SureFire and Government Contracts

[Brock]

I have never seen info directly from Surefire that they are supplying items to our military or any LEO's. I have heard rumors they do and it would only make since by the way some of the lights are designed, we can't possibly think the A2 was designed for us could we?

As for Sasha jumping on you I understand why she did. Granted it really wasn't because of what was asked here, rather what you tried to do in the other post. I personally don't mind one way or another what kinds of questions people ask and speculate about (including this topic), after all that's what CPF is for, but to try to bring it up in that other thread was just completely unacceptable. In my opinion that is one of the few things I would ban for, again not for what was said, but where, totally inappropriate in my opinion!

 

[MicroE]

Two Quick Points in Defense of Surefires Reputation:

1.) A Surefire dealer in NYC told me that he sold "a lot" of SF equipment to NYPD.

2.) It's pretty easy to figure out that SF DOES sell a lot to the police/military. If they didn't sell, they wouldn't constantly expand their weaponlight product line.

---Marc

 

[FC.]

I think Paul Kim's site explains CPF crew's "dedication" pretty well...

Just so I don't get banned: I LOVE SUREFIRE!

 

[bwaites]

I'm lost, Paul Kim's site?

Further, a lot of dealers will say they sold to, "NYPD, FDNY,LAPD" etc. when they actually sold to people who work there, whether they be Police, Firemen, Soldiers, Sailors, etc.

I wish I had seen the post that initiated all the talk, but I can only assume it was VERY inappropriate to have gotten both Sasha and Brock so upset!

Bill

 

[LitFuse]

[ QUOTE ]
bwaites said:
I'm lost, Paul Kim's site?


[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.pk-engineering.com/

 

[Negeltu]

Tactile? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif heh

 

[jallis]

i must say myself that im with sasha on this one. what sf does in and out of the government is really none of our business.
that said almost anyone with time and patience can find out whats going on in the procuremnet section of the dept of defense. ex... https://www.army.mil or gov. you just have to dig around some. dfas.mil is an excellent start for finance.
again that said ive also served as a ranger and for a short time sf. ive used a variety of surefires (mostly weapon lites like the m900.. looks somewhat like a m6 on steroids with a mulitude of switch options and uv capable). mostly we use if lighting. nothing ruins ones night using nvg's faster than an external light source.
well enough of my yakking
jallis(kinda new here)

 

[SilverFox]

Our local SWAT team knows about and uses SureFire lights. I have no idea who pays for them or orders them.

Tom

 

[tsg68]

I think the validity of Surefire's govt. contracts are our (consumer's) business when they use it as a public marketing angle.

There are thousands of cops in NYPD and I think the ones that are aware of, or even those who make the effort to afford a Surefire light are likely in the minority (my brother-in-law is NYPD, as are his three brothers, and would laugh his *** off if he knew how much my Surefires cost me!)There are also thousands of different military units and the use of Surefires is probably again a minority issue.

I know most cops here are issued a crappy maglight and that more cops know about Streamlight's products as the alternative to Mags over Surefires (Streamlight is widely available through Police supply here, Surefire's is limited and VERY inflated where it is) but many don't bother seeking an alternative at all, remember that New York's Finest make less than our Garbage men. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon23.gif

TSG /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[Greta]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the validity of Surefire's govt. contracts are our (consumer's) business when they use it as a public marketing angle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who says they use it as a marketing angle? I've never seen Surefire do that. I have heard them say that the reason some items are backordered for the civilian market is because they have put the military as their top priority right now. I just don't see that as a marketing angle... I see it as being honest with their civilian customers... they really don't have any reason to lie about this. That would hardly endear them to anyone now, would it? And they must be making all that money somewhere... if not from the civilian market. And that's really what all of this is all about, isn't it? Because some people can't get what they want right now?

