# SF G2L - outdoor abuse (durability and waterproofness)



## Esthan (Sep 29, 2007)

First, I'd sincerely like to thank Mr. Bohdan from BJ System for giving me
the SF G2L for test purposes and allowing me to abuse it a bit.

Here we go then.
Before the tests SureFire G2L presented itself as follows:






*Test I: Durability of external parts.*

IMHO most of the currently available flashlight will survive a simple throw test,
and such test will not tell one much about the flashlight. That is why I've 
decided to take a different approach and tried to do something resistance 
test alike, that is:

1. With a 2m paracord I've tied the G2L to my rucksack
2. I've taken a 1,5km (ca 1mile) walk while dragging a turned off G2L on the ground.

Test set looked like that:




*Also I have taken a movie of how the test looked like, it can be seen here*.

And so I went on with the G2L behind my back. We started with:

*Test 1.A 200m walk on stones*

Flashlight after the test:









As You see on the pics, paracord has been tied directly under the head, that
is why the head is most damaged. If You look more closely, You'll see that the
head is damaged partially because the knot did not allow the flashlight to turn.

Results:
- Flashlight works
- Switch works 

I turned left and started a new test:

*Test 1.B 200m pavement.*

Flashlight after the test:









Results:
- Flashlight works
- Switch works

As before, paracord has been tied to the flashlight beneath the head, so head 
took most of the damage. After recognizing that the head got so damaged 
that the ring that mounts the lens was endangered i decided to tie the paracord
in the center of gravity and move on to the hardest part.

*Test 1.C 1000m walk on small stones*

Flashlight after the test:













During the test I've tried to rotate the tie (90 degree) each 250m so that G2L
gets equally damaged on each side. I've been afraid of this test, but as You 
see G2L held.

Results:
- Flashlight works (can be seen on the third picture)
- Switch works 

Some pics after all 3 durability tests have been done.









*Summary*
- flashlight works - this means that all internal parts have good connections. 
- switch works flawlessly 
- no part was loosened or unscrewed 
- no major damages 

One hell of a tough flashlight.

*Test II: Waterproofness*

Puting a new G2L in a bucket filled with water seemed too easy for me so
I've taken a new approach.

First I've done the durability test, mostly to age it a bit and to make it dirty,
just as a "good old flashlight" usually looks like. After doing so the flashlight 
was ready for some waterproofness tests.

Since I planned to make the test on a small lake, I've been forced to think a 
little in order to make the flashlight move in the water instead of resting on 
the bottom. I came up with a following solution:






Parts:
1. SureFire G2L (turned on during the test)
2. PET bottle (buoy)
3. 1m paracord (tied G2L to the buoy)
4. 10m paracord (tied G2L to the "fishing rod")
5. wooden stick used as a fishing rod (pic below)

Why such a configuration ? Since it was windy, there were waves, and buoy
usually swings on the waves. If there was a G2L tied to a buoy it would move
underwater - hence the test will not be static. There was one con.: I had to
throw the whole set to the lake once every 10 minutes or so (it landed on 
shore). Below some pics of the test:






Closeup showing that G2L is underwater:






After 1 hour and 15 minutes I've ended the test and took G2L from water. It 
looked like that:









Results:
1. Some water made it inside (ca 0,7 do 1qcm)
2. Flashlight had a constant startup - the more You screwed the cap the more light You got form the LED.
3. Although there was water inside the flashlight worked
4. The LED continued to produce light even after being fully covered with water.
5. Water came through the ring that holds the lens (ring was damaged during test I)

After some quick drying flashlight worked good.

2 hours later, after coming home the flashlight works, but output has been 
drastically decreased. Although I've dried the G2L before, it had some water
inside - that is why it is drying right now - Once dried I'll try to turn it on.

A pic of the dismounted G2L after the waterproofness test:





*Summary of Test II*
I admit being slightly disappointed with the water making it way inside. But,
since G2L survived the 1,5km durability test i can excuse it. Although during 
more than 1h of water test, G2L has been thrown at least 10 times from 4m 
height into water, has scratched the bottom of the lake, was subjected to 
oscillations of the buoy it continued to work properly.

