Why are Surefire emitters out of date?

They didn't used to be...they used to be the cream of the crop.

Drivers...eh...2-mode is more reliable than others, I admit. That's reasonable. Though I would love an updated version of the Surefire U-2.

Build quality = awesome. Reliability = as reported = awesome.

That said...why the emitter outdatedness? This didn't use to be the case. 6 years ago Surefire was the brightest (and dominated this forum). Now...using out-of-date emitters in still expensive lights

...why? Sure the build quality but...it use to be that + brightness/output options Surefire was best. Even assuming greater lumens isn't worth that much - greater efficiency always is. Keep a 70 lumen turbo, but use the latest emitter naturally for greater runtime. Surefire use to excel at this, but now is quite behind.

My (so far) stance: profit maximizing. They have such an amazing reputation (especially for government contracts), that it's best to build solid but cheap - improving is not so beneficial. Especially providing cheap civilian lights - as that will rile the government contracts.

In general...my 2005+ ideal...is now the same...just 6 years out of date. I still watch Surefire but...would like someone to contradict my thinking on Surelight's emitters being no more up to date as Wal*Marts, and why that is now understandable (or not).

Out of date emitters but still arguably worth a lot given other qualities = seems reasonable to me. I resent it slightly, but accept it. That said...where as they were once at the forefront on emitters...why are they now at the Wal*Mart (and seemingly...going slightly behind) that level? I'm kind peeved.

Just another company that used to be the absolute best, rode on that reputation, then got fat, then started falling behind in the race but didn't care because they were still being well fed and were done with running anyway. Not an uncommon story for companies that get big. They'll probably be able to milk their reputation for another decade or so too - but eventually they'll either have to step back up to the plate or go the way a LOT of big brands of the past have...

I don't buy flashlights for the LED they contain. My guess is the majority of Surefire's customers don't either.

their most recent line uses XP-Es.
hardly outdated.

Craig

carrot said:

I don't buy flashlights for the LED they contain. My guess is the majority of Surefire's customers don't either.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I think it's hard to convey that many Surefire lights are purpose-built lights. There are many other lights out there that are very versatile and do many things well but sometimes versatility leads to complication in both the UI and components. Besides, SF uses the CREE XR-E in most of their TIR lights switching to, say, the XP-G would necessitate a redesign of the TIR lens. Not saying SF is incapable of doing it but it does kind of ruin their well-settled groove. I think it is just a matter of time before they have to have a big change up and honestly I think they're in the process of one.

Pssst...

Hey, guys...

Take a look at the new "Fury" model from Surefire, a light similar in size to G2 and with XM-L pushing out 500 lumens.

:wave:

carrot said:

I don't buy flashlights for the LED they contain. My guess is the majority of Surefire's customers don't either.

Click to expand...

Me neither! That said..

Emitters are not the most important factor I agree. That said - I dislike the "still premium" manufactures hitting lower than the <$30 makers in terms of efficiency. And I'd like it recognized as a deficiency. It used to be "Surefire lumens" were the best. Now though...oh well lumens don't count...now that the nice manufacturers are behind. Lovely.

Circa 2005 - yes, that said. Better options now, especially for the average user....

A 60+ lumen Surefire...reasonable, ultra reliable, and 60 is enough. That said, if such light uses an emitter an expensive (up to date) as one from a $9 light..I'm a bit...how do we say...nto blind to brand, but in general constructively critical...

enomosiki said:

Pssst...

Hey, guys...

Take a look at the new "Fury" model from Surefire, a light similar in size to G2 and with XM-L pushing out 500 lumens.

:wave:

Click to expand...

Which...circa a bit ago...would have been quite cool. Now though.... a 2x123a with 500 lumens is nothing. Sans any brand-preference I have, it's a bit off.

I'm still perturbed. Such mathematics on lumens are common now...even surpassed.

csshih said:

their most recent line uses XP-Es.
hardly outdated.

Craig

Click to expand...

LOL - XP-RE is modern. So sad I viewed them as modern circa 1+ year ago. I was psychic, and held very overly-high ideas, obviously.

Screw that - no reason for a premium-price manufacturer to do a "Old = crap" idea. Didn't use to be true, and I've no reason why what use to be "Wal*Mart" level emitters should now be even higher than "CPF-premium" emitters.

