The "lower performance" thing I hear about all the time cracks me up to no end. As compared to what? As measured against what metric? A 5.56 AR has "lower performance" than a howitzer, but if I want any meat left on the pig I'm better served with the "mouse gun".
I see people chasing around after "better performance" in all kinds of things lately, ignoring the fact that what they have now is light-years better than what they had yesterday, but they seem to keep thinking that "more" means "better". More lumens, more options, more modes, more, more, moar!
If there is something that a Surefire legitimately isn't doing for you then yeah, go see if there's something that does. But what I see instead is a screwball cycle that makes no sense (and this applies to WAY more than lights)...
- Guy buys item
- Guy uses item
- Guy is happy with performance of item
- Geek wants moar!
- Geek lobbies establishment for moar!
- Establishment tells geek to **** off
- Geek lobbies secondary market for moar!
- Secondary market thinks geek knows what he is talking about
- Secondary market reacts to geek
- Secondary market produces moar! for geek market
- Original guy sees moar! and thinks "why don't I have that?"
- Guy gets distracted by bright-shiny-object (literally)
- Guy loses sight of what matters and starts chasing after moar!
In this paradigm "real world use" and "you just don't get it 'cause you're not one of us" gets thrown around to justify the moar! sickness of the original guy. It is code for "I have no ****ing idea why I want moar! and I'm pissed off at you for asking me to explain it so I'm going to attempt to discredit you rather than address the topic at hand. I will also use 'I don't have to justify myself to you' as further justification, and eventually will retreat to 'not everything has to be so serious' when all else fails."