Thoughts on what's happening to SF.

Thoughts on what\'s happening to SF.

I think that they're going corporate and I don't say it in a complimentary sort of way.

I only live a few miles from SF and ever since I've become acquinted with their products (10 years ago), I thought that it was nice for a local company in my backyard to be making world famous products. The fact that it was a small, privately run company seemed to make it, in my mind, a success story. Sort of like "small company makes big impact on the world." And then things begin to change.

Among the things that made SF great are Paul posting proto pix, interaction with the customers on the SFDB and all those other intangibles that makes SF the great company that it is. But I also think that somewhere, in the past year or so, the company began shifting it's identity.

No matter your views on their pricing structure, for me that was the turning point. It seems that from then on the company began morphing and as a business that rightfully is out to make money, it should change as it sees fit. However, SF seems to be losing that small company feel.

My own view is that SF closed the SF Institute for civil liability reasons. Now, it can contract out/refer agencies or other law enforcement organizations to whoever it wishes which serves to remove some of the stigma of producing products that are knowingly installed on weapons that take lives. SF just makes the products but it was its own SF Institute that showed how to use them with deadly results. Cruel perhaps but not totally unrealistic, in my opinion. If this is true, I wish SF had more huevos. On the other hand, if I'm way off base I wish someone in the know would say so.

Removing the SFDB really has me puzzled. It was a great place to interact with customers, discuss great products, and I think that some at SF really listened to ideas on product improvements. If the SFDB doesn't come back, it'll seem like I've been abandoned. Not everything in the DB was complimentary but at least it was honest, humorous and colorful. It just seems that SF may not want people to discuss its products in a less than ideal fashion but it can't guarantee that so no more DB.

PK's site is another annoyance because Pablo always recognized the great photography of others, proudly displayed it and I think that he genuinely enjoys sharing his latest ideas with people that really appreciate top quality things. I feel that Paul really loves his work and his site reflected his passion. I also believe that some "higher ups" probably told Pablo to pull the pix.

My missive has gone on long enough but I'm perturbed. SF can do anything it pleases and it doesn't need my approval but from someone who's been sitting in the stands, SF is changing and it bugs me. I'm just not feeling the love like I used too.

EDIT: I went to the ar15 site and I don't think it brought down the house of Paul. No, there's something else going on. I really can't describe it but there's something in the air that's both semi-evil and omnipotent.

Re: Thoughts on what\'s happening to SF.

"semi-evil and omnipotent"

Gee, Jeff, lets not mince any words. I don't agree with semi-evil and omnipotent, but speaking only for myself, "arrogant" might not be far off the mark. I have to admit that I, too, have been disappointed in SureFire this year. While the price "increase," the Ken Good et al departure, the discussion board demise, and the pk site changes are of "concern," I am most disturbed by SF's treatment of "my" SureFire dealer.

"My" dealer is the very one that promoted and "sold" me on SF products in the first place, and it seems that "my" dealer is now being snubbed. And pricing is not the main issue--access to products is. I tried to order some parts/accessories (at full retail), but it appears that SF made it so difficult to obtain them, that "my" dealer could/would not fill my order.

Instead, "my" dealer directed me to go directly to SF. And that to me, is the crux of the matter. It is my opinion (and that's all it is, an opinion, or speculation if you prefer) that SF's ultimate goal may be to eventually cut out all of its dealers/distributors (for "control").

Now that a firm following and reputation have been established (thanks in large part to dealers and distributors everywhere), SF, armed with its website, may go it alone. Which certainly is their choice/right, but to me it somehow seems disloyal. (I hope time will prove me wrong.)

Regarding a discussion board, I would give SF more time to get something established.

By the way, I just got back from out of town, so can anyone tell me what (if anything) happened with the re-name the M6 contest?

Re: Thoughts on what\'s happening to SF.

Originally posted by flashfan:
Regarding a discussion board, I would give SF more time to get something established.

By the way, I just got back from out of town, so can anyone tell me what (if anything) happened with the re-name the M6 contest?

Click to expand...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I don't know why they would dump an established DB just to start up another one.

As far as re-naming the M6, I'm sure that idea got canned too...

Re: Thoughts on what\'s happening to SF.

Jeff, to some degree, I agree with you. I always thought their "pricing policy" was off base and there's no doubt (imho), they've lost some dealers. Personally, I thought their "pricing policy" would be challenged. However, I let products I buy stand on their own and when they get too expensive, they will lose me as a customer. I think this is one of those "tail wagging the dog" situations.

Re: Thoughts on what\'s happening to SF.

If all this is true, maybe PK should teamed with Ken Good and start their own company. We, CPFers, will try the best we can to inform the world what is true SF, and the one just plain name with unfriendly feel

I personally love the feel of being close to their research and development. It kind of make me think about what the future might hold for us. And we also able to prepare to set some money aside and ready to buy it when it is finally come out

Maybe their new prototype for ShotShow 2003 is very classified project, trying to develop laser that can be used as laser weapon, that's why PK cannot show the photo or any info of the prototype anymore
This should return back the company to what it was, developing the first laser sighting for shotgun (their company name is Laser Product, right?)

Re: Thoughts on what\'s happening to SF.

I sort of have a different take on it. My guess was that the SFDB wasn't being moderated by enough SF employees. I don't think they have a problem with the board, just that if they can't really help people out in a timely manner and do it right then they shouldn't do it.