Conclusion

​*It is a tough flashlight !*​


----------



## cobra-ak (Sep 29, 2007)

Awesome, good work on that thread!


----------



## Saiga (Sep 29, 2007)

good stuff, i don't mean to second guess you here,just a little constructive criticism. i'm thinking it might have been better to do a water-proof test FIRST,before damging the light, then do your drag-test, and THEN another water-proof test. it's unlikely i'll ever subject my G2L to this much physical abuse, but immersion is much more likely. after your testing, though, i really don't have an idea of how water proof my light really is.


----------



## KeyGrip (Sep 29, 2007)

The did water get into the battery compartment? If so, the batteries may have been damaged, causing adverse performance. I like the test set ups, very real world stuff going on here.


----------



## Esthan (Sep 29, 2007)

Water did get into the battery compartment and the batteries got wet.

After drying all of the parts and putting those together G2L was not 
working properly or not working at all  After some trial and error I 
managed to repair it.

Tailswitch is the key. It seems that the material it's made of reacts
with water and after some time it stops conducting. Pipe cleaners
+nyogel plus a lot of screwing and unscrewing did the job (still it 
costed me ca. an hour to bring it back to normal).


----------



## Saiga (Sep 29, 2007)

so how do you expect it to hold up if exposed to steady rain, but no actual immersion?


----------



## blinder switch (Sep 30, 2007)

That was a real test. I am sure that is more than most flashlights would endure in a short time. That was sort of like years of abuse bundled into a very short time frame. Good test and post.

I'm glad I have a G3 and G2, I knew they were tough.


----------



## Saiga (Sep 30, 2007)

how difficult a question is this ? how waterproof is this light BEFORE it's been dragged through a baja race ? WTF !!


----------



## greenLED (Sep 30, 2007)

*I love this type of testing!!!
*No white wall, armchair flashaholic stuff. :twothumbs




Saiga said:


> how waterproof is this light BEFORE it's been dragged through a baja race?



Yup, that'd be an interesting test to do. Esthan clearly mentioned the bezel ring broke during test 1, so it's no surprise the light leaked after that.

Hey, Esthan, you should run over it with a car, like I did with this light.


I love how the little "dimples" on the head are almost been flattened by all the friction against the rocks, etc.


----------



## Supernam (Sep 30, 2007)

Sorry folks, I'm not impressed at all with this light's performance. What did we expect from the dragging test? A light is only going to fail if the circuit is broken. There is no reason why impacts should make an LED light fail. On the other hand, I am very disappointed with the leak. A simple flashlight like the G2 is simply a few sections of a tube screwed together with O-rings squeezed between the junctions. There shouldn't be leaks! The O-rings aren't exposed to damage even during the drag test.


----------



## mossyoak (Sep 30, 2007)

Supernam said:


> Sorry folks, I'm not impressed at all with this light's performance. What did we expect from the dragging test? A light is only going to fail if the circuit is broken. There is no reason why impacts should make an LED light fail. On the other hand, I am very disappointed with the leak. A simple flashlight like the G2 is simply a few sections of a tube screwed together with O-rings squeezed between the junctions. There shouldn't be leaks! The O-rings aren't exposed to damage even during the drag test.



nice to see the expert has chimed in.


----------



## greenLED (Sep 30, 2007)

mossy!

From the OP:


> 5. Water came through the ring that holds the lens (ring was damaged during test I)



IMO, this is actually quite the discovery in terms of durability of the G2.


----------



## lightemup (Sep 30, 2007)

Great test


----------



## KeeperSD (Sep 30, 2007)

Great test, would love to see them done with a bunch of lights, personally i couldn't do it to a light i bought but inetersting none the less


----------



## 270winchester (Sep 30, 2007)

:laughing::wave:


mossyoak said:


> nice to see the expert has chimed in.


