View Full Version : SUREFIRE 6Z

Mike Spight
April 16, 1999, 02:27 PM
I recall seeing (a couple of weeks ago) posts regarding Surefire lights producing a "banana" shaped focused light beam rather than the obviously more desirable perfect circle. A poster (can't remember who or the subject of the post) had indicated that he (and apparently others) had called/e-mailed Surefire ref the problem. Apparently, it has been fixed. I just received my 6Z that I ordered from Blade-Tech almost two months ago. The lights had been back ordered for quite a while. I'm assuming that this was due to Surefire trying to fix the problem with their light. By the way, I'm extremely impressed with the Surefire 6Z (my first new light...have been using a Maglite for years) and also with Blade-Tech's Kydex holsters and mag pouches. I just ordered two more of their holsters and pouches for my SIG 226 and 229. The stuff I'd already received for my 220 absolutely floored me. I can't believe the quality of manufacture, speed of draw or how easy it is to adjust holster and mag pouch retention. I can honestly recommend them to anyone interested in Kydex.

May 8, 1999, 09:45 PM

I am the person who started complaining about the "Sure-Fire problem", and I haven't seen any evidence that they are working on the problem, or that they even acknowledge a problem exists.

But the problem is currently with the 9 volt models, although a customer service rep said that when they start using the "new" lamp modules with the 6 volt models, the problem will occur there as well.

The problem is that the 9 volt models have a much more defuse beam shape, without the central circular "hot-spot" that I think is the distinct advantage of the Sure-Fire lights. A Sure-Fire customer service person said this started two years ago with the 9 volt lamps, when they changed something (suppliers?). The rep also said that when the current stock of 6 volt assemblies is used up and the "new design" 6 volt lamps start being used, they too will no longer have tightly focused beams with a circular hot spot, but the much more defuse, oval beams shape that the 9 volt lamps currently have.

The 6 volt falshlights and replacement lamp assemblies I have purchased recently still have the nice tight beam. But only one 9 volt flashlight has had a fairly tight beam, and all P90 9 volt replacement lamps have displayed the wide oval, defuse beam. I have been very disappointed.

The problem has not been addressed, in my opinion.


May 9, 1999, 10:19 PM

Has this soured you on the Surefire line? If so, can you recommend another tac light? I ask this because I am looking at a 6Z and am wondering if there is a better alternative.

Mike Spight
May 10, 1999, 10:34 AM
Thomas: Thanks for the clarification and additional info. Hmmm...maybe I should oreder some 6Z lamp assemblies before they run out??!! Really, I cannot understand why a corporation (which markets a product for which a certain level of performance is absolutely critical) is so blase about the problem...unless they're getting the new lamp modules at considerably less cost, and then, it's not a problem (until their sales fall off the scale). I didn't major in business, but this seems to be extremely short sighted.

May 11, 1999, 09:59 PM
Hi, All:

If you are interested in another tac light try the M3, as they work and they have them instock. Plus they mount on the weaver rail. You can get there number off there web sight.

Link Here---><a href=http://[email protected]/>Lone Wolf</a>

May 11, 1999, 10:29 PM

I don't know what to think. I agree it's wierd. The Tac M3, Tac III, Tac 3, or whatever it is called was supposed to be very similar to the Sure-Fire's. There used to be complaints about the cap/switch., that the company has tried to address.

For a less tactical light, may I recommend Pelican flashlights. The 2 AA "MityLite Magnum" is my current favorite, although the Versabrite with the head strap is the great worklight. I get mine at http://www.meiresearch.com/worklights/ .


Thanks, I had kinda forgot about them. I'll check them out.

[This message has been edited by ThomasH (edited May 11, 1999).]