The funny thing is, I don't think SureFire has any competition. SureFire has been commanding the high-end, over-spec'd market since they began mass manufacturing. The fit and (basic) function of their incandescent line exceeds what the vast majority of thier consumers need. SureFire tries to make thier lights as dependable as the weaponry that they are intended to accompany in law enforcement and military applications. That is the closest anology I can think of and I think it is appropriate for this DOD supplier.
Nevertheless, there are tens of thousands of consumers willing to pay top dollar for what they percieve as "the best" even if they don't need the best.
I acknowledge that there are thousands of people in first-tier, safety-critical jobs who's life depends on their equpment working right every time. I always advocate that they buy most dependable, good performing light they can get. There's almost nowhere else for them to go but SureFire. However, if you were a law enforcement officer, or a Marine, would this include the U2 Ultra? Would you trust a firearm with a quality record like the U2 Ultra? Yet even informed consumers like us on CPF, having read dozens of posts about horrible defects, and 4-month warranty claims are still clamoring to buy that crappy light. I understand it, yet I'm still baffled.
Apparently, like fine art, the value of a SureFire light in the eyes of the second-tier consumer is abstract, and not connected with the actual utility of the item. I call it the SureFire effect.
That's why the next best maker is not willing to incur the costs of making a product with such strict tolerances. A large manufacturer without the SureFire name could not sell even a better product for the same or lower price. They would not be perceived as equal or better because they don't have the reputation and recognition of SureFire. They would be considered way overpriced, and anybody with more money than brains would impulsively buy the SF instead.
Wolf Eyes, G&P, and others make lights with similar or better performance, but not the over-spec'd build quality. Nevertheless, consumers will buy a lesser performing SureFire light for way more money just to get additional quality that they don't really need. It's the SureFire effect. It's the Coach purse, the Rolex watch, -a status symbol?
I set my 10 year old, $20 timex watch to the atomic clock at the US Naval Observatory. It has been dead-nuts accurate for over three months now. I could have paid $1500 for a Rolex, but it couldn't perform any better.
Broken filaments aside, I have never had a MagLite fail on me, -ever. Not to say that MagLites are as high quality as SureFire, far from it, but a $270 light would not have served me any better because my $20 light hasn't failed. Some people's have, but not mine. I trust it completely. From a reliability standpoint (not beam quality) why would I pay $270 for a better built light? Vanity?
I am not especially well-off, and I'm sure my attitude would be a little different if I could afford any light I want, but I am forced to be a lot more practical. I'm a sucker for tools. I will buy top quality tools for applications where I use them professionally. I guess that makes me a tier-one tool user, but I wouldn't have a $15000 cabinet full of Snap-On tools if I only tinkered from time to time unless money were no object. And then, I would be subject to the criticism of someone like me.
I admire SureFire lights, -I really do. But I don't anticipate ever buying one, because I can get more performance with adequate reliability for far, far less money.
Bernie
It'll take a bit to get the light back.
VDG