----------



## lightemup (Oct 1, 2007)

If you get the lens ring repaired, I'd be really interested in a second dunking 

Imagine if a fisherman came along while you were reeling in your g2l. "I don't think you're gonna catch much with that bait  " Well you'd probably be quite likely to catch a cpfer if he were swimming by at the time 

Probably make good cpfer bait though 

A quick question: Did you have the g2l tailcap locked out for the drag and dunk test? Just curious...


----------



## bigfoot (Oct 1, 2007)

Great tests and great pictures!!


----------



## Esthan (Oct 1, 2007)

To answer some questions:

1. Orings will not help much if the surrounding parts are loose. That is why the I've made the drag aproach. 

2. Testing the durability of the body and other external parts (like the switch - for the rubber was also exposed to damage) was one thing, testing the resistance to shock/vibrations of internal parts was also a part of it (though a minor one). Since G2's switch is a simple one it was not affected by it, but switches like the one found in Ultrafire C2 could have a problem surviving such a test (small springs, levers, delicate housing etc inside).

3. During the drag test the switch has been locked out.

4. During dive test the switch has been set to constant on

5. After cleaning and drying everything up I've tested the parts with a simple "blow" test that is: 
I've put a part in my mouth ad tried to breathe to check which part was not hermetic. This gave funny results:
- switch was tight from both sides (inspiration and expiration)
- body was thight from both sides as well
- head (lens pointing towards outside dimples side pointed to lungs)
inhalation - no leak
*expiration - leak *
Now is the question how did the water came in.

I think that during the drag test the lens ring got a bit loose (see the damage of the body around the ring). There are 3 springs inside G2L:
- one on the bottom connecting the switch to the battery
- two on the LED module (one for plus and one for minus))
those 3 springs constantly push the LED module (and rings, and the lens) outside. Hence water has found an entrance (constant pushing as by expiration without a rise of internal air pressure that would keep water out).

6. I'll have to remind some of You, that although the flashlight leaked:
a. It managed to work 1 1/4 of an hour under the water undisturbed (no easy feat)
b. The led module was unaffected by water (I submersed it completly)
c. Batteries were not damaged
d. After drying and cleaning it continues to work as before - with the same batts !

Highly complexed flashlights with unprotected electronics, complex switches, unprotected LED etc
might have suffered from:
- shortcuts
- rust (rusted low quality springy parts could get broken after some time if not cleaned properly)
and as a result became unoperative/useless. G2LED works after those test, and can be rightfully tagged 
as a Tough Flashlight.

P.S.
SureFire states that Nitrolon is not conductive - I'm about to test that.
GreenLED - one "run it over with a car" type test will be done as well. But normal tests (runtime graph/throw/output) will have to be done first.
(I fear that G2 might not survive what I have in mind :])


----------



## JKL (Oct 1, 2007)

Very practical , great test Esthan ! :twothumbs


----------



## Valolammas (Oct 1, 2007)

I wouldn't want to subject any of my lights to that dragging test of yours, therefore I think it's a great test! Good job!

Hmmm, on second thought, I think I _do_ want to try dragging an incan Maglite on the ground for a kilometer or two. Got to find someplace to do it where no-one will see, or I'll probably end up with some memorable comments... Oh, and guess I'd have to buy a new Mag, all of mine are already pretty beat up.


----------



## LEDcandle (Oct 1, 2007)

Since most of the flashlights come with glass lenses nowadays, be it pyrex or sapphire glass, there is a chance rough hiking/trekking or dropping the light may damage or break the lens and later bringing it underwater is an open invitation to flooding 

So a lexan lens may still be better for extreme conditions! I'd rather have a scratched up light emitting only 75% light but can still take a swim instead of a glass lens that can emit 99.9% light but might end up cracking and letting water in! 

Thanks for the post and thread anyhow!


----------



## nanotech17 (Oct 1, 2007)

pity that g2L.
he must have been exhausted


----------



## lightemup (Oct 11, 2007)

I'm patiently waiting for if there's going to be a part 2 to this test . I am quite interested to see what other tests you can come up with :goodjob:


----------



## Esthan (Oct 11, 2007)

Maybe this weekend if I find the time to do it.


