Home » Blogs » SureFire Responds to B&T Suppressor Lawsuit

SureFire Responds to B&T Suppressor Lawsuit

Scott Witner - comments 1 comment
SureFire Responds to B&T Suppressor Lawsuit

When B&T filed a lawsuit against SureFire over a suppressor mount patent, it reignited a dispute that has been ongoing for more than two decades.

In our original piece, B&T CEO Karl Brügger shared his side of the story, explaining why he believes SureFire’s patent shouldn’t hold up and how a handshake deal from 20 years ago was supposed to prevent this legal fight altogether.

Now, SureFire has issued an official statement in response. The company says it made multiple good-faith attempts to settle the matter directly with B&T—claims Karl Brügger disputes—and clarifies that while B&T had permission to use certain lock ring designs, it did not have approval to produce muzzle devices or mounting interfaces that attach SureFire’s SOCOM Fast Attach® suppressors.

Below is SureFire’s full statement so you can read their position in their own words.

Fountain Valley, CA—SureFire, LLC, would like to provide a response to a video that was recently uploaded with Karl Bruger of B&T. It is important to note that B&T has recently filed a lawsuit against SureFire, and we maintain that the appropriate forum for resolving such matters is the court system. 

There are a few key points the public should know that we feel have been misrepresented. First, several individuals within SureFire attempted to discuss these issues with Karl and B&T USA, and these attempts went almost completely unanswered. Second, the informal agreement with B&T that was referenced in the recent video, was specifically regarding suppressor lock ring design. Permission was given to B&T to manufacture suppressors of this sort. However, permission was never given for B&T to manufacture SureFire’s mounting interface or muzzle devices to mount SureFire SOCOM Fast Attach® suppressors. These other products are all covered by different patents than the Lock Ring patent. This is why SureFire asked B&T to stop manufacturing those specific muzzle devices. 

SureFire remains focused on delivering no-compromise products for our customers.

Photo of author

Scott Witner

Scott Witner is a former Marine Corps Infantryman with 2nd Battalion, 8th Marines, and served with the 24th MEU(SOC) during a six-month deployment to the Mediterranean. He’s completed specialized training in desert warfare, mountain warfare, and jungle operations across the U.S., South Korea, and Japan. With over a decade in the firearms and outdoor industry, Scott has helped leading brands grow their visibility and reach through strategic marketing and content development. He currently resides in Northeastern Ohio, where he enjoys hiking, shooting, and testing related gear in the environments it’s intended to be used in.

1 thought on “SureFire Responds to B&T Suppressor Lawsuit”

  1. Patents run for 17 years…a 20 year old handshake has no legal effect. John Matthews is an honorable man who made a lot of agreements like that, with BE Meyers in particular.

    Quit paying lawyers and fighting about yesterday’s technology. Or don’t, no matter…they are two expensive suppressor brands fighting about mounts…for military contracts where the lowest bid technically acceptable wins. Yipee…

    Buy a really nice HUB compatible full size Titanium can with an Inconel baffle. If you have nothing bigger than a 30 caliber, get the 30 and shoot everything centerfire through that. If you want to shoot 9mm carbines…get a 375 caliber. Everything shoots through the Bowers VERS 375 Ti, and it has VERSADAPT for different firearms. It will also save you a thousand dollars over “advertised brands”.

    Reply

Leave a Comment