don't think Surefire abandoned this method.
I'd give them a call or email them,it wouldn't hurt.

Take care

 

[Splunk_Au]

deleted. wrong thread.

 

[kosPap]

well this thread sparkled my interest and I disassembled a 6P I got recently (about 1 year old) and compared it to a 2001 circa C2.

Chem-Kote is lighter in the 6P for sure (do not know if that means thinner) but I could not capture the difference in a photo.

But here is what I have for you:

This may be a sacriledge to say for some, but from summer on I have the notion (judging from members posts) that Surefire quality has droped some....

hmmmmm...Kostas

 

[Bullzeyebill]

I am not sure that Surefire intended to Chem-kote all of their flashlight bodies. My 6P body that I have had for sometime now does not appear to coated inside. My C2 body, however, has a light brass colored finish on the inside of the whole body, outside threads too.

Bill

 

[Tojvo Glumov]

Hello everyone!

After getting a new SF flashlight recently I googled why isn't is golden inside as my previous ones and found this and that topics on the question.

Well, we know that older SF used chemkote with hexavalent chromium which is toxyc and carcinogenous. The only question I coundn't find answer to is "How dangerous this hexavalent chromium in out flashlights for us and our families?"

I tried to assess it. My calculations are as the following.
PDF from Tyco Electronix says that Cr+6 content in chemkote is not more than 400 mg/m2, SF M4 has tube is approximately D18 * 150mm, it has no more than 3.4 mg of Cr+6.

Wikipedia says "The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health proposed a REL of 0.2 µg/m3 for airborne exposures to hexavalent chromium." and "California has finalized a Public Health Goal of 0.02 parts per billion (ppb or micrograms per liter)".

That means that 3.4 mg of Cr+6 correspond to 2L/day consumption of bad water for 230 year or inhaling of bad air for 5.4 years.

Well, all these calculations are ultimate-worst-case of ingesting or inhaling all SF M4 body Cr+6. Can anybody say what is real hazard level from this Cr+6?

 

[880arm]

. . . Well, all these calculations are ultimate-worst-case of ingesting or inhaling all SF M4 body Cr+6. Can anybody say what is real hazard level from this Cr+6?

You are at greater risk of breaking your toe due to dropping your M4 on your foot.

The biggest risks from Hex Chrome are related to inhalation which can lead to all sorts of bad things including a perforated septum or cancer. Probably the most common source of this exposure today is when hotworking stainless steel or high-chrome alloys (welding, cutting, brazing, etc.). Unless you're trying to remove the coating from the flashlight, this route should be a non-issue.

There is also the possibility of contact dermatitis which normally occurs from handling or application of coating materials. I would expect that a "cured" coating such as found on a completed flashlight body would present a very minimal risk.

From the standpoint of managing exposure in the workplace, Hex Chrome is something to be eliminated if possible. There are mitigation techniques which can be used but they are sometimes expensive, cumbersome or inconvenient. I don't know whether or not this is what influenced SureFire's decision or if it was other considerations.

 

[NoNotAgain]

Having worked as a aerospace materials process engineer for close to thirty years, I can state that hex chrome was just about done away with ten plus years ago.
Trivalent chrome appears bronze to gold in color and was probably what Surefire used as its electrically conductive while hex chrome is very poor conducting electricity.
If you look up Mil-C-81706, you'll see many companies that make conversion coatings for aluminum alloys. 81706 just covers the material while Mil-C-5541 covers the application.
Most commercial companies phased out hex chrome years ago due environmental and regulatory concerns.