Out of date emitters...... perhaps, but i buy what i likes and i likes my 6PX very much. Maybe they don't use the latest emitters till they get enough track time. In comparison to my 6P defender w/ a malkoff m61, the 6PX can hold it's own just fine, and i love my malkoff's! The overall package, from build quality to warranty, of a surefire light is why i buy 'em.

Thanks for the head's up, you just saved me some money! I was about to pick up a new lumamax & am also shopping for a larger thrower, but didn't realize that SureFire's emitters had fallen so far behind- so what's the preferred alternative to an LX2 that will offer greater throw performance in a 1" or smaller diameter head? I'm assuming its 1m 10k lux should be easily surpassed with the brighter & more efficient up to date emitters.

Also, who makes a more up to date thrower than surefire's m3lt? It's already a decent performer as is, so I can't imagine the how much better a 3 cell using something more up to date than a WALMART emitter will be (which Wal-Mart emitter IS in the m3lt BTW?).

Looking forward to suggestions!

<PayPal standing by>

lovecpf

It's apparently true that most or all current Surefire buyers aren't doing it for the emitters but that's just because they don't have the emitters

It is the way it is however. Kodak and Polaroid used to be big companies...times change. If Surefire isn't making the lights that one desires anymore then it's a pretty simple matter to just go to the companies that are making them. Surefire will either change or they won't.

I don't think they ever were really a mass consumer company were they?

I have read many posts on CPF from Surefire owners who feel their lights perform well and are dependable with no need for more lumens. The light is only a tool and gets the job done as is. No need for different emitters ?
Some of the richest companies do business with the US government in medical and defense. CPF interests for brighter or better led emitters will probably only be addressed as a benefit from new defense illumination needs.

IMHO, the new Surefire lights without the angular style knurled bodies complete with plastic lenses look more like handbag specials. The unique, uncomprising old style Surfire lights with the nice, thick Pyrex lenses looked & felt like real tools!!

What about an updated Surefire U2 with an XP-G pumping out 240+ lumens for around $160-$200 with a warm tint option to spice things up a bit!! That's a light I'd buy!!

James..:thumbsup:

Here we go again... Nothing we say is going to change the OP's mind, we should just let this thread die...

With all due respect, anyone who doesn't like SureFire shouldn't buy one. There are plenty of other flashlights to choose from.

I suspect part of the reason is to do with mil-spec certification and so on. The tests are expensive, and even changing one component will require a lot of the tests to be done again. I know this is also done in several other industries where a high level of reliability is needed, biomedical and I think aerospace are two other examples. Once Surefire has gotten a torch certified, it's probably not worth their while to update the emitter and go through the whole process again.

Compare this with other companies who don't go through such certification (not a knock against them, they're just not aiming at that market) who can just swap the LED and MCPCB, maybe shim the reflector a bit differently and put it on the market like that.

The only thing I'm not sure about is exactly how many of SF's lights are certified to mil-spec standards (I honestly haven't counted it up or anything).:shrug:

mmace1 said:

Which...circa a bit ago...would have been quite cool. Now though.... a 2x123a with 500 lumens is nothing. Sans any brand-preference I have, it's a bit off.

I'm still perturbed. Such mathematics on lumens are common now...even surpassed.

Click to expand...

I don't see how this is dated in any way. Surefire don't make their own emitters so they have to use XM-Ls like the rest for this light.

It isn't hard to make a flashlight bright, but it is difficult to make a very good one. Most Surefires do what they are made to do very well.. Making them a bit brighter wouldn't be a huge improvement.

mmace1 said:

LOL - XP-RE is modern. So sad I viewed them as modern circa 1+ year ago. I was psychic, and held very overly-high ideas, obviously.

Screw that - no reason for a premium-price manufacturer to do a "Old = crap" idea. Didn't use to be true, and I've no reason why what use to be "Wal*Mart" level emitters should now be even higher than "CPF-premium" emitters.

Click to expand...

The XP-E is currently the best emitter for throw and output.

Craig

There's nothing out of date about the Cree XR-E or SSC P4s in current surefires. They might be a few years old now, but the die technology is similar to the newer XP-G or XM-L. If you look at the efficiency per mm^2 die area, there is very little difference. The advantage of the smaller die is more throw from a smaller head.

If you're looking for a high lumen WOW light then look somewhere else - this has never been what Surefire is about.

You don't have to be Miss Cleo to see where this thread is heading:banned: