# So... Can a Surefire REALLY saw through another flashlight?



## underdust (Jan 14, 2006)

We've seen the claim on Surefire's web site regarding their HAIII finish:

_"This finish is so tough that a flashlight coated in it can actually be used to saw through other aluminum flashlights with standard finishes."_

I always thought this sounded impressive, but since I could never find any definitive proof of it, I decided to check it out for myself.

Let's meet the players.







On the left, we have a brand new blue Mini-Mag. On the right, we have a Surefire L4 body with HAIII finish (Serial# A203080).

My goal with this was to see if I could really use the L4 body to saw through the Mini-Mag, but before I began I first had to decide how to interpret the word "through". Did it mean saw the other light completely into two pieces, or just saw until a hole was produced in the body of the Mini-Mag? I decided that for my test (and my sanity :hairpull: ), I would go with the second option. 

So it was settled... I would work at this until a hole appeared in the Mini-Mag. At approximately 8:00PM I began. My technique was nothing special; I just braced the L4 against my work surface and scraped the Mini-Mag body across one single section of the knurling. Imagine a Boy Scout trying to start a fire with two sticks, and you'll get a pretty good idea of what it looked like. If you can't picture it, here's a short movie clip. (approx. 3.5MB)

It took about 45-50 minutes of constant grinding, cramped hands, and listening to that horrible noise , but I finally saw what appeared to be a small hole in the side of the Mini-Mag. You can see it in the lower right area of the scar. 







oo: Could it be true? Only one way to check. I removed the tailcap, inserted a red Inova Microlight, and turned out the lights.









SUCCESS!!! :twothumbs So now if anyone ever asks you (yeah, right), you can say with 100% certainty that a Surefire can indeed saw through a competitor's light. 




OK, so that's all well and good. We know the fate of the Mini-Mag, but how does the Surefire look after all of this? 

First some cleaning was in order because this was the mess I was left with when I was done:






Now for some before and after pictures of the L4. 

This is what it looked like before I began:






This is what it looked like after. Again, bear in mind that it just went through nearly an hour of constant grinding, all concentrated on this one side of its body:






And a look from the other side:






There is definitely some damage to the finish, and the knurling on that side is a little "smoother" than before I started, but all things considered I would have to say that it really doesn't look too bad. 

All in all, I would have to say that I even more impressed with Surefire lights than I was when I started. As far as torture tests go, this was pretty extreme. I can't imagine that any of my Surefire lights will ever have to endure anything close to this type of punishment in the real world, but it sure is nice to know that they could.


:thumbsup:


----------



## cosine (Jan 14, 2006)

Pretty cool test. :wow:


----------



## nutz_about_lights (Jan 14, 2006)

Thanks underdust for this test! And for sacrificing your surefire so that we could benefit. I second the "cool test" thingy.
Rock on dude! :buddies:


----------



## hquan (Jan 14, 2006)

WOW! fingernails on a chalk board really get me - I can only imagine the noise this made. 

You should send this to surefire. I'm certain that they could use it as a great promo. Who knows - they may send you a replacement light as a thank you.

Just a thought - what about hooking the SF up to a drill to speed the process? (Just in case you were considering another test) :naughty:


----------



## CLHC (Jan 14, 2006)

I was wondering when someone was going to attempt this, and here it is! Thanks for the verification Underdust!


----------



## SCblur (Jan 14, 2006)

HOLY CRAP, THIS IS AWESOME. I can't believe you were willing to put a surefire on the line for this, but thanks. This is one of the coolest posts I've ever seen. I love all the detailed pics and movie. I feel like I was actually there. I've wondered about that claim from SF more than once and if I were made of money, believe me, I would have tried it. But alas, I can't come to inflict damage against any of my prized SF lights. 

Thanks for taking the time/effort to do this and post it. Extremely cool!!


----------



## lrp (Jan 14, 2006)

Thanks for going to all that trouble....very cool post!


----------



## firefly99 (Jan 14, 2006)

Thanks for making the sacrifice to verified that Surefire statement.
Quite sure a lot of people had been wondering about the statement validity.

Lucky the destructive testing only damage the MM and not the L4.

Well done.


----------



## Arkayne (Jan 14, 2006)

hahaha that is great! Thanks for the effort! A+ thread, will read again.


----------



## sig-in-tx (Jan 14, 2006)

You should send this to Surefire, bet they would get a kick out of your test also.


----------



## 270winchester (Jan 14, 2006)

wow, there shows you the difference between a 10 dollar light and a 70 dollar light---no comparison...

Thanks fella for sharing this info....I wonder how rough the minimag would look like if it went against a SF L6 Porcupine...any volunteers?


----------



## nzgunnie (Jan 14, 2006)

Only half way??? Where's the commitment:lolsign:

You could have sawed through a plastic flashlight and still proved their claim....

Wouldn't have made such a mess of the SF that way.


----------



## underdust (Jan 14, 2006)

Thanks everyone for the kind words. 

It really wasn't as big ($$) of a sacrifice as you may be thinking. I just picked up an extra L4 body from Lighthound rather than using part of a complete light. I had been contemplating this for months, but finally went for it the last time I placed an order with them. 

I think the total cost of everything was only about $33 ($25 for the L4 body and about $8 for the Mini-Mag). 

I just figured that I'll never be a great modder, and I don't have any great knowledge of electronics, but if there's one thing I AM good at, it's senseless destruction.  I guess that will just have to be my contribution to the community. 

I did try to figure out a way to connect one of the bodies to a drill, but I couldn't come up with anything functional with what I had on hand. Perhaps next time. 

As far as future tests are concerned, there ARE still two sides of intact knurling on the L4, so who knows.... I am open to suggestions. (not now, though, my hands are pretty tired).


----------



## bobbagum (Jan 14, 2006)

Have to keep that in mind, looks like it could do a better job than most nail fire in a Leatherman/Gerber tools


----------



## quarkstar (Jan 14, 2006)

Now that's what I call a test! Great job! Surefire should give you a new light to replace the one you messed up doing the test...You've given me just another reason to go out and buy another Surefire


----------



## RadarGreg (Jan 14, 2006)

Wow, I can't believe you sacrificed a L4! (Ok, just the body) I could see using a P6 for the test, but you really took one for the team on that one. I wonder if you could send it back to SureFire for a replacement? Afterall, it does have a warranty that covers everything but the bulb and batteries. I've heard they replace flashlights that have been shot in Iraq, so they would surely replace your for sawing through a MiniMag! They might even upgrade you to a U2. Thanks for the pics.


----------



## VidPro (Jan 14, 2006)

hmmm , great, so if i am out in the woods, and dont know what i could possibly use to saw through another light, i will make sure if have a sure fire with me 
in the meantime, they can quit sawing through my pants pockets, cause its COLD down there when that happens


----------



## GeoffChan (Jan 14, 2006)

nice, now we need a cpf version of "Mythbusters"

Geoff


----------



## BayMoe (Jan 14, 2006)

Excellent Thread! I just got my hands on a surefire product and wanted to know if it could actually saw another aluminum light. Thanks for proving it to us. :wow:


----------



## Pydpiper (Jan 14, 2006)

Great test!


----------



## leukos (Jan 14, 2006)

I think Surefire and Ginsu are owned by the same parent company....


----------



## Planterz (Jan 14, 2006)

That's rather awesome.:rock:


----------



## DreamScape (Jan 14, 2006)

UnderDust Thanks for the Test.
Awesome Work.
Now we Know!!


----------



## chesterqw (Jan 14, 2006)

lol i think you should post this on the surefire page(send it to them!!)

the story" hearing all about how strong surefire's lights were, i decided to modified a light with it. having no saw or file, i used the sure fire to make a hole on the body of a common 2 cell light and well, it sure works well! way to go surefire"

lol it will rule if they post it there


----------



## Lunarmodule (Jan 14, 2006)

*UNDERDUST, YOU ROCK, BROTHER!!!!
*
I needed a really good laugh and also you had the guts to do what I've always wondered... Taking SF to task on their HA claim, I LOVE IT!!! First I wondered about how water resistant my M6 is and Size 15s comes along with a "2 chicks in a hot tub" story with a submerged M6 (actually the tailcap seals leaked and the bulb exploded in the head) and now this...


----------



## SilverFox (Jan 14, 2006)

Hello Underdust,

:devil: Hmmm, I wonder how an M6 would hold up... :devil: 

Tom


----------



## stuartyr (Jan 14, 2006)

Great test Underdust!

I reckon an M4 would make the best "saw" as it has the longest length of knurling!


----------



## greenlight (Jan 14, 2006)

I see it now... Flashlight/Saw combo... could be dangerous.


----------



## laserbokkie (Jan 14, 2006)

i hate to be unproductive to this thread,

but how about doing the same test other way around?

That, at least, would be fair!

Greetz
bokkie


----------



## rfwjr (Jan 14, 2006)

Very cool test, the Surefire looks like it only has some surface damage and still ready to function. :twothumbs


----------



## underdust (Jan 14, 2006)

chesterqw said:


> lol i think you should post this on the surefire page(send it to them!!)


I may end up doing this. I just saw that they have a category under their True Stories for _"Extreme (And Unauthorized) Stress Testing"_. That seems to fit rather nicely. :laughing:




laserbokkie said:


> i hate to be unproductive to this thread,
> 
> but how about doing the same test other way around?
> 
> ...


That's not being unproductive at all. It's an interesting question. I actually thought about this for a bit before I started, but then I realized that the relative hardness of the lights would not be any different regardless of how I did it. Either way, the Surefire's finish would still be stronger. If I had to guess, doing this the other way around would just result in more widespread damage on the MiniMag, and more localized scrape marks on the Surefire's knurling. In other words, I think it would still result in a hole in the side of the Maglite, but it would take a LOT more time to get there. 




SilverFox said:


> Hello Underdust,
> 
> :devil: Hmmm, I wonder how an M6 would hold up... :devil:
> 
> Tom


I don't have an M6 yet, but I would be more than willing to do the work if anyone wants to let me "borrow" theirs. :naughty:



Also, just for fun, here's one last pic showing the depth of the "bite" that was taken out of the Mag.







:wow:


----------



## Arkayne (Jan 14, 2006)

Edit: the post that suggested this eluded me a few posts up. repost!

Why don't you flip the test and use the other side of the mag and try to cut through the other side of the L4 for 45 mins. SF would probably get a kick out of that one too.

Seriously though, make a pdf, word document, or link SF to this thread and maybe they'll send you a replacement L4. Hey, ya never know! When I hacked apart a bike light and sent the company results, they sent me more lights!


----------



## 357 (Jan 14, 2006)

Impressive test yes.

Can anyone think of a need in the field to saw thru another flashlight though?


----------



## 357 (Jan 14, 2006)

sig-in-tx said:


> You should send this to Surefire, bet they would get a kick out of your test also.



They might give him a free light for his effort, to make up for the light damage his L4 has. I'm sure SF would appreciate this test to prove their statement, give it the try.


----------



## carrot (Jan 14, 2006)

That was amazing. I don't think I'd have the guts to test out SF's claim, given their prices.


----------



## cheapo (Jan 14, 2006)

Really cool test. Surefire has good HA3, but not the best. I have droped my KL1 head and the metal showed. But when I dropped my Amilite.... nothing. 

-David


----------



## Mike Painter (Jan 14, 2006)

I have good news and bad news for you.
The good news is that, as you have seen, everyone likes your test.

The bad news is that their new ad talks about the light surviving a trip through a human intestinal system...


----------



## greenLED (Jan 14, 2006)

...and I thought *I* was 
Awesome job. Now, submit your story, with pics, to SF!!
:twothumbs


----------



## Morelite (Jan 14, 2006)

Mike Painter said:


> I have good news and bad news for you.
> The good news is that, as you have seen, everyone likes your test.
> 
> The bad news is that their new ad talks about the light surviving a trip through a human intestinal system...


 Ouch, I know I'm not going to try that one


----------



## CLHC (Jan 14, 2006)

Now for the next "torture test," how about rendering a MagCharger to be sawn asunder?


----------



## PEU (Jan 14, 2006)

One question Underdust: how long it took for the anno layer in the SF to dissapear?

I will try to verify this marketing statement using a piece of 7075 aluminum agresively knurled like the SF against a piece of softer aluminum, say 6061, 6262 or some 20xx series aluminum.

I guess the slightly harder 7075 will grind over softer materials like the surefire did.


Will try next week and post results 


Pablo


----------



## metalhed (Jan 14, 2006)

underdust -- thanks for the hard work and economic sacrifice given to put the Surefire claim to the test.

Pretty cool... :thumbsup:


----------



## Warhoggie (Jan 14, 2006)

I dunno, this claim may be inflated. I love Surefire, but the L4 body appears to be made of brass or a brass alloy, which is harder than the minimag's aluminum body. During inspection, mine L4 body have a brass color internally. Can someone prove otherwise? 

Is it the coating or the actual metal behind it, that's harder?


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 14, 2006)

WOW !! oo:
THis was brave! 
I salute you!
bernie


----------



## rcashel11 (Jan 14, 2006)

Thanks for doing this test and for sharing the results with us!


----------



## fieldops (Jan 14, 2006)

Nice job on the test!! :wow: Its fascinating to know that the claim is true. Thanks.


----------



## Bernhard (Jan 14, 2006)

This is the most exciting "SF related" post I've read for a long time. Can't wait to hear what SF response when you send this result to them 

Warhoggie, as far as I know, SF is made of pure aluminium, and not brass composite. The internal color is not the color of bare metal, but the color of coating material (chemcote, I guess) used to protect battery chamber from corrossion.

For sure, the SF coating is harder (HA3) than Mag. 
But I'm not sure either about the aluminium material is harder and better quality compared to Mag, since both claimed to be made of "aircraft grade" aluminium. Probably even "aircraft grade" aluminium have another grade of quality? 
Until Pablo done his test...


----------



## Size15's (Jan 14, 2006)

Excellent! Thanks for posting photos! :rock: 

I've not tried this myself but I heard that somebody at SureFire did it just for kicks.

I did see how an M3T faced up to a hand axe:











This is what happened to an A2 that some guy accidently threw into a campfire:


----------



## jayflash (Jan 14, 2006)

Thank you for the contribution; what a purely flashoholic undertaking, underdust. You actually did what many of us only imagined. Wonderfully Flashoholic, indeed!

I can see it all now: saw-through (ST) graphs plotted for different lights, metals. XXX minutes for a brass bodied whatever, XXX min. for steel, etc. forget Ti, however.


----------



## secamp32 (Jan 14, 2006)

*You should take this post down*

If the TSA sees this they won't let us carry our SFs on a plane. If you can saw thru a Mag imagine what you can do to a plane.


----------



## 270winchester (Jan 14, 2006)

*Re: You should take this post down*



secamp32 said:


> If the TSA sees this they won't let us carry our SFs on a plane. If you can saw thru a Mag imagine what you can do to a plane.



LOL I was just thinking the same thing. God forbid some can really make a dent on the body of an aircraft if he goes at it for an hour and a half and their just might be a hole somewhere...


----------



## carrot (Jan 14, 2006)

*Re: You should take this post down*



270winchester said:


> LOL I was just thinking the same thing. God forbid some can really make a dent on the body of an aircraft if he goes at it for an hour and a half and their just might be a hole somewhere...


I call that determination... or boredom.


----------



## CLHC (Jan 14, 2006)

So that SureFire M3T was used as a defensive tool against an axe? Whoa!


----------



## Grox (Jan 14, 2006)

Fantastic test and pics! Kudos to you! Keep up the good work!


----------



## cheapo (Jan 14, 2006)

Really cool test.... now all you need to do is a 100 meter drop test 

-David


----------



## 270winchester (Jan 14, 2006)

*Re: You should take this post down*



carrot said:


> I call that determination... or boredom.



Hmmm, this coming from a guy who had 434 posts in a month....now that's determination....


----------



## turbodog (Jan 14, 2006)

I'm not convinced.







Ok, do I have your attention yet?

Yes, it did saw through the light but I think it's fair to say that with the way you conducted the test ANY light would have done the same.

Why?

The sf showed wear; we all saw that. The mag did also. What I mean is that the sf's wear was spread out over the length of the side, while the mag's was concentrated in one spot. That made the wear more prominent, and gave the illusion the sf sawed through the mag.


Reverse the test. See what happens.

Also, IIRC, SF credited this ability to their ha3 coating. Something which is clearly worn away. A ha3 coating does not do much for abrasiveness, but the rough SF knurling does.


If you want to be _really_ precise, I'd LOVE to see the difference in mass of each light before and after.


----------



## ginaz (Jan 15, 2006)

field expedient knife sharpener? what IS the rockwell of HAIII?


----------



## Aristo (Jan 15, 2006)

you can bring a surefire on a plane now anyway?


----------



## Numbers (Jan 15, 2006)

Turbodog excellent observation. Yes reverse the test.

No matter the outcome SF's claim would still be valid. However it would not be as impressive as Mag would be able to make the same claim, assuming the mini could get through the SF body (which, if I were betting I would say it cant). 

Underdust send your results to SF, (in case they want to reward you) before someone uses the mini mag as the saw -- just in case.


----------



## The_LED_Museum (Jan 15, 2006)

Warhoggie said:


> ...Is it the coating or the actual metal behind it, that's harder?


The gold coloration you see inside the barrel is a product called Chemcoat<sp>; it is there to protect the flashlight from damage due to water or leaking batteries. The actual metal the flashlight is made from is aluminum.


----------



## metalhed (Jan 15, 2006)

Sorry guys, but the Surefire will always cut through the Mag. It doesn't matter which is the 'saw' and which is the 'plank'.

The reason for the result seen by underdust is the difference in relative hardness between the two items tested.

Think about it a moment.

Draw a diamond against a pane of glass...the glass scratches. Why? Because diamonds are harder than glass.

Now draw the glass across the diamond...the glass still scratches. Would you really expect the glass to cut the diamond just because you used it as the cutting tool?

It doesn't matter how each are rubbed together, all that matters is the relative hardness.

After all, the whole reason for using HAIII anodizing is to protect the raw aluminum. And the Surefire's HAIII is *harder* than the Mags' HAII...end of story.


----------



## Geologist (Jan 15, 2006)

GREAT POST!

Now we want to see you saw through the MM with a G2! hee hee


----------



## [email protected] Messenger (Jan 15, 2006)

New expeiment, saw a mag solitaire with an arc aaa p!


----------



## turbodog (Jan 15, 2006)

metalhed said:


> Sorry guys, but the Surefire will always cut through the Mag. It doesn't matter which is the 'saw' and which is the 'plank'.
> 
> The reason for the result seen by underdust is the difference in relative hardness between the two items tested.
> 
> ...



I did think about it. That's why I posted what I did.

But, as evidenced by the photos, the ha3 did NOT protect the sf. I clearly see fresh, raw aluminum peeking out at me.


----------



## turbodog (Jan 15, 2006)

Let's go back through this for a minute.

My beef was with the test methodology, or the way in which it was conducted.

My observation was that:
1. mag was cut through
2. sf ALSO showed signs of wear
3. sf's wear was spread out over a large area
4. mag's wear was concentrated

My hypothesis was that:
1. Since BOTH were worn, by reversing the test you MIGHT find that the mag would cut through the sf.
2. Since the sf has much more aggressive AND deeper knurling, could that be responsible for the results?

Nothing more, nothing less.

I decided to put my money where my mouth was, and learned:
1. ASSUMING the underlying aluminum is the same hardness for BOTH lights, the sf's ha coating is thicker than the depth of the dye itself.
2. If #1 is true, then that explains the behavior I witnessed.
3. HA3 is some pretty tough stuff. More than you would expect.

Test #1

Tried to saw through knurled part of s4 with minimag. Sf suffered loss of color in 1 spot. Pictures 1,2,3,5 show this.



























Test #2

Tried to saw through sf with mm on a FLAT, non knurled spot.

You can see this right at the end of the clip.

This was the test I really wanted to run I guess. The sf did lose a little color, but you can't detect any surface imperfections, even with your fingernail.

Test #3

Tried to saw though mm with sf. A repeat of the original poster's test. Same behavior. The sf cut like a hacksaw for about 15-20 strokes. After that, it smoothed out a little and the cutting speed decreased a LOT. 

**********************************






This is from test #1







This is from test #3







This is from test #2

I tried in 3 different spot on the mm.


----------



## metalhed (Jan 15, 2006)

:thumbsup: -- turbodog, I appreciate your commitment.




And still, people wonder why we call ourselves 'flashaholics'.

:laughing:


----------



## carrot (Jan 15, 2006)

Turbodog -- nice!
I don't think I could see myself doing that to my lights... Looks like the MiniMag suffered a lot.


----------



## underdust (Jan 15, 2006)

turbodog said:


> Let's go back through this for a minute.


Hi Turbodog!

Thanks very much for following up on this. I was away from home for much of this weekend and did not have a chance to respond. 

I do agree with those that said that the test somewhat favored the Surefire by spreading the damage over a wider area on the body. However, my goal was really only to test out the claim that Surefire made, and the most direct method that I could come up with to saw through another light was to concentrate all of the damage on the MiniMag in one single spot. I figured the method I came up with would be the easiest way to accomplish that.

As to the damage on the Surefire, there definitely appears to be bare aluminum showing through, and as I mentioned, the knurling is "smoother" than when I started. That may be because some of it was flattened down, and it could also be because some of the Surefire's aluminum is no longer there. Unfortunately, I cannot say for sure which one it is. If I had to guess, though, I would think it is some of each.

I fully admit my testing methodology was far from perfect. However I am very glad to see that both yours and my tests ended up showing the same results. 



PEU said:


> One question Underdust: how long it took for the anno layer in the SF to dissapear?


I have to apologize, but I don't have a definite answer to this. I didn't really check the condition, or clean the Surefire while I was working. From just after the first few seconds/minutes, there was a lot of shiny aluminum all over the knurling of the SF and I can't really tell you if it was bare Surefire metal showing through, or if it was only "Mag debris". 


Also, to all those that suggested that I send this story to Surefire, I did send an email to the Public Relations department (was that the right place to send it?) mentioning my test, pictures, and video, along with a link to this thread. I'll let everyone know if I get any response from them.


----------



## tvodrd (Jan 15, 2006)

I've followed this thread with amusement. SF's "HA" is typically on the thick side- .002-.003" The process converts the surface to Al203- Aluminum oxide and there are sandpapers and grinding wheels which are commonly made of it. The TypeII ano, while also aluminum oxide, on a gag is much thinner, and easier to scratch through. I strongly doubt that the underlying aluminum alloys differ much in hardness. Mag's bodies appear to be extruded and would typically be 6063T6. SF seems to love to make chips, and the best cost/machinability trade-off is probably 6061T6.

All in all, I have enjoyed reading this thread! (I also never doubted SF's claim.  )

Edit: You guys should have used some water or cutting fluid to keep the SF's knurling from "loading-up." 

Larry


----------



## underdust (Jan 15, 2006)

tvodrd said:


> Edit: You guys should have used some water or cutting fluid to keep the SF's knurling from "loading-up."
> 
> Larry


I did think about doing that, and I also considered spreading the "work" over all three of the knurled sides of the SF, but I guess was really just going for the absolute worst-case scenario.


----------



## tvodrd (Jan 15, 2006)

underdust, your thread has been way cool! Please forgive my wisecracks. 

Larry


----------



## Sturluson (Jan 15, 2006)

:wow: It was a completely cool thread. It was the highlight of my weekend (which is kind of sad, now that I think about it...)

I'm thinking, though, about some sociology or psychology graduate students, or even cultural historians, getting hold of this thread 30, 40 years from now and using it to prove, beyond a doubt, at a very minumum, that people had way too much time on their hands back in the good ole days...


----------



## underdust (Jan 15, 2006)

tvodrd said:


> underdust, your thread has been way cool! Please forgive my wisecracks.
> 
> Larry


There's nothing at all to forgive. Sorry if I came across as if I was upset at something.

The very nature of the thread and the whole "test" thing was just plain silly and all in good flashaholic fun. I appreciate any and every comment... especially the funny ones!

:laughing:


----------



## Aristo (Jan 16, 2006)

you are nuts, but I like ya for it lol
it's like every kid grabbing thier best friend's parents ginzus way back when and going to town on all sorts of crap.
why not stick a surefire in some coke for an extended period of time? that might be an interesting one. I'm not eating one though.
my days of "CONSUMER REPORTS!" are over, that's the thing my brother and I used to yell and throw all sorts of crap down the stairs, we used to try and make the most durable lego creations, whoever had the most intact won. anyhow back to topic
that's just damned impressive. I wonder if someone will smuggle one into a prison now


----------



## jbay (Jan 16, 2006)

Just to add my $.02 , I have heard that a Surefire is better than a chain saw for cutting down trees and if said light is put on railroad tracks it will derail a train . Where"s Myth busters when you need them.  P.S. your results may very .


----------



## evanlocc (Jan 16, 2006)

You have my salute on! This really Flashaholic -> on eXtreme test.


----------



## cy (Jan 16, 2006)

have not read this entire thread, but another vote for super cooool test  

yes hard anodizing does penatrate the surface. aluminum structure is actually hardness treated. 

like Larry stated, you can expect a 2-3 mil increase on a mil spec HA job like Surefire and Arc. penatration into sub-surface is typically 50% of increased thickness. 

it's not called aluminum hard coat for nothing. unless you have access to part before and after anodizing to measure. destructive testing like this and other tests is the only way to test for quality.


----------



## cheapo (Jan 16, 2006)

WOW, METALHED, you called it. The Surefire is just harder than the [email protected]

-David


----------



## GarageBoy (Jan 16, 2006)

The gold color inside is chemkote


----------



## cheapo (Jan 17, 2006)

I might try this with my Pelican m6 3w.

-David


----------



## FirstDsent (Jan 17, 2006)

But can it still slice a tomato?


----------



## turbodog (Jan 18, 2006)

FWIW, my L4 from the picture is now on the way back to SF for warranty replacement.

Cracked emitter from overheating.


----------



## Flakey (Jan 18, 2006)

"But can it still slice a tomato?"

:lolsign::lolsign::lolsign:


----------



## 78CJ5 (Jan 18, 2006)

[email protected] Messenger said:


> New expeiment, saw a mag solitaire with an arc aaa p!


 
Someone should try cutting the Solitaire with a Streamlight 4AA


----------



## PEU (Jan 18, 2006)

As promised, I did a quick test using a piece of knurled aluminium, not as agressive as the Surefire.

Piece being knurled:






Finished knurl





Damage after 30 seconds:





Knurl after damage:





Video of damage being done (DivX 700K)
http://peu.net/mods/grinding.avi


IMHO Surefire claim is pure marketing, any piece of knurled aluminium will grind a non knurled one, even if not hard anodized.

Have Fun


Pablo


----------



## underdust (Jan 18, 2006)

FirstDsent said:


> But can it still slice a tomato?


YUP!!


----------



## Flakey (Jan 18, 2006)

That is a fantastic pic ! lol


----------



## cheapo (Jan 18, 2006)

Ahhh, we should do a head to head competition between lights. 

-David


----------



## ABTOMAT (Jan 18, 2006)

The ability of the SF to cut through the Mini-Mag is a result of several factors.

First, heavily knurled aluminum will cut through smooth aluminum mainly because of the texture. The HA3 surface itself isn't very abrasive (at least in this form--powdered aluminum oxide is used for grinding wheels and sandpaper). Rubbing a smooth section of Surefire against a Mag would probably just scuff it a little.

However, the HA3 greatly increases the durability of the knurling. The hard surface keeps the edges cutting and prevents them from wearing down. Without the HA3 the knurling would wear off and gall long before the test stopped. Armalite and Bretton both made shotguns in the '60s that were totally aluminum, including the barrels. They were anodized inside and out to prevent wear from the shot and the functioning parts of the receiver.

I would also guess that SF might uses harder Al than Mag, and that the deep knurling would also work harden it to a degree. In industrial use there are aluminum alloys that are stunningly hard.


----------



## jbay (Jan 18, 2006)

The picture of the tomato is Hilarius !!!   

The moral of the story is , who cares if a Surefire saws a Mag in half , its not the purpose of them. Flashlights illuminate the world we live in , and nothing more .


----------



## Nubo (Jan 19, 2006)

laserbokkie said:


> i hate to be unproductive to this thread,
> 
> but how about doing the same test other way around?
> 
> ...



That's a legitimate point. The "wear" in this test was all concentrated in a small area on the Mag, while spread out over a larger area on the SF. To return to the rubbing-sticks analogy you can see similar results there. Take two equal sticks and try the same method -- you will soon wear a notch in the stationary stick, with only minor wear on the moving one.


----------



## greenlight (Jan 19, 2006)

"Our flashlight can saw through itself" doesn't sound right, does it?


----------



## L.E.D. (Jan 3, 2008)

Nubo said:


> That's a legitimate point. The "wear" in this test was all concentrated in a small area on the Mag, while spread out over a larger area on the SF. To return to the rubbing-sticks analogy you can see similar results there. Take two equal sticks and try the same method -- you will soon wear a notch in the stationary stick, with only minor wear on the moving one.



+1, 'cept the moving one is the one that gets the notch, other way around.


----------



## adamlau (Jan 3, 2008)

Very, very cool  ...


----------



## TOOCOOL (Jan 3, 2008)

laserbokkie said:


> i hate to be unproductive to this thread,
> 
> but how about doing the same test other way around?
> 
> ...






just noticed how old this thread is ...good though


----------



## Sgt. LED (Jan 3, 2008)

Fun thread but it is a bit old to post to isn't it.............
Nevermind........
Nice to finally see *the* pic!


----------



## Crenshaw (Jan 3, 2008)

this forum is like a TREASURE CHEST...there are so many undiscovered (to newer members like me) threads with interesting stuff like this..lol

Crenshaw


----------



## Lightguy27 (Jan 3, 2008)

Well despite everyones griping how about there was damage to the SF aswell, and any knurled piece of metal will cut through another, and they are different HA's, that all doesent matter guy's . The test was simply whether or not a SF could cut through another light, it did, end of story.:thumbsup: Oh, and you have balls to do that with your L4, the after photo of it's body before cleaning made me cringe!!:green: Great test though!! I would lie to hear PK's thoughts on this.

-Evan


----------



## L.E.D. (Jan 3, 2008)

Sure would be interesting if the test was the other way around, and the Surefire STILL came out on top LOL. If there were a longitudinal notch bored into the whole side of the Mag with the L4 still intact... I wonder, though I doubt that would happen. That would all boil down to the actual aluminum alloys they're using and stuff like that, and I -think- SF uses the highest durability aluminum you can possibly get..??


----------



## kts (Jan 3, 2008)

As somebody else said, try it with a Magcharger...or better yet, try sawing the SF with a Magcharger :devil:


----------



## Lightguy27 (Jan 3, 2008)

L.E.D. said:


> If there were a longitudinal notch bored into the whole side of the Mag with the L4 still intact... I wonder, though I doubt that would happen.


 

Are you saying that you don't think a notch could be bored into the mag by the L4, or something else?

-Evan


----------



## CaptWolf (Jan 3, 2008)

This is nice and all, but I'd like to have a flashlight that can cut cheese without the slice getting stuck to it.


----------



## Valpo Hawkeye (Jan 3, 2008)

CaptWolf said:


> This is nice and all, but I'd like to have a flashlight that can cut cheese without the slice getting stuck to it.



Wouldn't exactly be friendly for pocket carry...


----------



## CaptWolf (Jan 3, 2008)

Valpo Hawkeye said:


> Wouldn't exactly be friendly for pocket carry...


The phrase that keeps going through my head is "The Ron Popeil Cheese Flashlight! And for a limited time with your 19.95 plus shipping and handling, you also get Flashlight In a Can...and if you order right now, and promise to tell a friend, the original Ronco Pocket Lighterman!!!"


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 3, 2008)

Then you'd be needing something like a lightsaber out of Star Wars.

Something like that, of course, would be the ultimate flashlight.



CaptWolf said:


> This is nice and all, but I'd like to have a flashlight that can cut cheese without the slice getting stuck to it.


----------



## L.E.D. (Jan 3, 2008)

Nope, I'm saying what if you held the L4 steady, and started moving the Mag across it (reversing the original test), and instead of a hole being bored into the stationary L4 like you would expect, the Mag is the first to fail and a gap begins to form on the whole side of the Mag. It might actually happen, too, since the L4 is much thicker than the Mag,


----------



## jzmtl (Jan 3, 2008)

Doubt it, as soon as the knurling on sf wears down you are going nowhere, thicker doesn't help.


----------



## Terry M (Jan 3, 2008)

What a great test and post. Definitely send the results to SureFire. Thanks for the post.


----------



## katsyonak (Jan 3, 2008)

Question is, can a Surefire saw through another Surefire? And if so, what does it mean?:thinking:


----------



## shinbone (Jan 3, 2008)

Is the bare aluminum seen on the body of the Surefire in this test exposed Surefire aluminum or embedded/clinging aluminum from the mag lite? 

Any known way to safely remove bare aluminum from a hard anodized surface?


----------



## Manzerick (Jan 3, 2008)

Awesome test!!! Good to see there was 100% truth in advertising!!!!


----------



## KrisP (Jan 3, 2008)

[edit] Just ignore this post... I can't read properly 

The test was redone in reverse at post 86, pics are gone but the written results are there.


----------



## Kraid (Jan 3, 2008)

Amazing!


----------



## dudemar (Jan 4, 2008)

You know what will really settle the argument? SF 6P vs MM. They're both type 2 ano, so it's fair game.

Dudemar


----------



## cal..45 (Jan 4, 2008)

I guess they can change the name from surefire to surefile lol :twothumbs


regards, holger


----------



## divine (Jul 4, 2008)

Another company did a similar test...

This one is pretty interesting, after sawing half way through the maglite, they did an underwater test and ran it over with a car. 

http://weblog.muyshondt.net/


----------



## jzmtl (Jul 4, 2008)

Like already proven here, it doesn't say much besides cool advertising. Even two exactly same aluminum rod if you put aggressive knurling on one it'll saw through the other, more so if it use a harder alloy.

And running over with cars, it looks impressive but any aluminum light will survive it. I know several people who ran themselves over with their vehicles and they all came out okay save for some bruises.


----------



## Toohotruk (Jul 5, 2008)

dudemar said:


> You know what will really settle the argument? SF 6P vs MM. They're both type 2 ano, so it's fair game.
> 
> Dudemar



+1 for that test! Something tells me that the SF will still come out the winner due to it's more aggressive knurling.


----------



## lowatts (Jul 6, 2008)

The sharp knurling on the SF is a mixed blessing. It does make for a very good grip and I like that. But the price to pay is it will chew up other things in the same pocket it's carried, like my PDA. It even scratched the top of my cell phone when I had them both holstered next to each other on my belt, seems the top of my L2 or L4 would rub against the phone when I sat in the car :O


----------



## Federal LG (Jul 6, 2008)

Amazing hardness and knurling!

Way to go Surefire! :twothumbs

I wonder... maybe the Survivor Man can use a SF to cut pieces of wood in his TV show! 

I mean... it is like a survivor tool.

And sometimes I catch myself taking too much care not to drop my SF L1... :thinking:


----------



## LEDcandle (Jul 6, 2008)

Federal LG said:


> Amazing hardness and knurling!
> 
> Way to go Surefire! :twothumbs
> 
> ...



Then you have taken the right precaution; because the tough surface that prevents scratches doesn't actually save your light from heavy impact as it is still aluminum-based. 

You will still get dings and dents if you drop it from a certain height, due to the aluminum itself shifting. So its ok to let your L1 swim with keys and stuff, but don't throw it around or drop it too often


----------



## Federal LG (Jul 7, 2008)

LEDcandle said:


> So its ok to let your L1 swim with keys and stuff, but don't throw it around or drop it too often



Thank you for the tip. I take care a lot not to drop it. Always using the lanyard! :thumbsup:


----------



## carrot (Jul 12, 2008)

It's okay. Dropping a Surefire won't hurt it too much.  I would take some pictures of my all dented-up Surefires but my camera is temporarily out of commission.


----------



## Tempest UK (Jul 12, 2008)

carrot said:


> I would take some pictures of my all dented-up Surefires but my camera is temporarily out of commission.



SureFires always look better with a few sharacter marks 

Regards,
Tempest


----------



## turbodog (Aug 24, 2008)

L.E.D. said:


> Nope, I'm saying what if you held the L4 steady, and started moving the Mag across it (reversing the original test), and instead of a hole being bored into the stationary L4 like you would expect, the Mag is the first to fail and a gap begins to form on the whole side of the Mag. It might actually happen, too, since the L4 is much thicker than the Mag,




I did this. My results are earlier in the thread. The L4 was held in a vise with a smooth side up. A minimag was used as the "saw". The L4's smooth side wore through the mm's knurnled side.


----------



## turbodog (Aug 24, 2008)

PEU said:


> As promised, I did a quick test using a piece of knurled aluminium, not as agressive as the Surefire.
> 
> Piece being knurled:
> 
> ...



Sorry. See my earlier results. Surefire smooth side wears through mag's knurled side.


----------



## ozner1991 (Aug 25, 2008)

wow  oke im getting me an surefire :naughty:


----------



## Paul520 (Aug 25, 2008)

Wonder if SF ever replaced it? From there site under warrenty:

"Normal wear and tear — including lamps burning out, batteries draining, and switches wearing out — is not covered, _*nor is damage resulting from abuse*_, neglect, battery leakage, use of other than SureFire-brand batteries or accessories, or altering this product from its original state."


----------



## Juggernaut (Aug 25, 2008)

Any Surefire will cut it’s self in half if it tried to saw though my solid chrome Bigbeam:naughty:.


----------



## isneyk (Aug 25, 2008)

what an experiment.... kudos!

regardless of who's the saw & who's the plank, SF is really a serious tool with top notch craftsmanship!


----------



## DUQ (Aug 26, 2008)

Funny...I was just talking to my 8 year old last night about this experiment after he noticed how sharp the knurling was on my M3 :thumbsup:


----------



## csshih (Oct 26, 2008)

bringing up an old thread:

ouch!


----------



## csshih (Oct 26, 2008)

carrot said:


> It's okay. Dropping a Surefire won't hurt it too much.  I would take some pictures of my all dented-up Surefires but my camera is temporarily out of commission.



dropped it?


----------



## radar696 (Dec 3, 2008)

Okay guys.

Maybe some of you don't realize that there are many different types of aluminum. Different hardness and different strengths. Just like some stainless steel is magnetic and some isn't. In fact some stainless steel will even begin to rust. Not very much but it does have to be cleaned sometimes.

So this really makes sense if you look at it from that angle. Part of the reason that Maglites cost less is because they use a lower cost material.

I admit that some may not like this but at least they have continued to make the same product in spite of the bad raps they have received over the years about people being beaten.

They could have very easily changed over to plastic like Brinkman did.

I just have to say that it's not very often that I hear of someone having to replace a Maglite because theirs ended up being dented and they could no longer change out the power cells.

Just remember, people that buy Maglites are looking for quality in a flashlight and it would seem that this is the first step to becoming a Flashaholic!


----------



## Juggernaut (Dec 3, 2008)

radar696 said:


> Okay guys.
> 
> Maybe some of you don't realize that there are many different types of aluminum. Different hardness and different strengths. Just like some stainless steel is magnetic and some isn't. In fact some stainless steel will even begin to rust. Not very much but it does have to be cleaned sometimes.
> 
> ...


 
Obviously in the real world this doesn’t really show many weakness of the Maglite. I mean you would have to drop it in some sort of sand blaster and leave it there to see much “_wear_” or drag it behind a car. Surefire’s may posses some of the strongest construction in there world for their kind of designs:twothumbs but Mag’s are much more simple and I would like to think there is no realistic scenario on earth that would prove a Lithium powered AA Minimag to be any less reliable then a stock 6P:thumbsup:. 
 
