I've recently posted in other threads about the issue of designing lights for the end user and how the light then needs to be tested in pre-release form to iron out problems before the customer buys it. Nothing is more damaging for a company's reputation then a product which fails or which gains a reputation for failing.
The U2 is (on CPFat least) gaining a undesirable reputation for being unreliable.
IMHO Surefire has to sort this problem out if it wants to be seen as a company which produces high end, high tech products, which are reliable? Whilst I'm sure the DARPA lights have undergone reliability trials it is less obvious to me if the same has applied to the U2.
Problems with doughnut holes, beam tints and faulty switches are serious issues in a light as expensive as the U2. If it was only one or two examples that were quoted then it could be put down to poor QC or bad luck. However, if the numbers of complaints about the U2 which are shown on CPF are a representative reflection of U2's in circulation then it is a big problem.
I am a Surefire fan and I have often thought about getting a U2 to keep my Gladius company. However, until I see an improvement in a reduced number of complaints coming through about reliability then I'm staying clear of the U2!
Doug