----------



## accr (Oct 11, 2007)

LOL...nice way to do-in a SF :thumbsup:

How about someone lend him their M6 ?:nana:


----------



## carrot (Oct 11, 2007)

Great tests! Can't wait to see more.

Looks like Surefire changed the bezel ring design on the G2... it used to have notches for easier removal.


----------



## mossyoak (Oct 11, 2007)

carrot said:


> Great tests! Can't wait to see more.
> 
> Looks like Surefire changed the bezel ring design on the G2... it used to have notches for easier removal.



i dont think its removeable now


----------



## greenLED (Oct 11, 2007)

Esthan said:


> I think that during the drag test the lens ring got a bit loose (see the damage of the body around the ring). There are 3 springs inside G2L:
> - one on the bottom connecting the switch to the battery
> - two on the LED module (one for plus and one for minus))
> those 3 springs constantly push the LED module (and rings, and the lens) outside. Hence water has found an entrance (constant pushing as by expiration without a rise of internal air pressure that would keep water out).



Just out of curiosity, how long was the LA on before you dunk it in the water? I ask because I had water leak into my GL3 once. It happened one time I let the light get really hot and immediately dunked it in cold water. The inside of the window got fogged, but there was no water anywhere else in the light.

The only way I could explain the leak (since I haven't been able to reproduce it since) is that the bezel ring was either a bit lose and/or the o-ring was not fully lubricated and allowed water to seep in as the flashlight contracted when it cooled.

Since your G2 had a broken bezel ring, that adds another potential explanation... :thinking:





Esthan said:


> GreenLED - one "run it over with a car" type test will be done as well. But normal tests (runtime graph/throw/output) will have to be done first.
> (I fear that G2 might not survive what I have in mind :])


Very much looking forward to the car test!!


----------



## WadeF (Oct 11, 2007)

Fun test, but I don't know how effective the dragging thing is. That will show you how the body holds up, but I can't imagine it would be subjected to major impact. I wouldn't expect any flashlight to fail being dragged along the ground, I would just expect it to look horible afterwards. Now dropping it 20 feet off a cliff onto rocks, or from even higher, would subject the flashlight to impact and that's where we'd see if a flashlight is tough or not.


----------



## Ofelas (Oct 12, 2007)

Nice going Esthan! :twothumbs


----------



## vic2367 (Oct 12, 2007)

very nice review,,,thanks


----------



## Grun (Oct 12, 2007)

not to be a pain, but would you mind doing a Four-Drop test? Dropping the light from chest level, around 4 feet, and doing it four times?


----------



## geepondy (Oct 12, 2007)

I work in an engineering and manufacturing environment and have been involved in Highly Accelerated Life Testing (HALT) in which a product is severely challenged in a short amount of time most typically in types of vibration/stress testing along with temperature extremes in order to prematurely induce failures that might occur over the lifetime of a product and it seems like you've induced a bit of your own HALT testing. You ought to generate a report and send to Surefire.

I agree I'm a bit dismayed that it isn't absolutely waterproof but I would assume/hope it would handle a possibly emergency situation of torrential downpours or a sleet/snow situation (maybe even more practical as I imagine o-rings might become stiff and non-pliable). I wonder what Surefire does in their implementation of HALT testing?


----------



## WildChild (Oct 13, 2007)

Aren't SF lights supposed to be waterproof up to 10 meters? You should ask SF, maybe you'll get more lights to test!


----------



## Grox (Oct 13, 2007)

greenLED said:


> Just out of curiosity, how long was the LA on before you dunk it in the water? I ask because I had water leak into my GL3 once. It happened one time I let the light get really hot and immediately dunked it in cold water. The inside of the window got fogged, but there was no water anywhere else in the light.
> 
> The only way I could explain the leak (since I haven't been able to reproduce it since) is that the bezel ring was either a bit lose and/or the o-ring was not fully lubricated and allowed water to seep in as the flashlight contracted when it cooled.
> 
> ...



greenLED, could that have been condensation in your Pila?

Thanks for the entertaining review, Esthan!


----------



## Size15's (Oct 13, 2007)

WildChild said:


> Aren't SF lights supposed to be waterproof up to 10 meters?


No.
The vast majority of SureFire flashlights are "weatherproof".
Indeed whilst many SureFire flashlights are designed, manufactured and assembled to be capable of being tested and rated waterproof to 30 metres, the 'waterproofness' should not be assumed. After all the test is to submerge each product and see.

This is completely aside for whether a product can still perform once damaged through abuse. This is different from 'wear and tear' (old age). Although both are valid states at which performance against specification can be tested.
For example - it is reasonable that a 'crash' helmet should afford a certain level of protection after being worn by the user for a reasonable length of time. During this time it will have been subjected to plenty of weather, heat/cold, sweat/moisture, sunlight, vibration and a certain amount of handling commensurate with the type of user it is designed/marketed for.
However, most Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is rated for only one instance of having to provide protection - one impact - one incident. Then it must be replaced because it will have been damaged in the process of protecting you from damage.

Anyway, I used to work for a product test lab. Some of the British / European / International Standards to which products are tested allow products to "fail safely" in a manner that is not likely to pose a risk of serious injury to the user. Other Standards require products to never fail under reasonably foreseeable use and misuse (abuse) - and are required to satisfy performance testing designed to replicate such conditions.

I ask myself - "Is it reasonable that any flashlight to expected, or required to perform under a second adverse condition following having been subjected to a first adverse condition?" The first adverse condition - being dragged along the ground over various terrain conditions for quite a considerable distance is a interesting experiment but it does not, in my experience, replicate old age - wear and tear. I do not think it is reasonable to expect a flashlight test sample (that was not tested for waterproofness beforehand) to be waterproof following the first test.
At any rate - the tested flashlight was operational once dried, and even to a certain extent even when wet inside. This demonstrates a level of water-resistance.

In order to develop a representative test regime for products expected to perform under certain conditions, for certain lengths of time one must ensure the tests are representative of the use and misuse of the products. One means of doing this is to monitor products in use by sample groups of users, and then compare the used products with the products subjected to tests intended to replicate actual use. Another consideration (there are many) is the number of samples tested, and the frequency of retesting.

One of the most important things a service (product) supplier can do is ensure that accurate feedback from users is captured and used to improve the service supplied.

I don't mean to belittle the experiments performed in this thread - just to give a perspective on how the results can be interpreted and what conclusions (if any) can be drawn.

Al


----------



## MarNav1 (Oct 15, 2007)

Hey Esthan, you could put it in a cement mixer with no cement and let it tumble for 5 minutes or so. That would test it severely for impact resistance and the electronics. Good test though, might sway me to buy a G2L eventually.


----------



## Esthan (Oct 16, 2007)

Size15, 

Based on Your experience, how can one subject a flashlight to a good wear-and-tear test with DIY equipment ? Dragging G2L on the ground was the only idea I could come up with and I would be happy to improve it and make such test more "real". 

I'm asking because once I find the time to do it, I'll try to "HALT" a Fenix E0.


----------



## Size15's (Oct 16, 2007)

One thing to consider is that you have gone to some effort already - there is merit in applying the same test method to another flashlight. If you can replicate the testing method then at least you can compare results.

As for quite what "HALT" testing to do - that's quite difficult because ideally one would want the flashlight to have experienced a similar fate to one that has actually been used for a prescribed period of time.

"Tumble tests", perhaps not to the extent of dragging it along the ground
Thermal and Humidity cycling
Salt-spray
Rotation/activation of the switch
"Sand Storm" testing
Drop testing from various heights onto various surfaces
Waterproofness (compare against rating)
Strength/durability/safety break testing of any lanyards, clips etc
Ergonomics evaluation against representative sample group
Testing of output and runtime against rating claims (Integrating Sphere) (multiple passes using manufacturer prescribed batteries and industry standard batteries (Duracell DL123A))
Testing the anodising and any other coating/finish against claimed specification (Mil. Spec. / Chemfilm etc)
Dimension/mass check against rating claims
Testing of any FCC, CE or other electromagnetic claims

One can also test for safety ratings although this may just require an audit of the testing performed by the original lab.

One would need maybe 12-24 samples of each flashlight at least. More if they fail under test.
Testing would probably take about 2 months and cost several thousand pounds

That's just some quick thoughts...
Al


----------



## Ofelas (Oct 16, 2007)

> I ask myself - "Is it reasonable that any flashlight to expected, or required to perform under a second adverse condition following having been subjected to a first adverse condition?" The first adverse condition - being dragged along the ground over various terrain conditions for quite a considerable distance is a interesting experiment but it does not, in my experience, replicate old age - wear and tear. I do not think it is reasonable to expect a flashlight test sample (that was not tested for waterproofness beforehand) to be waterproof following the first test.


 
Well...basic requirements for Indy's flashlight...that SureFire sure came through, slight water ingress or not!


----------



## yaesumofo (Dec 4, 2007)

I suspect the light lost some it's waterproofing during the 1.5K rock walk.
I have to say that the G2 I have would be a first choice for me if I needed a light I know will take abuse. The material they use is amazing.
great job on the review.
Do you plan on sending it back to Surefire for replacement?
I am sure they would be happy to replace it for you especially after seeing this posting.
Yaesumofo


----------



## FAAbUlights (Dec 5, 2007)

I would like to see how the updated G2L's with the aluminum bezel would perform under your abuse test.


----------



## JanCPF (Dec 7, 2007)

We have a silly tradition in my dive club around Christmas time, were we put a lot of glow sticks on a Christmas tree and a lead block around the foot of the tree. We then swim the poor tree out from the shore to a depth of around 10 feet and then swin around it under water while singing a Christmas carol out through the regulator.  Obviously not a serious dive, but quite a funny nightdive non the less. Of course you can only hear your self singing, but who cares. 

Anyway, we did this yesterday, and as the dive is so shallow I desided to test my G2 (sporting a DX Cree dropin) to see if it was waterproof. We were in the water for about 30 min., and afterwards when I opened up the G2, I was happy to find that not a single drop of water had entered the light. I did put the extra o-ring on the tailcap end, and also did the suction test from both the bezel end and the tailcap end before enteing the water.

So yes - this light is definitely waterproof as long as the o-rings are in place and in good condition. :thumbsup:

Jan


----------



## SilverFox (Dec 8, 2007)

Hello Esthan,

Just to add another test data point... I haven't dragged my light on the rocks, but it has been in pretty heavy use for the last couple of months. I have put it through the washer 3 times now, left it in my pants side pocket... No signs of water in the light or battery compartment at all.

Tom


----------



## Tempest UK (Dec 8, 2007)

I'd like to see how a 6PL copes with a similar test. Aluminium vs. Nitrolon 

Regards,
Tempest


----------



## patryk79 (Dec 10, 2007)

dang..... more damage in one day of testing than in a lifetime of use.... and still works..... tough light, can't say that there are many other lights that would make it through the same torture.... good work on giving us something more than just a white wall :twothumbs


----------



## reneir0492 (Jan 5, 2008)

wow thats one tough nitrolon,never knew the nitrolon could almost be as hard as an aluminum.


----------



## Esthan (Jan 6, 2008)

I bought a new G2 and it has the same problem as the G2L.

Head is not watertight in the same manner as the old one was,


----------



## Brozneo (Jan 7, 2008)

Nice Testing! I have a G2 which I don't use too much - I think I might have to test it! Let's see how much damage it gets after a 8km road run!


----------



## jinx626 (Jan 23, 2008)

*SUREFIRE TOTALLY ROCKS!!! NOW THAT'S GREAT SERVICE!!!*

I purchased a surefire G2L about 1-2 months ago. When I use it for 10-20 mins, it gets quite warm. I notices they have the aluminum head for the G2L on the surefire website. I emailed them and ask if I can mail my original mint plastic head back to them and can they send me a replacement... guess that they said..go ahead and guess.....