Of coarse we as flashaholic want the very best of the best “even if it’s not really necessary” we now know “thanks to this test” that in this sort of strange case the Surefire easily destroys Maglite in strength.


----------



## carrot (Dec 4, 2008)

csshih said:


> dropped it?


Funnily, yes, the reason my camera was out of commission was that I dropped it. 



Juggernaut said:


> Surefire’s may posses some of the strongest construction in there world for their kind of designs:twothumbs but Mag’s are much more simple and I would like to think there is no realistic scenario on earth that would prove a Lithium powered AA Minimag to be any less reliable then a stock 6P:thumbsup:.


I wasn't going to even touch this with a stick but then I thought I should mention a few things.

In your typical Maglite Mini, there are 7 unsoldered points of contact between electrical parts (bulb-holder x2, holder-body, holder-battery, battery-spring, spring-tailcap, tailcap-body). Thinking back how many times I've disassembled the Maglite Mini for fun, only two out of 7 contacts are self-cleaning by friction of replacing batteries and the others are extremely small and difficult to clean.

In your typical Surefire 6P, there are 4 unsoldered points of contact between electrical parts. Two are replaced every time you switch bulbs (~30hr) and the other two are constantly cleaned by the friction of being switched on and off. 

I have had several Mini-Maglite failures or partial failures (unstable light output) due to corroded or bent bulb-holders. The Maglite is a good design, economical too, but really does not compare to the sheer simplicity and reliability designed into that of Surefire's. I should also mention at this point that it is possible to dent your batteries in a Maglite so far that the light will either not turn on or have very poor contact. The dented battery problem is mitigated in a Surefire because the batteries are suspended between two springs.


----------



## radar696 (Dec 4, 2008)

Well I can add that I have a 4 cell Mag that had a bad switch and after contacting Mag they sent a new switch and an allen wrench to change it out at no charge. This was not a new light but they didn't even ask if it had been abused. Which it hadn't. It still looks new as does my 5 cell.

I admit I'm not happy with the way they go through D cells but I was impressed when I received the switch in the mail because I had no idea that it was being sent.:twothumbs


----------



## Juggernaut (Dec 4, 2008)

carrot said:


> I should also mention at this point that it is possible to dent your batteries in a Maglite so far that the light will either not turn on or have very poor contact. The dented battery problem is mitigated in a Surefire because the batteries are suspended between two springs.


 

Oh ya that’s defiantly true:sigh:, I’ve seen first hand on may occasions the batteries in Minimag dented in and with the larger 4-6D Maglite’s even when never dropped but just heavily used the + terminal will start to cave in. though don’t think it’s problem with L92s in a AAA Minimag “just not enough mass and very small top and bottoms to be dented it” though to be fair the AAA Minimags won’t probably survive what the AA ones will:shrug:.


----------



## Ralph_S (Dec 5, 2008)

Some aluminum alloys can be heat treated to increase strength and hardness. Heat-treatable aluminum alloys include 6061-T651 and 7075-T651. If the aluminum is heat treated and therefore harder, the anodized surface will be supported more thoroughly, and may be less prone to breaking up. Heat treatment is a time-consuming and typically proprietary process, in which parts are held at particular temperatures for specific lengths of time. I don't know what aluminum alloys are used in the flashlights under discussion, or whether any heat treatment is used, but if so, it could make a significant difference.


----------



## socal8080 (Dec 7, 2008)

Wow, super impressive to say the least. In the immortal words of Mr. Jeff Spicoli "Gnarly!!!":thumbsup:


----------



## FlashInThePan (Aug 2, 2009)

I always loved this thread....where'd those darn pictures go? They're not showing up... :mecry:


----------



## ElectronGuru (Aug 2, 2009)

FlashInThePan said:


> I always loved this thread....where'd those darn pictures go? They're not showing up... :mecry:



Wayback Machine managed to capture the 4th image down. Here it is again, for posterity:


----------



## turbodog (Aug 2, 2009)

KrisP said:


> [edit] Just ignore this post... I can't read properly
> 
> The test was redone in reverse at post 86, pics are gone but the written results are there.



Exactly.


----------



## turbodog (Aug 2, 2009)

Paul520 said:


> Wonder if SF ever replaced it? From there site under warrenty:
> 
> "Normal wear and tear — including lamps burning out, batteries draining, and switches wearing out — is not covered, _*nor is damage resulting from abuse*_, neglect, battery leakage, use of other than SureFire-brand batteries or accessories, or altering this product from its original state."



No they didn't. I sent the L4 in for warranty work on the head. They shipped it back with a new head on the old body.


----------



## turbodog (Aug 2, 2009)

Here's SOME of the original pics.

You can see small marks on the SF L4 where I tried to saw through it with the MM. You can also see a 'bite' mark on the MM where I sawed through it with the L4.


----------



## Toohotruk (Aug 2, 2009)

Thanks for posting the pics again! :thumbsup:


----------



## garden (Apr 28, 2010)

Well, obviously the anode on the L4 is pretty tough, but you gotta remember that with the Surefire, you had a wide piece of aluminium, to saw a small part of the maglite. I think the results would be turned around if the minimag was used to saw the L4.


----------



## Wetterman (Apr 28, 2010)

garden look at the pics above. It's been done both ways.


----------



## ddac (Dec 6, 2011)

Do all surefire lights have this body? I have a E2D and a E2L from the 2007 or 2008 era. I'm going to give this is a shot! Maybe I'll rub the E2D against the E2L to see what happens.


----------



## rockhong01 (Dec 6, 2011)

Awesome cool test! I have to pay respect to underdust for doing such an experiment and especially to L4 body and Mini Mag for their sacrifice for science!


----------



## jgray3690 (Dec 6, 2011)

If a manufacturer claims it---
a CPF member will test it---
thanks for the results


----------



## lhwlhw1015 (Aug 31, 2013)

pretty cool !


----------

