> MIDWAYUSA's REACTION HAS BEEN DISAPPOINTING TO SAY THE LEAST.

> As soon as I realize what occurred, I sent an email advising them of the fake mirrors.
> I also reminded them that the mirrors were being sold as survival signaling mirrors, and if anyone else had purchased them, they would not function as intended
> and could potentially endanger anyone who tried to use them.

> I have received two messages back, both kindly telling me I could return them. Neither made mention of the risk, or withdrawing the mirrors.

(BTW - for anyone who doesn't understand what the fuss is about (or just wants to know more about retroreflective aimer signal mirrors), I highly recommend Doug Ritter's article: http://www.equipped.org/phony_signal_mirrors.htm

While my hopes are slim, you could try calling them, telling them that the aimer in the Rescue Flash mirror they carry works, that the grid in the glass one does not produce the light spot that the grid in the Rescue Flash does, and ask them to try both. I wish you well, but I gave up on that approach years ago due to lack of success. You could work up the food chain - I spoke to at least one "director of quality" (without success).

My guess is that your best bet for some influence is to leave a calm, factual, and reasoned review on the Midway product page: http://www.midwayusa.com/product/2724260977/5ive-star-gear-signal-mirror explaining that you had purchased this mirror because you thought that was functionally equivalent to the military mirrors issued to USAF forces from the 1940s to the current day, in possessing a retroreflective mesh that let the user accurately aim the mirror beam at a distant target. You tried the mirror, and despite your success with similar mirrors, you were unable to get the grid in the mirror you received to produce the characteristic "fireball" aiming aid that let the user accurately aim the mirror beam. As a result, you returned your mirror and bought one from another vendor that worked satisfactorily. Close by recommending that they similarly do not settle for a product without a retroreflective aimer. If you want to spend the money to make your point, buy a Rescue Flash from Midway (http://www.midwayusa.com/product/198617/adventure-medical-kits-rescue-flash-signal-mirror), and you can add that, unlike the Rescue Flash you bought from Midway, the mesh in the glass mirror seemed non-functional.

While I didn't speak with Midway, I sent letters and made phone calls to several distributors of the Taiwanese mirrors, and returned lots of these mirrors to various retailers. I had one partial success - the vendor started to carry the MIL-M-18371E ... but they carried the Taiwanese mirror as well. Caveat Emptor is alive and well.

I think my single real success was when I visited a sole proprietor shop, took him out in the sun and taught him to use a real mirror, then asked him to try what he'd just learned with one of his mirrors ...

The odious thing about these mirrors is not that they don't have a good aiming mechanism - there are lots of reflective products that are advertised as signal mirrors - the odious thing is how well they mimic a mirror with a functioning retroreflective aimer - specifically, Wayne Tegeler's Vector I mirror. Wayne told me that some distributors that used to buy his mirror switched to the Taiwanese mirror instead - did the distributors do so deliberately, or were they (initially) gulled as well, then didn't want to admit their mistake?

For example:

The grid around the center hole looks amazingly like a real retroreflective grid, but serves no such function. Adding that grid adds manufacturing cost - why is it there, if not deceive the buyer into thinking they are getting a feature that they are not getting?

My most charitable hypothesis is in Taiwan, someone made a knockoff of the Vector I, and sold it in Taiwan with the instructions translated into Chinese, then someone in Taiwan knocked off the knockoff, translating the Chinese back into fractured English for sale to the US. At one iteration or the next, the retroreflective mesh was replaced with a non-retroreflective mesh by someone who had no idea that the mesh needed to be retroreflective to function properly. The ironic thing is that the mainland Chinese military signal mirror has a perfectly functional retroreflective aimer (perforated retroreflective fabric).

If the consumer is in doubt, then the instructions on the back should be reassuring, since they are in fact instructions for use of a retroreflective mesh aimer signal mirror.

For example: where a Vector I mirror says:
"YOU WILL SEE A BRIGHT LIGHT SPOT. THIS IS THE AIM INDICATOR",
a Taiwanese mirror says:
"LOOK FOR THE A BRIGHT LIGHT SPOT WHICH IS AN AIM INDICATOR"

Anyway, bottom line, I've pretty much given up on vendor education, and am concentrating on consumer education. If consumers understood why the retroreflective aimers mattered, these would not sell as signal mirrors, and they'd no longer be manufactured.