"YOU DON'T HAVE TO SEND US THE ORIGINAL BACK, JUST GIVE ME YOUR ADDRESS AND I WILL SEND YOU THE REPLACEMENT"... 

Oh my gosh... I havent got this kind of great services for the longest time!

jinx


----------



## BSCOTT1504 (Jan 23, 2008)

*Re: SUREFIRE TOTALLY ROCKS!!! NOW THAT'S GREAT SERVICE!!!*

:welcome: It's that kind of service that makes Surefire worth the money!!

And er, well, the great lights they manufacture!! :thumbsup:


----------



## jinx626 (Jan 23, 2008)

*Re: SUREFIRE TOTALLY ROCKS!!! NOW THAT'S GREAT SERVICE!!!*



BSCOTT1504 said:


> :welcome: It's that kind of service that makes Surefire worth the money!!
> 
> And er, well, the great lights they manufacture!! :thumbsup:


 
AMEN to that!

thanks for the welcome BSCOTT. I think I will like it here.


----------



## DM51 (Jan 23, 2008)

*Re: SUREFIRE TOTALLY ROCKS!!! NOW THAT'S GREAT SERVICE!!!*

Welcome to CPF, jinx626.

Your post doesn't really need to be a new thread, so I am going to merge it with an existing thread in the 'Review' section, which discusses the SF G2L. It is a good thread which I think you will find interesting.


----------



## jinx626 (Jan 23, 2008)

*Re: SUREFIRE TOTALLY ROCKS!!! NOW THAT'S GREAT SERVICE!!!*



DM51 said:


> Welcome to CPF, jinx626.
> 
> Your post doesn't really need to be a new thread, so I am going to merge it with an existing thread in the 'Review' section, which discusses the SF G2L. It is a good thread which I think you will find interesting.


 
Sorry, I thought it slightly different because this thread is about G2L review, although I did mentioned Surefire G2L in my post, but it had to do with their customer services and company as a whole and not of the individual product that I mentioned. 

I didn't wanted to combine into this thread is because many might not have a G2L, but do have another Surefire product.They might be interested in getting a replacement that they might not know about.

Anyway, thank you for your welcome DM51.


----------



## DM51 (Jan 23, 2008)

*Re: SUREFIRE TOTALLY ROCKS!!! NOW THAT'S GREAT SERVICE!!!*

You make a very fair point. However there are numerous accounts of Surefire's excellent customer service, and your anecdote did not really merit a thread of its own.


----------



## Numbers (Jan 23, 2008)

*Re: SUREFIRE TOTALLY ROCKS!!! NOW THAT'S GREAT SERVICE!!!*



jinx626 said:


> I purchased a surefire G2L about 1-2 months ago. When I use it for 10-20 mins, it gets quite warm. I notices they have the aluminum head for the G2L on the surefire website. I emailed them and ask if I can mail my original mint plastic head back to them and can they send me a replacement... guess that they said..go ahead and guess.....
> 
> 
> "YOU DON'T HAVE TO SEND US THE ORIGINAL BACK, JUST GIVE ME YOUR ADDRESS AND I WILL SEND YOU THE REPLACEMENT"...
> ...


I hope they deliver for you.
They told me the same thing on December 7, 2007 and I am STILL waiting. Their last "re-promise" was last Thursday, I will post if they EVER deliver as promised.


----------



## jinx626 (Jan 23, 2008)

I too will post here when I get the replacement head. I hope they don't give the run around like many business now-a-days.


----------



## reneir0492 (Jul 24, 2009)

how come the pics are gone


----------



## Bushman5 (Jul 24, 2009)

pics? what happened? cant see anything?


----------



## Hitthespot (Jul 24, 2009)

The Nitrolon is one of my favorite flashlight materials. My first great light was a Surefire G2. I used it hunting, fishing, camping, and around the house. I don't know how many years old it is but it still looks new. 

I don't know if your tests prove anything, especially doing destructive tests one after another on the same light; but it is FUN reading about them! Especially on one of my favorite lights.

Can we get some fire and brimstone in there! :laughing:

More, More, More,

Bill


----------