 

[tsg68]

It has nothing to do with the speed of obtaining items it has to do with exaggerating your claims and imagery for the purpose of marketing and that it's a turnoff when it's blatant and downright insulting when it's untruthful. A good example would be the recent claim that Marine Det 1 of SOCOM had adopted the new Surefire suppressor for operational use when shortly after a participant in the evals stated that the suppressor in fact had not been adopted as it had not met all of the criteria. The guy then stated that Barry Dueck had a nice product and was welcome to try again next time but that the statements were false.

TSG /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[DavidW]

[ QUOTE ]
this_is_nascar said:
Does anyone here on CPF know what governmental contracts SF has their hands in? For over 2-years, I've been hearing how they (SF) are big with the goverment and various agencies, however most of my contacts who work in some of these goverment agencies have never heard of SureFire, let alone actually owned one of their products.



[/ QUOTE ]

Please list your contacts, their credentials and any other validating info.

Really.

 

[Greta]

Something that I had completely forgotten about... proof that I had posted back in August... proof that I can share.

Read this thread.

This is just ONE of the Surefire's that ONE of our DEA agents was ISSUED. The funny thing about this too is that this guy didn't even know what he had. He just had it in his bag. It was just some light that the DEA gave him... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

 

[KC2IXE]

[ QUOTE ]
tsg68 said:
...snip... remember that New York's Finest make less than our Garbage men. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon23.gif



[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, if I remember right, the "Base pay" of Sanitation, Fire, and NYPD are all the same, and pegged to each other - the unions would NOT have it any other way

Of course, there hasn't been a member of any of those services who has earned base pay in years (well, maybe a few, but...)

It's always interesting to look at "base pay" vs the median salary earned.

I don't remember the numbers in NYC, but just over the border, in Nassau, the "Median pay" for a "Patrol Officer" (the define it for the report as Lt on down) was something like 125k last year - Median means that half the folks earned less, half more

 

[guncollector]

If Surefire doesn't supply our military, how does one explain all the Surefire weaponlights you see attached to M4's in all the print/tv press images coming back from the frontlines? Yes, I notice these things. In fact, I go out of my way to notice them. You see Surefires on the cover of Time Magazine, in the reports of Newsweek, US News & World Report, on Fox News, and CNN, etc. whenever they show frontline troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Is the press in on the conspiracy too?

 

[Negeltu]

Goodness...don't get people started on media conspiracies too... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/huh.gif

 

[bwcaw]

Geez, who really cares if sf's are issued or not. It is evident that at least a few are making it over there to iraq by the pictures in the paper and on tv, so what difference does it make if sf actually has a "contract"?

And btw why is Sasha (notice capitalisation, sign of respect /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif) the surefire apologist now? Just curious

 

[Negeltu]

I don't see how it matters either way. I just thought that her reaction was rather strong because of such a small question...that really doesn't matter in the first place. I didn't see any harm that his question caused...I DID see where her reaction to the question could start an argument or something along those lines. She should take her grudge up with him in private if he said something in another thread that was wrong... not bring it to another thread...

 

[Size15's]

There is a history here that involves a lot of reading over several years of threads.

I understand that most people will not want to research this.

To most people this is a simple question. If you don't understand why it causes problems here then perhaps it's best not to post until it's explained or you have read back for yourself?

If you know the answer to the question asked then you are likely not to answer it.

If you want an answer to the question there are other forums that do not have our history that have members who are far more likely to answer.

A better question in my opinion would be "Where and who do I go to in order to find out whether SureFire have any Government Contracts?"

Al

 

[Negeltu]

Doesn't matter... A mod shouldn't have such a strong negative reaction to a simple post. I don't care how far back the history of this and that goes. If a person cannot moderate their own reaction to things like this..then they shouldn't have the responsibility of moderating a forum. If the question was bad...or wrong in anyway... the mod should either respond in a clear and unprovoking manner... or take it up privately with the person... If the person doesn't fix their wrong... then actions should be taken... it is as simple as that...