On a similar note, should they really be worried about a bunch of us who like flashlights? Don't take this the wrong way, but the lights are made for tactical situations and how many of us actually use them that way? I know some do, I know we have some LEO and similar people, I myself am a rescue diver and use lights in that case. I would be willing to bet that less then 5% of the people on the SFDB we tactical customers, if that is the case then why support the board?

As far as loosing us as customers by all of this, again, I don't think we make up much of their sales, I would bet over 90% are military LEO customers and shouldn't they be spending more time getting them what they need? (with the possible exception of the E series).

Having said that I do agree with Jeff that it is a move away from "our flashlight company" to some big corporation, like Streamlight or dare I say Mag. Heck Mag barely has a web site, much less a DB. I hope the plan isn't to move in that direction.

I hope I didn't offend anyone especially Paul. I really like Surefire lights and will continue to buy them because I think they are currently the best made lights. I do hope Surefire still takes the time to at least glance at our reviews and concerns as time permits.

One more thing, it has always bugged me that people complain about the cost of running a Surefire. I don't think the cost of running the lights is on anyone's mind while making the light, they just wanted the smallest brightest light, and to get that you need expensive batteries. To me it is like saying you want a Jag, but don't want to put premium fuel in it. I guess if you don't need a light that is that special then you can get a cheaper light from some other company, again I am not knocking the use of regular batteries, I would LOVE to see a E2, with a 4AA body, but I don't think that is what Surefire is about.

I could be way off base here, and probably am; again these are just my thoughts, not the thoughts of an administrator of this board.

I think this was my longest post

Re: Thoughts on what\'s happening to SF.

Agree with Brock, especially the last point.

Re: Thoughts on what\'s happening to SF.

I disagree with Brock's last point.I think economy of use is very important for LEOs.These are exactly the people who use bright,small lights for extended periods of time.Why not build a light that will take 4 NIMH AAs?At least offer the option.

Re: Thoughts on what\'s happening to SF.

Good point Troy, makes since, but the idea of using lithiums so they can run at -10F and are always ready to go, even after sitting for months on end, and are about 1/2 the weight of the NiMH's. Believe me I wish I could get a nice 2 AA or 4 AA body for these lights, it would save me $.

Re: Thoughts on what\'s happening to SF.

Have to jump in again...

There's a theory, that is often true, that it doesn't matter how much something costs if you really need it. That's been the reason that 123 only lights have survived, especially for tactical use. The reliability, or perceived reliability, of rechargables hasn't been there. Government agencies also sometimes don't pay close attention to the costs of things like batteries. (And they DO have uses, just not for everything.)

BUT - Things change. I work for a government agency, and while they/we do it slowly sometimes, there is an incentive to buy less expensive things that do the same job. For one, people often feel good about saving the government money. (really!) For another, it means more money to buy other things.

To me, a newbie to this whole thing, Streamlight feels a lot friendlier than Surefire, and their products seem of high quality and reasonable price. I view both companies as "big". ("Huge" would be Mag, or Rayovac, to me. Assume consumer grade, and disposable.)

Maybe they're just growing up, and settling into a better defined market. If they're dumping dealers, it's probably to save money, but that's probably a mistake, because I'm betting the dealers also carry other LE supplies, and I *know* that they'll start carrying and recommending other brands if SF screws them. Government agencies at state level and below also like dealing with dealers, not direct, as they can setup accounts and order stuff easier. Just a 2 cent ramble again.

Oh, and I think that NiMH AA's and high power LED's are going to hurt SF. To me, SF is spending to much effort on giant handheld light cannons, and that whole "blind them" idea, and not enough on basic lighting. Stuff to blind people, for real, the military has been playing around with for years, and it's something LE doesn't have a need for, or an ability to use. Again, just MHO.

There also could be a factor that at least some groups of the US Army have been shifting, or have shifted, (or so I've heard) from indoor use of night vision and night sights on weapons, to weapon mounted white lights. With everything going on in the world today, this could be enough of a market change to wreck everything else SF is doing.

Re: Thoughts on what\'s happening to SF.

My two cents on AAs. Now that PK and Surefire are working on regulated lights...including incandescent...I would like the option of AAs--alkaline, NiCd, and/or NiMH...pick the right tool for the job.

Lithiums go a LONG way towards flattening out the light output, but regulators could go even farther (witness the KL1 curve vs the Inova X5).

By the way, SL was clever with the 4AA LED ProPolymer--they optimized the LED curves and the alkaline AA curves in a way that provided essentially flat light output for a long time (4.5 hours I measured IIRC).

Cheers,

Richard

Re: Thoughts on what\'s happening to SF.

Originally posted by Albany Tom:
at least some groups of the US Army have been shifting, or have shifted, (or so I've heard) from indoor use of night vision and night sights on weapons, to weapon mounted white lights.

Click to expand...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I don't know how many of you watched the news channels with live coverage of the siege of Arafat's office building last week, but the nightlight shining on that building was impressive. Not only was it like daylight, but when the spot moved (it was oval shaped but covered only 3/4 of the building) it did so with incredible smoothness. It was obviously handled aimed mechanically, not manually.

That impressed me more than their ability to lob a bomb accurately onto the roof directly over a stairway -- at night -- from a considerable distance.

Did anybody else see that light? Anybody know what the power source was, lamp style, mounting details? Was it a SureFire product?